A N S W E R
TO
HUGH MILLER
AND
THEORETIC GEOLOGISTS.
BY
THOMAS A.!DAVIES,
AUTHOR OF "COSMOGONY OR MYSTERIES OF CREATION, BEING AN ANALYSI;
OF THE NATURAL FACTS STATED IN THE HEBRAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION, SUPPORTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING
ACTS OF GOD TOWARD MATTER."
NEW YORK:
RUDD & CARLTON, 130 GRAND ST.
MI DCCCLX.




Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1860,
BY THOMAS A. DAVIES,
in the Clerk's Officb of the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of
New York.
SAVAGE & MoCREA, STEREOTYPERS
13 Chambers Street, N. Y.




FRANCIS VINTON, D.D.
I HAVE taken the liberty of dedicating this work to
you, not merely for the pleasure it affords me, but in
the hope that it may impose on you the duty of shedding the Christian light of knowledge, upon the fossil
and its dependencies, which your early education and
abilities pre-eminently qualify you to perform.
We have, in former days, stood side by side in the
ranks of the soldier, and in the academic hall at West
Point; and though now as a private, I sound the alarm
against a vast crowd of geologic sappers and miners,
who are under the very citadel of our Biblical Christian faith, it belongs to you and to others, to penetrate
below their depths with counter-mines of knowledge,




1 6                   DEDICATION.
to drive them from their positions, and to change the
current of popular education, lest geologic error in
faith be stereotyped upon the growing mind of the
world, by dint of oft assertion, and little contradiction.
I am your friend
and'servant,
THOMAS A. DAVIES.
NEw YORK, Januar1y, 1860.




TO THE READER.
THE overflowing tide of popular opinion which novelty excites, has met with no sensible abatement, but
still continues to rise higher and higher, as the geologists proclaim to the world that they hold the scientific key which unlocks the deep vaults of Nature enclosing the mysteries of Creation.
Assertion, to some minds, is proof; especially if that
mind be stimulated with the hope that such assertion
is true. To the world at large, which takes it on trust,
it is wisdom, until shown by information to be folly.
When, therefore, the geologist asserts to his audiences
of listeners that he can see with his telescope of science what it is well known no man has ever yet seen
— the mannzer and time, how and when, forms of matter
2




18               TO THE READER.
were introduced upon this.planet-there are numbers
who assume that assertion to be true; for they themselves do not understand why the geologist can not
see what he himself may imagine he does see.
The object of this work is, to show that he has no
more seen the beginning than he has seen the end;
that what he declares to be SCIENCE, is simply a matter
of FAITH; that this FAITH is inferior to the BIBLICAL
CHRISTIAN FAITH, which the geologists are endeavoring
to overthrow and annihilate, if not in all its parts, at
least in its foundation and material element. The
weight of the argument, as may be judged by the
title, is directed against the productions of the late
HUGH MILLER, which bear upon the overthrow of the
biblical Christian faith. He was the first geologist to
lead off in an open and avowed attempt to eliminate
portions of the Bible, and to substitute therefor his
geologic version of the "Footprints of the Creator;"
apparently never reflecting that the one is in language
which all men may read, while the other is in hieroglyphics which no man can with certainty decipher.
The most unpleasant portion of the task is the answering him who can not answer in return, if we do




TO THE READER.                19
hinm injustice. It is not, however, the man of whom
we shall speak; but of the vital principles which live
on every page of his last publication, and which have
spread through the land as though printed on the
wings of light. For the purpose of showing the false
grounds of his position, and those of geologists generally, we endeavor to explain the origin and nature of
the fossil; and, to this end, we divide all existing fossils on earth into those which were pre-Adamite and
those which are post-Adamite.
There is no diversity of opinion as to the origin of
all fossils admitted to be post-Adamite. While the
geologists claim that all pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by plant or animal life, and have been the subjects of development, the biblical Christians and strict
constructionists claim that all pre-Adamite fossils were
made by creative fiats. Thus, there are two classes of
pre-Adamite fossils —the geologic or development preAdamite fossils, and the Mosaic or fiated pre-Adanmite
fossils.
We then proceed to demonstrate, on analogical reasoning, respecting admitted creative fiats, that the Mosaic pre-Adamite fossils were in like manner the sub



20                  TO THE READER.
jects of fiat law, and hence were not preceded by vegetble
and animal life.  Geologists, on the contrary, although
they admit creative fiats to most existences, deny it
to the fossils; and hence their faith, based upon the
assertion that geologic pre-Adamite fossils, which are
the same in fact as the Mosaic pre-Adamite fossils, were
preceded by vegetable and animal life, and were not the subjects of fiat law.
As the result of this, the simple ground of difference
between the two resolves itself into a FAITH as to the
origin of the pre-Adamite fossils, whether they were
or were not the subjects of fiat law.. In other words,
the biblical Christian faith assumes that they were the
subjects of fiat law, and hence that the rocks and fossils were made under the law of creative fiats; while
the geologic faith denies this position.  If the former
be true, geology falls back among the sciences, and
must be known only as mineralogy.
In discussing this subject, it has been our intention
to treat it in such a manner as to draw the attention of
Christians to the importance of the principles involved. If
at times we use language which any geologist might
consider personal or implicative in any way, it will




TO THE READER.                21
be an assumption on his part, as no personalities are
either intended or expressed. Upon this subject, we
have no friends to serve or enemies to conquer. The
subject alone, irrespective of persons, but necessarily
not of supporters, is the ground of animadversion.
The disease to be cured is of a peculiar character, and
we think, from  wrong treatment, has become deepseated, requiring for its eradication energetic means,
and possibly extraordinary remedies.
If murmurs or complaints were to go forth from
any source, it might well be from those who consider
themselves aggrieved by a trespass upon the sacred
and time-honored Christian faith, the inalienable property of every true believer.
TmI AUTHOR.
NEW YORK, January, 1860.








CONTENTS.
CHAPTER  I.
THE FALSE AND TRUE RECORDS.........'.............. 25
CHAPTER  II.
GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY................................. 40
CHAPTER  III.
KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.................... 55
CHAPTER IV.
WHAT THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION IS........... 93
CHAPTER V.
CONFLICT OF THE GEOLOGIC FAITH WITH SCIENCE AND
WITH THE SCRIPTURES............................... 119
CIIAPTER  VI.
THE EXPUNGING THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION, AND
THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE GEOLOGIC, BY HUGH MILLER.. 155




24                   CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM....................... 168
CHAPTER VIII.
HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.......... 207
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENT............................... 222
CHAPTER X.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENT-SCIENCE OF THE GEOLOGIC FAITH 260
CHAPTER XI.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENT-GENERAL CONFLICTS OF THE GEOLOGIC AND BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN FAITH................ 287




ANSWER TO HUGH MILLER.
CHAPTER I.
THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
OF what moment is it to me whether Geology be true
or false in her deductions, so long as I believe the truth
of Scripture? What matters it to me how long and
how loudly Geology may call to her adherents, so long
as I bend my steady course onward in the path of my
own true faith?  What have I to do with the study of
Geology, to know her strange and wondrous story of a
creation, while I believe in Moses and the prophets?
From such quiet repose and confidence in the Christian world has sprung up, under the garb of science,
the most powerful, plausible, insinuating, and attractive
enemy to the Biblical Christian faith which has presented itself, as a rival, in the horizon of Christianity
since its establishment. To deny the fact, shows either a want of understanding as to the points of con



26        THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
flict between the two, or an erroneous estimate as to
the extent of the geologic belief.
Yet the real conflict has scarcely begun. For the
geologists as a body, either through error or some other cause which we need not name, have avowed to the
world that their doctrines were coincident with Scripture, and hence were only to be studied, understood,
and embraced as a consequence. The result of such
assertions and certificates, emanating from men of
standing and worldly reputation —men whose names
ring through the halls of literature, science, and art -
has been, the acceptance of these dogmas on their
personal reputation and standing, rather than upon any
knowledge that they possess themselves upon the subject, and could communicate to others. For it is but
necessary to ask one question, and the proof of this
assertion is patent. Will any honest geologist declare
that he knows that animal or vegetable life did precede
any one of his pre-Adamite fossils? Will he assert
that God could not make a fossil, as he made man and
other things, by fiat law? Hence there is no proof,
and the world are simply assuming their belief, not
facts, when they embrace the succession theory of
geology.
This lure, falsely called science, has brought forth




THE FALSE AND TII', TRUE RECORDS.    27
crowds from the fireside, the workshop, the forum, and
the pulpit, to listen to the seductive, plausible, and
bewitching stories told only on the assertion of the
geologist. The Christian, at times startled by the
apparent conflicts with his faith, was soothed into acquiescence by the assertion of the geologist that
"there was no occasion for alarm," as " the Mosaic
account did not fix the antiquity of our globe" —" we
are exactly on Mosaic and Biblical ground." Expressions and statements like these have been displayed
from the ramparts of the geologist during a period of
nigh half a century.
During that time they have, under these soothing
guises, erected a vast pile of fortifications throughout
the world, supposed by many, who have aided in the
work, to be the surrounding Scripture with safeguards
and additional supports. Some have even pointed to
it from the pulpit, as the growing evidences of Christianity, and as being the proud fabric reared upon the
imperishable foundation of the Christian faith.
But, alas! the scene has changed. The head and
front —the general of the geologic, literary, and
scientific men of the world — Hugh Miller, has unmasked the geologic batteries, and by one well-adjusted publication, poured a broadside of deadly mis



28        THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
siles against the Bible and the Christian faith.  We
have waited patiently in the hope that more moderate
geologists would disown the deed, but we have waited
in vain. Nor do we think waiting will bring about a
denial. His positions may be regarded as the exponent of the geologic faith in the main conflicts with
Scripture, respecting the manner and time required in
making this world; which manner and time are essential elements in our Biblical Christian faith, and are
asserted and reasserted, in plain and undeniable language throughout the Scriptures, to be by creative ialts
as to manner, and six days as to time. While the geologist admits the Biblical manner in most things, and
hence admits the truth of fiat law, he denies it in
others, so as to make his main conflict as to time utterly
irreconcilable with Bible truth.
We say his ground is untenable if he admits creative fiats at all; for, to prove the exception, he must
show that the Creator could not make a fossil by fiat
law; and if he shows that, he must still show that his
fossil was pre-Adamite. We say that, the admission of
fiat law in any department in Nature, binds him to the
rule till he can show grounds for an exception. Not
only will he be inexcusable by the assumption, but he
must prove the grounds by some well-put and unde



THE FALSE AND TIHE TRUE RECORDS.     29
niable proof. Hence we throw heavy responsibility
on intelligent men, who know this necessity in all
fairness of argument, and the brethren should not
deem him worthy the name of a Christian, under such
circumstances, who doggedly points to his fossil god
and says, "prove my falsity!"
Hugh Miller was not alone in his views respecting
the general bearings which geology has upon Scripture. Nor for the purposes of an answer to the point
of fallacy in the groundwork of geologic faith, is it
essential to specify wherein his views differ from
others. These details are of no account, if their main
postulate be wrong. Nor has Mr. Miller's works or
arguments ever turned to the source of error; and
while all is assumed, that assumption in his case, as
in that of others, becomes broad folly in a logical
point of view, because he endeavors to demonstrate
what he can not prove, and has never even enunciated
his proposition.
He seemed rather to have been forced by the views
which his supposed science, and the quasi-scientific
men (on this point) of his creed advanced, to take
ground against Scripture rather than find that ground




30       THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
in the Scripture context. This goes to prove what
few will fail to admit, that by mental education and
training, Hugh Miller was a devout Christian before
geology made its deep mark upon hill. Nor will we
go so far as to say that he was not a Christian when
he was a geologist. But this much we will say, that
if he Fractised in his religion upon the views of the
Christian faith, made coincident with the requirements
of geology, then he was not a Biblical Christian.
Ile has taken the correct view of the conflict, and
could say no more than elaborate upon the "Two
Records," and "Two Theologies."  But so skillfully are
these subjects handled, that though he lays down the elements of each record and each theology as entirely dc9erelt respecting the parts discussed, and as utterly inconsistent with each other, yet, to suit his purposes, calls
them in gross the same. His arguments and reasonings are of that inconsistent character in this respect,
that they can not be reconciled to any other supposition, than that he in truth believed, and so intended
to argue, that the geologist could well understand him
as reading his creed, while the Biblical Christian would
believe he was equally handling his, and tying them
both together with a philological knot, or "cutting
that knot" at bis pleasure, as he says he does in one




THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.       31
part of his "Testimony of the Rocks," he is Christian
or anti-Christian.
So far as the Scriptural Christian faith is claimed by
geologists to be coincident with the geologic faith,
just so far do the two conflict with each other, and
just so far the Christian faith is false in an important
element, and hence false as a unit, if the geologic be
true. Our speciality in this work is to show the conflicts of the two- show wherein the geologic is false
-and show that, as we have but one true God, so we
have but one true record — one true theology- and
but one true Biblical Christain faith as a whole.
Geology is little less in respect to its theories, than
a huge Bible with the sedimentary rocks as pages,
where the geologist, by a rule only followed by himself (because it is not logical), reads and translates
whatever he sees, or pretends to see, to his congregations of listeners; and, in this respect, bears a strong
analogy to the co-ordinate branch of religion in the
Morman faith. There is, we think, a wide difference,
however, between reading these pages correctly, and
reading them hypothetically.  Facts can be read truly,
but not fancies; tangible truths are positive; unknown actions, at times when there were no analogies
existing, can not be assumed as scientific proofs.




32        THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
The truths of geology, which are the truths of other
sciences, meet with universal acceptance, and the one
single assumption which gives geology a distinctive
name as a science, is scarce ever referred to, and is
probably entirely unknown to many who receive its
dogmas, and believe it to be the new-born science of
the nineteenth century. There is no concealing the
truth, that from this cause the world has taken a
geologic stampede, each one vieing with his neighbor
in his effort to commit to print the innumerable natural facts which are to be found on any hillside, and in
every valley. Each amateur is stimulated to search, in
the hope of making his name immortal on the geologic
page. He thus has cracked nodules, hammered limestones, split coal, and clay slates, till a fossil kingdom
has been developed, equalling, almost, in graphic outline, the crystaline kingdom in mineralogy.
This is well, as to the facts developed, and is a noble
addition to that science which has been taught in our
universities and other institutions of learning long
ago, under the name of mineralogy. If the fossil is a
stone (and if it is not a stone it is not a fossil), then it
still belongs to mineralogy, as the name indicates.
The pre-Adamite fossil is generally aln aggregation of
crystals, and crystals of the same description aggre.




THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.      33
gate to make the same kind of rock, but in different
forms. The crystal makes the mountain, makes the
flagstone, the boulder, the stone of all shapes, and the
pre-Adamite fossil also. The Creator made the first,
the intermediate, and the last. He makes them now,
and the great question to put to the geologist is, could
he make them as stated by the Mosaic account in six
days?
For, if the fossils in the rocks claimed by geologists
to be pre-Adamite were made with the previous ex
istence of animal or vegetable life, then the Mosaic
account is untrue, and particularly the fourth commandment, which positively asserts that, the earth and
all that therein is was made in six days. It will be observed that the fossils are not excepted.
The question then results, are all the fossils in the
rocks and upon the earth the result of the pre-existence of vegetable or animal matter to have given
them form in stone? The next important question
respecting the accuracy of the Mosaic statement is,
were the fossils now found by geologists in the deep
rocks there at the time Moses wrote the assertion, that
the earth and all that therein is was made in six days?
If this is admitted, then it follows they were either
made on the third day, when the "Earth" or "Dry
3




34       THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
Land" was made (0whlich included all the present rockformations mainly in their present shape), or were
made out of order in the fourth, fifth, or sixth days, in
a way, and by miraculous means, only known to the
Creator, and in violation of all known natural laws.
For if this present organization was made, as stated
by Moses, in successive days, each day's work' being
necessary for that of the next, and the work as stated
was done by classes and kingdoms, and each kingdom
was wholly introduced at the time therein stated, it
would be a violation of that law of introduction to
make part of a kingdom on one day and part on the
next, particularly when an additional miracle would
have to be performed, as in the placement of fossils in
the solid rocks after they were once made.
Many, and probably all, the geologists of note claim
that this earth has been many millions of years in the
course of preparation to arrive at the finish which it
now has, and which finish is dated to be the Mosaic
account, or the introduction of man upon this planet.
It matters little to us which geologic theory be the
nearest correct as to the length of time this earth has
been forming; our special object is to show that no
one of them and the Mosaic account harmonize relative to the creation, and, if they do not harmonize, to




THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.      35
show why they do not. In a former work were given
at full length the physical difficulties of the geologic
formations. They would be condensed and repeated
in this, if the limits of the work would allow.
If, then, the geologist proves beyond all doubt his
assumption that every fossil form found in the deep
rocks was preceded by an animal or a vegetable, he
has done much to establish a succession in the rockformations above the granite; and hence the certain
proof that the world was not made in six days, as
stated in the fourth commandment and other portions
of the Bible. But if, on a closer examination of the
subject, he shall find that the fossil kingdom is a separate and distinct kingdom, and is in its existence
governed by every law, natural and revealed, which
governs every other kingdom, and its introduction into
existence was governed by the same laws which governed the introduction of each and all the other kingdonls, then he must conclude, as a necessity, that the
first forms of this kingdom were of fiat origin- made
without a parent or pattern, in like manner as were the
first crystals, the first fishes, the first plants, the first
vegetables, or the first animals.  And although this
proposition may confound the mind at first, be assured
that it would be far more difficult to convince any one




36       THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
that the first of mankind were made in completed
forms, if that individual had not been taught the idea
in his catechism, or been educated to the thought. The
mind of man, like that of a child, is unprepared to
adopt a new idea till he is educated to receive it.
Let the question be put to such a child or man, who
has never been informed upon the subject, "Whence
sprang and how were the first of mankind made?" and
his answer would probably be the same as if he were
asked, "Where did the law of petrifaction or fossilization first manifest itself? or whence sprang the heads
of the fossil kingdom?" In either case, without education in the reasons which mankind give and receive
as grounds for their conclusions, the same answer
would undoubtedly be given. But if you should
then tell him that every kingdom known upon earth
sprang into existence, by the fiat of the Creator, in
completed forms, and those forms are continued, not in
identity, but by laws which reproduce them in kind;
and you also tell him that this rule is universal except
as to one kingdom, and that the fossil kingdom; and
then if you go one step further with him respecting
this latter, and tell him that the fossil kingdom is governed by all the laws of reproduction which govern
the others; that fossils, like plants, can be raised in any




THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.      37
quantity, like animals-be made in as perfected forms;
and that these fossils have separate existences from
the plants or animals after which they pattern by petrifaction, and that they are the natural parents of the
fossil; and then tell hijn, in this connection, that the
first plant was made without a parent, the first animal
was made without a parent, the first crystal was made
without a parent; that the first rock of any kind,
which now daily re-forms, was made without a parent,
-he would naturally ask, "Why could not the fossil
be made without a parent also? Is there any difficulty
in the way; and is the assertion to the contrary sufficient ground for abandoning the Bible, which declares
that'the earth and all that therein is' was made in
six days?" In truth, many, and all those whom we
answer, admit the making within the Mosaic six days
of the archetype forms of the vegetable and animal
kingdoms, but exclude that of portions of the mineral
kingdom.
No ground has been shown as yet to induce the belief that the Creator has made an exception in the fiat
law. And, in all sound logic, there should first be a
szfficient reason assigned why such a course was necessary in order to give color to the proposition, especially
as there was no more intricacy in making all the ele



38        THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.
ments of the mineral kingdom by fiats, the fossil included, than there was in making the vegetable, the
animal, light, water and air, metals, and their cornpounds and crystals. We shall refer to these principles hereafter, in their connection with geologic admissions respecting the establishment and manifestation
of fiat law.
A record may be true and it may be false at the
same time, though not upon the same point. It may
be true in itself, and the falsest deductions drawn from
it by a false reading. Thus, with the geologic imprint,
the apparent signs may indicate the origin of these
forms to be either by growth or of fiat origin. But,
in the nature of things, these signs may be read either
way, as the faith of the reader is geologic or Mosaic.
Now there is a wide difference between positive langluage in plain terms and inferences drawn from past acts
in the deep recesses of time. Any careful review of
the causes which have brought entities, now the subjects of reproduction, into existence, must be admitted by every truthful mind as shrouded in mystery.
It matters little what the character of the entity is,
or by what strange law it is bound to others. We
pass all such appearances by, as bald to a proof of
its advent on earth. The record, then, which comes




THE FALSE AND THE TRUE RECORDS.       39
from these archetype entities is to be read uniformly,
if read at all. We must read it by one alphabet and
by one language. Then, may we not assert that the
geologist reads on a wrong basis, when he claims that
all lines of existences which now reproduce themselves
in type were the subjects of fiat law except one, and thlat
his pre-Adamite fossil.




40              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
CHAPTER II.
GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
THE testimony which is summoned by geologists in
support of their view of a creation, is worthy of notice
in passing. There is, probably, no cloak which has
covered so many errors in the world as that of "testimony." A witness is summoned into court, or voluntarily presents himself before the public to give his
testimony. If he goes into court, he is first sworn " in
the presence of Almighty God, to tell the truth, the,hole truth, and nothing but the truth."  The tacit oath
of the geologist should be the same when he professes
to give his testimony upon the hidden things which
he has unfolded, as going to prove the state of the
earth at any period of time.
In all ordinary cases of every-day life, a man's testimony upon any subject is valuable, just in proportion
to his knowledge and honesty. His honesty is, however, of no account, if his information is defective.




GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.           41
And if he should endeavor to testify to facts which, in
the nature of things, he could know nothing about, he
would risk his reputation as a man worthy of being
believed.  But if he should state, as a positive fact
that which every hearer would know not to be true,
he would not only loose his reputation as a man, but
would loose his liberty also.
Suppose a case should occur, in which it became
necessary to collect certain zoological or botanical
specimens for scientific investigation, and, agreeable to
instructions, the required collection was finally asserted
to have been made; the person intrusted to perform
the duty was, by some unexpected combination of
circumstances, called upon to testify to the owner, as
to what he had collected, and to describe minutely the
collection. He enters upon the task, describes fluently
and elaborately all the parts of each animal —the
nerves, tendons, muscles, flesh, bones, &c., till the animal stands panting in life before him, and he almost
feels the hot breath from his lungs, so faithfully and
life-like are all the minute points of his intricate frame
and the motions of his body recounted and animadverted upon.
The interest and wonder excited in the hearers'
mind is increased, when the animals daily and hourly




42              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
habits are rehearsed — how he ate, drank, rested, and
rose again -what foes he encountered, what battles
he won over his enemies, or where he retreated for
safety secure from the voracity of his superiors; every
action in life drawn as by an eye-witness, and testified
to with an earnestness and apparent truthfulness, as
though it was posizive knowledge.
Every specimen said to be collected was in like
manner described, and drawings of them delineated,
showing every part in perfection; and presenting the
plant, also, in such flowering nature, that the dewdrop
was seen resting in its freshness, or waving in the gentle breeze, and burnished by the noonday sun.
The list is at last ended, the catalogue completed,
when the eager possessor, delighted with his supposed
prizes, is ushered into the presence of the huge animals,
when to his amazement, what lies before him!
Quantities of unshapely stones, and he quickly turns
upon his collector and demands an explanation. The
man is amazed at being questioned as to " where
is your mergatherium? your dinotherium? your elephant? your rhinoceros?" and so on. "There they
are," replies the still more surprised individual, stepping around among the queer-looking rocks, as he
points out the fragmentary stones which represent




GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.           43
each animal. "But do you call these annials?" continues the possessor of the collection. "To be sure,
if they are not the things themselves they are their
representatives," replies the collector. "But I want
the things henemselves, sirrah! I did not ask you for these
petrifactions, of which no one can tell whether they
have had the remotest connection with the animals of
which you speak. It is a gross cheat, a deception, sir.
I will not have them; take them away."-" My dear
sir, don't be in such a passion," replies the collector;
"I thought you a geologist, and if you had been, they
would have been the same as the animals themselves."
c" Out with your geology, I want the animals, not a
cheat." And so the interview ends.
Now this may seem extravagant with an old geologist, whose line of truth he himself adopts, and speaks
as truth. But to the world, who have themselves to
form an opinion on this point by evidence, the forestalling that opinion by calling things by names which
do not even indicate as much as the kingdom to which
they belong, is a species of injustice to the uneducated,
that should not be tolerated in an enlightened community. In commerce a man would find close quarters who would do less morally than. this. In truth,
from the language used by geologists generally, in




44              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
speaking of their cabinet of animzals, one would suppose
they had a managerie in full breath.
There is a public wrong either on the one side or
on the other, when of two sets of existences, the one is
complete, full of life, and called by the same names
as another set of existences, having no life, and of
a totally different composition - no one quality in the
one corresponding with any quality of the other.
There is something wrong, we say, either in conclusion or in inference, in using the one name to denote the other, or vice versa.  A stone or mineral,
it seems rational to believe, can not be an animal, or a
plant as such, while neither of these, in like manner,
can be a mineral. What follows as a necessity? that
tihe nomenclature of the one class or the other is
wrong —that to call a stone an animal, or an animal a stone is a deception; whether intentional or
not on the part of those using the term, is of no consequence as to the fact.  If unintentional, then we
must have the charity to believe, that those using the
terms had not fully understood that they were, in this
way, blending two widely differing kingdomXs into one,
or worse than that —insisting that two kingdoms,
having no elements in common, are one and the same
thing.




GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.            45
If the manure causes the wheat to grow which
would not grow otherwise than by its aid, then call
the wheat manure, and insist that it is such, and you
nauseate a delicate friend. Go a step further back,
and tell him that the animal is the same thing as that
which he produces, and all philological science is lost,
and names usually given to well-known things are of
little consequence.
Now if the geologist could tell what the seed of the
fossil form is, he could easily show what corresponds
to the manure that will produce it; or if he could
describe and make visible the hidden and unknown
seed which produces any crystalline form, the material
to compose it can be produced at once from synthetic
chemistry.
There is a secret vitality, mysterious and unknown to
man, in every kingdom in natlre, which, when rightly
deposited with its other parent, wants only the material of which it will form, to cause it to grow to maturity. This secret principle is one parent, and whatever is produced requires it, before natural action will
take place, to reproduce the form. For the component -parts of man, animal, plant, or crystal, can each
be combined and placed in a vessel, in the exact proportion in which they occur in the completed living




46              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
and acting forms, yet no man, animal, plant, or crystal
will be made without their secret vitalities.
There is a secret, beyond the knowledge of man, required to make these elements combine and act together to produce the whole. And until the geologist
is able to show that that secret does not as well occur
in the formation of the fossil-mineral as in the formation of the crystal, we must infer that the fossils belong to an independent kiigdoim i 2n Nlture, have parents,
like natural forms in other kingdoms, and only require
proper material to develop their variety of forms. By
parent, as here used, must be understood the vitality
which causes the matter to aggregate into the form
expressed by the Divine will in such vitality. Nor
should the ordinary seed of plants be regarded as
more than external evidences to man that they enclose, and thus make available for use, the secret
vitality which they contain.  From  evidences well
known to every botanist, such vitality must be present
in the earth, in some varieties of plants at least, without the external coating of the ordinary seed taken
from the living plant.
Hence, the fossil, which is a growing form and can be
produced in any numbers, is a separate result, and an
independent crystalline form from the animal matter,




GEOLOGIC TESTIMO'NY.              47
which co-operated with the petrifying vitality and produced the fossil form.  Nor is the trite animal one parent of the fossil; for the animal in life is the trte anirnal, while the animal form in the absence of life is one
parent of the fossil form, and which co-operates with
the petrifying vitality necessary to produce it.  If,
then, it be denied that the dead animal or plant
contains the parent, and no secret vitality of the fossil exists which will produce it, then why does it
grow? The answer involves us in the same difficulty
in which we find ourselves when we deny vitality as
the primary cause in any of the other kingdoms of
nature. At least, he who denies it may undertake the
proof of such denial; for our present purposes the
rule, and not the exception, will be followed — that all
growing forims in Nlatutre start in a secret vitality, which attracts matter congenial to such vitality, for the production of
forms in the kingdom to which it belongs.
The reason why this is so, will not be explained
here; but if it should be, no more would be arrived at
than the stated fact, as the nearest approach that can
be made to first causes from the visible phenomena of
Nature. To undertake to prove that allforms in Nlature
start ina a vitality belonying to each particular kingdom would
be impossible as a strict scientific proof; but if it be




48              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
not so, why is a plant starting from a seed, always a
plant, and not a man, a horse, a crystal, a rhinoceros,
or a fossil-mineral?  It must be regarded rather in the
light of a natural axiom, than as a proposition requiring
proof.
To understand this controlling idea fully, will be one
step onward in making easy of apprehension the various divisions into kingdoms, which will be made in this
work, in order to illustrate the origin, growth, and permanency of the mysterious fossil-mineral kingdom, and
show that the ground on which we object to a nomenclature identical with another kingdom, totally different
in every particular except in form, is injustice to the
seeker after truth, and is and has been the forestaller
of independent opinions upon the subjects thus misnamed and misrepresented.
Thus much for the nomenclature of the science of
geology, as testimony in its favor for universal acceptance as truth -nomenclature which has arisen, it is
believed, with those who have pursued a line of truth
with such impetuosity and speed, that all other collateral truths have been passed by unheeded, and apparently, from the honesty and earnestness of its advocates, unobserved.
Now let us look at the testimony of geologists, as




GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.           49
bearing upon a subject which must in a great measure
depend for acceptance upon their individual relations.
They can not be accused of dissimulation, or want of
honesty or good faith; but while they have been and
are pursuing one single and detached line of truth - not
according to their estimates, but truth in fact, so far as
the facts which they develop are facts - they neglect
the infinite other lines of truth which run parallel and
lie alongside this very line of truth, which, if considered in connection with the isolated facts which are
stated and held up to view, would most essentially
change the conclusions of those who hear and see but
the one geologic line in vibration.
A witness may be summoned into court, and the
testimony which he gives be every word of it true.
He may state every fact clearly, distinctly, and
plainly, going so far into detail, that the transaction
about which he is testifying makes a landscape, into
which he dots all the makeweights of a line of truth,
which he wishes, for some reason best known to himself, to establish. Mayhap the criminal on trial is a
bad man, and known or suspected to be such by the
witness, and in his view the ends of justice require
that he should be convicted. But he goes on with his
testimony, coloring it, as he proceeds, Unintentionally
4




50              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
against the criminal — neglects to tell, if you please,
what he thinks of no consequence to show, his innocence, because, with a certain bias in his mind, he
really thinks it of no moment, and he leaves the stand
honestly believing that "he has told the truth," "the
whole truth," "and nothing but the truth," and has
thus. convicted the criminal; while, if he had narrated
that which he considered of no moment, as a point of
law, it would have acquitted him.
A more dangerous witness than this, still, is one
who, not knowing the whole truth, thinks he knows it,
and testifies stoutly and confidently to what he does
know. What he knows, if only part of a transaction,
may be contradicted flatly by what he does not know,
and from such testimony comes only error, false conclusions, and fatal results, doing violence to everything
like justice.
A more dangerous witness still than either, is he
who testifies to conclusions drawn from facts partially
seen by himself, when to draw those conclusions, he is
forced to exercise his fancy in restoring those portions
of the facts which he has not seen, either to acquit or
condemn the criminal. It requires but little knowledge of human nature to know what would be the fate
of the poor fellow, if he be the enemy, or the lucky one




GiOLC, GIC TESTIMONY.          51
if he be the friend of the witness. And such is poor
human nature, not the intent or fault of the witness.
Then, too, a witness may have a cast of mind on
which certain parts of a transaction may make a
stronger impression than a certain other class of facts,
and when he is called upon to give testimony, he will
remember the one set easier than he does the other,
and his relation will bend to that side with which he
is most intimately connected, or most remotely interested. He may be, as in the case cited before, honest
in intention, but fail of illustrating the "whole truth,"
from the habit of remembering one set of ideas, and
exercising the mind with them, to the ultimate exclusion of others equally important but neglected.
These unfortunate results are aggravated in each
instance related, if the witness has naturally an imaginative mind, and it becomes strongly wrought upon
by a favorite theory, or fired with apparent truths,
culled from a line of truth equally apparent. Then
everything is seen over the shoulder of this fancy,
and those points which are makeweights of the right
stripe, are noticed, handled, magnified, and described,
while all other things, highly important to seekers
after truth, are passed by unnoticed, as though they
did not exist. And such may, and unquestionably




52              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
has become the habit of mind in many writers, relative
to the illustration of geology, that an honest purpose
may believe it is speaking the 1" truth," and the " whole
truth," when it is only relating that which squares with
a theory, or a given line of truth.
That geologic writers speak the truth, is, we presume, true; but that they tell the "whole truth," or
relate all which bears upon the just and intelligent understanding of the merits of their theories, is what they
would not themselves assert to be the fact. Nor could
more be expected.  They are advocating for their
own ends a certain hypothesis or theory of a creation,
and they drop themselves modestly into their "rut"
of truth, and leave the advocates of another hypothesis
to oust them from their security, and establish an adverse mode of creation.
Their " rut of truth" may lead to the primitive creation, but it is quite doubtful whether, by travelling
therein so carefully, their occupants will be able to
dispense much light upon other collateral and more
important lines of existences.
It is doubtful, too, whether the disciples of this
theory, made so by pleasant fancy sketches, drawn in
an agreeable way, have ever cast their minds back
to the "beginning" of that "rut," to see who travelled




GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.          53
there when these truths began. Who made the first
mark, and how it was made in this long line of accumulated travel. And if it be admitted that it had a
beginning, when and where did that beginning begin?
Were there many beginnings, or was there but one
beginning, and did that one beginning have many
beginnings within it?
These are questions to which the testimony of geologists have made the fossil mineral, at various times,
give various answers. We purpose to call upon this
mysterious stranger, and by putting questions in a
different form, make his answers take quite another
shape, and prove from the evidence which he himself
shall give, that he is not an exception in truth to any
other thing which has had a beginning, that he is not
the miserable outcast of Almighty rule which the
geologist would fain make him; but that he is entitled
to the same rank, the same care, the same importance
in the world as anything else, and like them, could
have been the subject of miracle in first form.
And if we fail not in the attempt, we will show that
the fossil mineral, as it came from the hand of God,
without a parent, and without a seed, testifies in its
very existence the purity of its origin.  So also the
first of the race of man, of the entire vegetable and ani



54              GEOLOGIC TESTIMONY.
mal kingdom, should be allowed by all Christian cosmogonists, to have been made by creative fiats, which
called perfect forms into existence without a previous
earthly form in type. The geologist would fain prostitute the handwriting of the Creator, and make the
fossil existence "life out of death." He denies, then,
even to the fossil mineral, what is granted to its elements, the original touch to give them form —the
moulding hand of the Creator.
It is sound philosophy to assume, that in the making
of the first forms, there were no special favorites, except the necessity to accomplish all in due time and
in a given order, and if it was possible for the Creator
to make one form without its parent or seed, it was
possible for him to make another, and if he made all
such save one, we must have decided and unequivocal
proof that he made that an exception to the rule,
before we can simply assume it as the groundwork of
a demoralizing and unsound faith.




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.       55
CHAPTER III.
KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
FOR the purposes of our illustration, we name all
distinct classes of things, be they small or great, kingdoms;
and the separate members, which are reproduced, or
which reproduce each other consecutively, making up
these kingdoms, lines of existences. Thus the vegetable
kingdom is made up of certain lines of existences
which reproduce themselves; while if any one of these
lines can be petrified, or fossilized, showing that it can
be reproduced in a fossil state as often as the vegetable can be grown, we call those fossils a line of existence
in the fossil kingdom.
It will be seen, then, that each line of existence has
its parent on the one side, and its vitality, the parent,
on the other, which, placed under favorable circumstances, will produce the required result — a step in
the line.  It matters not, either, whether a form in
nature be reproduced by the action of natural law




56         KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
or not, there is a something corresponding with this
vitality which is lost under certain changes, and would
indicate that all forms are accompanied, during their intact
condition, by their vitalitzy, so that it becomes an active
principle from the birth to the dissolution of the form.
This vitality is divisible in some forms, and indivisible
in others, and it is believed, though we do not assert it
as a settled principle, that every line of existence has
a di,'erent vitality, because they produce different results,
are made active by different means, and are extinguished by different causes. By being extinguished is
meant, changing their character as perfected wholes in
their completed results, so as no longer to retain their
distinctive characters.
Some minerals are changed from their perfect state
by the application of heat, cold, water, and sometimes
the atmosphere alone. There are various agents that
will destroy the mineral crystal, as also the aggregation of them. In the case of carbonate of lime when
heated, the carbonic acid, one element of'its perfect
formation, escapes, its vitality as a crystal of carbonate
of lime is lost, and a residuum is left possessing another vitality, but not that of the crystal before death.
The reader must excuse this rather.dry lecture
(possibly as interesting as the other portions), since it




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     57
is introduced to show, that the law which governs the
fossil mineral in its introduction, growth, and decay (if it be
subjected to decaying processes), follows in every respect
that of any other crystalline or aggregated mineral mass.
And here, let it be remembered, the academic divisions and names given to formations on the earth, have
nothing to do with them as things bearing separate
existences, and forming after a given pattern, so that
the eye can distinguish to what line in the kingdom it
belongs. As far, then, as our purposes are concerned,
we call all mineral, except the vegetables, animals,
water, gases, light, and other subtiles.
This classification is not that given by mineralogists,
for they describe a mineral to be "any substance in
nature not organized by vitality, and having a homogeneous structure."*
Now we do not wish to gainsay this definition, but
as high authority, and as a generally-received classification, we would be doing injustice to our main postulate, not to examine it, and see on what grounds it is
based. What makes the spar, the gem, or the mineral
ore aggregate sooner than a like principle secreting
the fossil? or aggregating the conglomerate into a
rock substance? Dry sand will not make a conglom* Dana.




58        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
erate without the hardening principle- its vitality
can be induced to operate.
We frequently loose sight of generalizations in
specialities, and we can not see why vitality, as a
principle, can not be allowed to every completed
existence, when that intact principle can be destoyed
by any extraneous cause. It is the great principle
which elucidates the fossil, and hence, we anticipate,
will meet with disfavor in certain quarters. Though
if it be not a principle equally applicable to all things,
we are unable to compass the reason with the light
which we now possess.
If it be contended, that all vitality in the three
kingdoms, usually assumed as the three great divisions
in Nature (the mineral, vegetable, and animal), were
the same in each, this supposition could be overthrown,
because it could be demonstrated by experiment, that
what would destroy vitality in one line of existence
would not destroy it in another, and hence, the same
vitality did not control the existence of the two.
By referring to the various lines in the vegetable
and animal kingdoms, as compared with each other, it
is a well-known fact, that causes which will extinguish
the vital action in one, will not affect it in another
of the same kingdom. Like causes acting on like




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.    59
aggregated compounds, should produce like results;
and as the chemical compounds may be assumed to be
near the same in any two analogous lines in the vegetable or animal kingdoms, it follows, that if the results
are not alike in dissolution, it must be attributable to
the only remaining active element, vitality.
Thus we progress in gaining a generalizing view
of the uniformity in the manner' of constructing entities in archetypes, and in accordance with analogical
fiat law, the mind naturally reverts to those forms in nature, which, by education, we have been taught, started
as subjects of this law, and were brought forth complete from the hand of the Creator. As a ground of
sound reasoning upon fiat law, is there a distinction
between one line of existence in nature and another,
and is there a sound reason why the one should not
be bound by the same rule as the other; or why one
kingdom should be the exception to that law, while its
neighbor, which accompanies it, and on which it depends for birth and existence, is the admitted subject of the law?
But we hear the geologist say, "do we not see the
fossil now grow from the wreck of animal and vegetable forms, in fragmentary masses, as well as those
which are entire?"  We say on this point, so far as




60        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
principle goes, a part of a rock can be the subject of
fiat law as well as a mountain range, for both are
completed entities, and have their special vitalities.
It would be, however, unsound to say that fragmentary members of a completed,. living entity, existing
under a vitality in nature as a separate line, were
alike the subjects of fiat law, except they be in place
as portions to compose the completed archetype.
And whether you assume the fragmentary fossil as an
element of the entire mineral kingdom, or as a separate line, and an archetype form, it matters not, as
affecting its title of reproduction under the almost
universally-admitted creative fiat law.
When the mind can fully understand what an independent line of existence is, there will be no difficulty
in separating the life of the fossil from the life of the
animal and plant, which are mere elements in nature,
which operate to prepare the parent of the fossil on
the -one side.
On the same ground of reasoning, and with equal
truth, might the geologist argue a succession in azimals' forms (which he denies), because from the very
same debris which makes the fossil in the. mineral
kingdom  spring, under other circumstances (being
other parents), revolting animal forms,  Now, it is as




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     61
difficult for us to account for the springing into life of
this class of things, or any one of them, as it is to explain why, under other circumstances, the fossil springs
from the same matter.
The geologists admit the class of animals evolved
from animal matter when vitality has departed, as being subjects of fiat law; while they deny the mineral
form which comes from the same matter under different circumstances as bound to the law of succession.
We think this illustration is sound and a good analogy; and if it should be unsatisfactory to some, they
can draw many from other sources. And, as a resulting consequence, we must assert our conviction to be,
that the fossil, either fragmentary or complete, is a
priinciple in nature, having as much individuality in itself, and entitled to all the privileges, subject to all
the contingencies, and bound to take rank with the
remainder of God's works, made objects of reverence
by the Christian in the belief of their creative fiat
origin.
It has been somewhat a matter of wonder with us
why geologists have not endeavored to show, by some
plausible argument, the origin of light, air, water, vegetables' or animals, by some process of the creative energy other than that of fiat law- nay, even more than




62        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
this, the numerous primordial elements of matter, and
the metallic masses and ores in the secret places of the
earth. To a candid mind, two prominent reasons suggest themselves:FIRST -That there is no hypothesis which can cover
the mystery, except they refer them to fiat origin;
and -
SECOND - If they are handled at all, they fall as
of necessity into this rut, and become dead-weights
against their faith.
The variety of fossils found, their sequence in order of arrangment (if that be true as stated by geologists), are of that class of mysteries only known to
the Creator. Why he has seen fit to make a variety
of rocks, or of animals, or of plants, or of heavenly
bodies, are questions which any man can ask, but no
man can answer. And he who thinks and asserts that
there are no mysteries concealed from human research
is not a believer in the Christian faith; for that principle is asserted and reasserted throughout the Bible.
We have yet to learn the difference between an
archetype form representing the head of a line of
existence, and a reproduction after the pattern in kind.
Who moulded the first, and who the last? Is the first
less perfect than the last? and, if so, on what ground




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     63
is the supposition based?  In  either of the two
which we have named, is the naturally reproduced air
or water different from that which was liquefied into
existence by the Almighty fiat? Would it, then, be
sound reasoning for those who admit the Creator's ability, in this enlightened age of equilibriated science and
divine revelation, or the fact of the introduction in Nature of any completed organisms to assert, that because
air and water now form from existing elements, that
hence.all air and water upon this planet has formed in
like manner? that no air or water was formed at first by
the fiat of the Creator, because we now know of their
forming from pre-existing elements, and by virtue of
those affinities which he has implanted in them, and
which he yet maintains.
Admitting, then, the introduction of air and water
by a creative fiat, and also by reproductive ability,
how are we to determine the archetype particles from
the reproduced ones? This the geologist must admit
is a puzzling question and defies his skill. He, as well
as those who disagree with him on other points, will
undoubtedly coincide on the following -that abstractly
or positively there is no means of determining the
question.
Now, suppose we classify every particle of air in




64        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
every portion of the earth, and call it the air kingdom;
and all the water in like manner, and call it the water
kingdom —all the quartz-crystals in the world, and call
that the quartz-crystal kingdom; and all the fossils in the
earth, and call that the fossil kingdom. We then ask
the chemist, the mineralogist, and the geologist, to
come forward and point out, in his respective department, which of each kingdom was a first, and which a
reproduced formation; or tell, from the inspection of
the things themselhtes in that condition, whether there were
among the whole mass of each an archetype particle
of water, of air - a quartz-crystal, or a mineral fossil.
The chemist commences his discourse, and says,
"How can you expect me to point out the difference
between one particle of water and another — one
made yesterday, or to-day, or thousands of years ago?
they are all alike- there is no way of telling; the
question borders on absurdity. There are what we
term impurities in water, by which I can tell whether
it be salt water or fresh - whether it be the water of
the Pacific, Atlantic, Mediterranean, the Black sea, or
the Dead sea, or any other distinctive known body
of water —whether it be rain-water, spring-water, or
river-water (which is rain-water after it has taken up
more impurities); but I can not tell one particle of




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     65
pure water from another, or where or at what time it
was made. Though my experience teaches that water
is constantly decomposed and re-formed, and the strong
probabilities are, that among these particles which are
here collected, there is a large proportion which were
combined in the primitive creation. But if you ask
my scieditfc opiiion as to when they were made, and
which was made first, and which last, I must answer.
that, without positive knowledge as to the fact, I can
give no opinion based on exact science. If I see the
water condensed from the two gases which compose it,
my knowledge is perfect, and my answer would be scientific; but if I have the particle presented to me
independently of that knowledge, I am at a loss to
tell more than that all analogical reasoning induces
me to believe that some particles of water that I see
have been made by the fiat of the Creator, while
others have been reproduced."
" Suppose, Mr. Chemist, you should find a drop of
water in a quartz-crystal, enclosed in the granite rock
at a very considerable depth in its solidity, when
would you say that that water was formed? Would
you not be able to say positively that that drop of water
was made in the primitive creation?"
Chemist. —" No, I could not; for all rocks and crys5




66        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
tals are more or less porous, and such a phenomenon,
if found, might by possibility be produced by condensation of gases or of aqueous vapor: but the probabilities would be decidedly in favor of the supposition
that it was from the primitive fountain, and my reasons
for that conclusion are that the granite rock must
have been among the first solid things moulded on
this planet; and, admitting that to be so, there were
no natural causes that could decompose pure water —
all these causes are in the order of creation, of subsequent date to the making of the granites by any
hypothesis of a creation as yet advanced and advocated.  Nor could there have been hydrogen and
oxygen evolved from any known form in nature to
have made the reproduced water, until after the granite. was made; and hence I should infer, conclusively,
that the water found in quartz-crystal was made in
place; that it was so made simultaneously with the
crystal, or made before, and, if made before, was a
first form or archetype. I can conceive of no way by
which it can be determined, in the air or water kingdoms you have supposed, which particles of each are
primitive, and which are reproductions. But if these
particles were imperishiable bodies, then one fact at least
could be determined positively — that some of them




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.      67
were Jat forms; and if you admit the interference of a
Creator at all in their making, some of them are fiat
forms, while others are reproduced ones."
Geologist (interrupting). -"  Then I suppose you say
that all lines of existences, even those in our fossil
kingdom, were made as we find them in the rocks, and
without the previous existence of the plant or animal
which they so faithfully represent."
Chem. -" No, I have not said so, Mr. Geologist, whatever I may think on the subject; but the form of your
question awakens a new thought in my mind: and
now allow me, as you have taken up your subject a
little out of its order, to ask for my own information a
few questions.
"Can you tell me which of the fossil forms we have
here collected were made first, and which last?"
Geol. — " That is hardly a fair question, when these
fossils are jumbled together in this way; but let me
separate them, and then I can tell you."
Chem. —" Never mind; take the simplest and most
common — any of the fossil zoophytes which run
throughout the geologic range from the first to the
last geologic formation."
Geol. -" We class the rocks according to the fossils
which they contain, and judge of the age of the fossil




68        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
by the position of the rocks in the earth; and as the
fossil you have selected is found in all of them, I scarce
know how to answer your question."
Chem. " What I mean to be understood by this question is, can you tell the geologic age of the animal by
the fossil which represents it?"
Geol. " Oh yes, I can tell the geologic age of every
fossil before me with perfect ease, excepting those
which are common to all the rock formations, being
some lower orders of zoophytes."
Chem. "What may I understand by geologic age?"
Geol. " The term is rather an indefinite one, but all
the limit which can be given to it positively is, that one
geologic age precedes another."
"How do you determine this fact?" inquires the
chemist.
"Easily," replies the geologist, "by the rocks of
different kinds which lie one upon another, and which
have been upheaved by some convulsion of nature,
and show the layers of sedimentary rock, the one
over the other."
"What do you mean by layers of rock?" says the
chemist.
Geol. " You seem to be truly ignorant of our science,
Mr. Chemist, and from the questions you ask, I shall




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.    69
have to commence your education in this subject at
the beginning."
Chemn. " This is the point I am aiming at; that which
follows the'beginning' I may be as able to judge as
you; but what I wish to ascertain is, what evidence
you possess in the geologic science respecting a'beginning,' and which corresponds, in accuracy of reasoning, to that which I have just given respecting air and
water."
Geol. "I will commernce by telling you, that this
earth was once a ball of fire, or molten matter, which
cooled, and the outward crust thus made wrinkled up
into our mountains, which have been washed by the
oceans of waters which you have told us of, and by
this friction, and, as you know, chemical action, the
detached portions of them have formed a sediment
which has hardened into rock of another sort, and so
on and so on, till, from the gneiss which you see composing most mountain ranges, and which was the first
sedimental rock thus formed, we run up through the
mica and talc schists, the clay slates, the grauwacke
group of rocks, the silurian limestones, the old red
sandstone, the mountain and magnesian limestones,
with coal-beds intervening, the new red sandstone,
shell, lias, oolite, and chalk limestones, marls, and,




70        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES,
finally, clay, soil, &c. In these variold rock formations, commencing with the clay slates upward to the
soil, and in it, are found fossils, which go to show, that
the animals and plants which they represent flourished
upon the earth before these fossils were made; and
their being entombed in these rocks, is evidence that
the rocks themselves have been made by successive
additions by water actions, in the course of which
these living forms have been engulphed, and the fossil
forms found as the consequence. We are supported
in this belief, since all those rocks which contain fossils
are being developed now upon the earth, with fossil forms in them, but of a flora and fauna peculiar to
this age, while those of the various and previous rock
formations referred to, differ somewhat from these.
Chem. "What are the differences to which you
refer?"
Geol. " To give you the idea of diversity and variety
in fossils found, it will be necessary to tell you in what
kind of rocks they occur. To do this, it becomes
necessary, also, to tell you that no two great divisions
of rock are alike; but geologists have made no other
classification of rocks than that which is dependant
upon the fossils found in them, and the consequent
relative position of one above the other."




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     71
Chem. "C Then, if I understand you, when you find a
rock in one geologic age, which is identical with that
formed in another, you refer the making of each'to
differing epochs of time?"
Geol. "Certainly, for the fossils contained in rocks
accompanying each, show, that as the fossils differ in
the two sets of rocks, so they must have been made
at different times, and the one being over the other
proves this fact conclusively."
Chem. " How would it be if the fossils were made by
a creative fiat? Would the fact of one rock overlying
another be conclusive proof that the under one was
made first, and the upper one last?"
Geol. " I think it would be conclusive proof that the
under one was made first: but how long first, of course,
could not be determined without referring to the fossils, and if the fossils be admitted as made by a creative fiat, then the rocks must also be admitted as made
in like manner, but that is absurd."
Chem. "Why absurd?"
Geol. "Because we see these same rocks, at least
most of them, forming daily under our eyes, and see
animals and plants being fossilized and buried in these
accumulating rocks, and we can tell from inspection,
how long it takes a few inches of rock to form, and




72        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
hence, we say, that those rocks in the earth which
correspond with these in composition, must have required a proportionate length of time to form in."
Chem. "What rocks do you now refer to as forming
daily?"
Geol. "The limestones, sandstones, and slates. The
primary rocks, as they are denominated, do not now
re-form, these are the granites and the crystalline limestone or marbles, and a few others, which, from the
appearances of heat visible in the construction, are
called metamorphic rocks."
Chem. " How many species of minerals can you make
on the ground of different crystalline composition?"
Geol. "If you arrange them upon that footing, I
presume you must take the mineralogical division, and
Dana claims there are five hundred different species in
the mineral kingdom, and these, with their varieties,
are contained within the rock formations of the earth."
Chem. " Then what do you denominate a species of
mineral in a geological sense?"
Geol. "We do not pay much attention to species;
but I suppose we should make the same division as
the mineralogists do, and, if you please, naturalists
too, in the vegetable and animal kingdoms. The
peculiarities of the internal and external structure




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.       73
would govern a species, and it may not be uninstructive to you, to quote Dana upoh this point. He says:'the true foundation of a species in mineralogy, must
be derived from crystalization, as the crystalizing force
is fundamental in its nature and origin, and it is now
generally admitted, that identiy of crystalline form  and
structure is evidence of identity of species. This principle unites certain distinct chemical compounds into
the same species, for example: a silicate of magnesia,
and a silicate of iron crystallizing alike, constitute but
one species in mineralogy, though chemically so different."
Chem. "Can you tell me to what geologic age these
five hundred species of minerals belong, or to which is
each referred as to its introduction upon this earth?"
Geol. "I do not understand you. Do you mean to
ask when the first carbonate of lime, for example, was
made and introduced?"
Chem. "Not particularly that, btd the entire range of
species, for they are found, as a general thing, indiscriminately scattered throughout the rock formations."
Geol. c "Well, you know our theory is, that all things
were once a fused mass - and this earth's substance
was a ball of fluid melted matter, which commenced
to cool, and the surface did cool and formed a solid




74        KINGDOMS IN LINEiS OF EXISTENCES.
foundation, which was granite rock, and then waters
were placed upon this granite, and the wearing processes of the water made a sediment, which settled at
the bottoms of these waters, and hardened, in the
course of time, into other rock, and so on and so on,
till all the rocks of the earth, which are called sedimentary, were made. This, we judge, was so, from
the fact that we find, as I have said before, fossils in
these rock, which must be the representations of previous living forms of plants and animals."
Cheam. "There is a difficulty in your first supposition,
which, as a chemist, I should pronounce fatal. If this
earth, and its present component parts, was supposed
to be in an igneous state of fluidity at first, how is it
that we find now, that all substances have a different
point of fusibility, and that granite rock has the highest
of all. So that, if the granite was in fusion, every other
known substance was utterly destroyed —and when it
cooled, these substances, being in a gaseous state, could
not return, nor any one of them, into the solid mass
of the granite rock. And as we do find many of
them there, can we account for their being there by
any such supposition?"
Geol. "I confess to you, that there are difficulties
like these which have caused very many of us to aban



KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     75
don the fusion theory, and the metals are the most
stubborn things to get on with on. this hypothesis. I
know that they are mostly found in the solidity of thegranite rock, and, too, that they are all destroyed at a
temperature that will melt it. But I do not see how
the science can be maintained, if it be not done on
this as a start; for if it be admitted that the granite
rock was made by the fiat of the creator, then all things
which are contained within its solidity must be abandoned to the
same rule."
Chem. "Is there any reasonable conjecture by which
the granite rocks have been formed like the sedimentary rocks, by a long progressive course of evolving, or development?"
Geol. "I am not aware of any, having the shadow
of support, which does not trace its validity, either to
an igneous fluidity in mass and cooling, or to a creative
fiat."
Chem. "Do you acknowledge, in your theories, that
the Creator made the granite rocks as they now
exist?"
Geol. "Most certainly we do, and more than that,
we think that He was able to make them in either
way, whichever was agreeable to him."
Chem. "What grounds have you, then, for judging




76        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
that the primitive granites, and metamorphic rocks,
are of igneous origin?"
Geol. "From appearances which plainly show that
they have once been in fusion."
Chemn. "Are you enabled to say distinctly, how the
first granites, or what you denominate metamorphic rocks,
looked when they came from the hand of the Creator,
by whichever process they were made, by fusion, or by
a fiat?"
Geol. " We do not admit them to be made by a fiat,
because their appearance shows they have had an
igneous origin."
Chem. "But suppose that it pleased the Creator to
make them by a fiat, and yet make them having tile
appearance of an igneous origin?"
Geol. "This is absurd, because it is a deception to
man, and why should the Creator deceive?"
Chem. "It might be called a deception by some, but
it would not be so called by me, for I know that these
appearances are such as occur in after-states by the application of heat, and, therefore, there is a good reason
why, if the Creator did not intend to deceive, they
were made as they are. For if they were not so
made in archetypes, the application of heat to them
would bring about entirely new appearances, and the




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.      77
results obtained would not be recognised as being the
same things."
Geol. "This is just what I say, that if fire now will
produce these appearances,.fire must have been used in
their first making. There we agree precisely, and
these are the foundation principles of our geologic
science. To express it in a more general form, we say,
that whatever we see now produced as a completed result, the
same mode of action was at first, always has, and always will
be, used to bring about like results."
Chem. " We do agree, to a certain extent, but not in
the length and breadth of your proposition. I will
modify your generalization this much -' whatever we
now see produced as a completed result, the same
mode of action always has, and always will be, used to
bring about like results;' leaving out the words'was
at first,' and insignificant as these last three words are, I
regard them as the stumbling block of your science."
Geol. "Is it not good reasoning, and sound logical
philosophy, to assert, that what we now see accomplished in nature has always been so done?"
Chem. "This may do as a plausible, broad proposition to present to the mind of a multitude, but will
scarce answer as between us; though, I suppose, you
mean to state substantially, what you have just stated




78         KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
relative to like results following each other from like
causes in nature."
Geol. "I mean to be close, though I may be a little
popular. You have stated my meaning."
Chem. "Then, if this be your intention, and you
admit the proposition, that like results in nature
always flow from like causes, when do you begin with
your lines of existences, as I may.call them, where
any one of these results is one step in the chain?"
Geol. "At the beginning, of course, the first result
of the kind arrived at, or brought into existence."
Chem. "Now  let me ask you to generalize, once
more, what are the causes which conspire to produce
such results in nature?"
Geol. "They are as numerous as the various results
produced; and there may be said to be one set of causes
to produce the numerous steps in any one line of existence; that is, the same causes always produce the
same kind of pine, wherever it may grow. Another
set of causes produces the same kind of oak, wherever
it is grown. Another set of causes produces a given
kind of cereal. Another set of causes produces a fossil fern leaf. Another set of causes produces a fossil
fish of a given t-ind. Another set of causes produces
one of the varieties of quartz-crystals, and so on, every




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.      79
given form in nature following some previous one of a
like kind, each being a type in the line of existence to
which they belong, as the letters a, b, c, or d, are each
types of a repeated alphabet in metal - repeated, possibly, one thousand or many thousand times in a font
of type."
Chem. "The same causes producing like results, to
what cause do you attribute the first result of each
particular kind of thing?"
Geol. "As for the answer to this question, we have
no means of proving it by science, and, in truth, it
must be simply a matter of faith, for who can tell
what causes made the first thing of its kind?  Although we well know, by experience and scientific
inductive reasoning, that like causes now produce like
results, yet what was the first cause no one can, of
course, tell, though they may conjecture."
Chem. "Then, at best, it would not be true science,
which would pretend to tell with accuracy what the
first cause was which produced the first of the kind of
any given result?"
Geol. "Most certainly not; the first cause must for
ever be enveloped in profound mystery, though our
faith leads us to attribute all first causes to a Creator."
Chem. "Do you think this rule applies to every form




80         KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
in nature, or, rather, to every line of existence in every
kingdom?"
Geol. "I do not know any exception to the rule, in
truth, I can not well see how there can be an exception."
Chem. "How  do you, then, apply that rule to the
fossil kingdom, which is the manifestation of the basis
of all your conclusions respecting the formation of this
earth?"
Geol. "There is no difficulty in that. The cause
which produces the fossil now has ever produced it."
Chem. " Is that so? Let us, then, see the cause which
produces a fossil form, for example, to-day. Is it not
the pre-existence in life of the form itself, and a locality suited for fossilization, which produces the result
now?"
Geol. "Most assuredly."
Chern. "Is the fossil form thus completed an independent, distinct form in nature, of different qualities
and constitution from the living form?"
Geol. " It is so, no doubt."
Chem. "Then, if you were to make a thousand of
them, and lay them down upon the earth in the order
of time in which they were made, would not each one
be a'type' in that especial line of existence, as sub



KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     81
stantially as though they were living plants or animals?
for you can make the fossils as fast as you can raise
the plants or breed the animals."
Geol. "We do not find such things in nature, as fos.
sils made by men in the manner referred to."
Chenz. "No, I presume not, but you will not deny
the thing to be possible?"
Geol. "It is possible, provided the exact causes to
make the same fossil were present each time."
Chem. "'Then suppose we select some particular
plant or animal, which we know and admit is reproduced in type successively, and each time that it was
so reproduced, it was fossilized on its death. Would
we not have two lines of existences, the one the living
and the other the product of the once living, and other
causes — the fossil lines. A strong analogy on this
point is the tree and the fruit, two independent (when
produced) lines, the one growing out of the other; yet
who can doubt the Bible to be true, as to the expressed
creative fiat causing the tree and seed within itself to
spring into existence together? And if we admit any
other mode, we pass from fiat law to that of development. The one line, the living existence, we know,
or at least a4lmit, as our faith, did start in a completed
form, and without a parent. Now can you tell me
6




82         KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
on what ground you admit the one line to start without a parent, and admit a parent to the fossil line?
In other words, you say the fossils, in all cases, were
preceded by vegetable or animal life, while the first
of each animal or vegetable was an archetype, a completed form without a parent."
Geol. "I must, in all candor, say, that there is no
proof on that point, and the one is as reasonable,
abstractly, as the other. In principle I can, in truth,
see no difference; but we readily admit the first, as a
matter of faith instilled by education. The second, on
the other hand, we regard, and, possibly, also by education, as a secondary form. But while you may
induce many to believe the first, there are very few
who will believe that the fossil was made without the
pre-existence of the forms which they represent."
Chem. " If the fossil were admitted to the same rule
of archetype forms which you have laid down; that is,' the first cause must for etver be enveloped in profound my/stery,' how would this effect the science of geology as
it is now understood?"
Geol. "If that be admitted, the whole science falls
at once; there would not be a time-mzark left, if the
pre-Adamite fossils in the rocks were made by a fiat;
or if they are placed upon the same footing with other




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     83
lines of existences, which our faith allows us to
consider were introduced in place by a creative fiat.
In truth, you never can make people believe such a.
doctrine."
Chemn. "It is as easy to believe that as any other
application of fiat law, only educate the public mind
that way; but it takes time. They can readily see and
apprehend a simple, physical fact, such as a fossil being
made from an animal, and hence, that the animal preceded the fossil; but it is not so easy for that mind to
penetrate to the foundations of our faith, and be able
at once to understand the abstractions of chemical
science, and demonstrate, logically, the generalization
of principles which underlie its structure."
Geol. "Our science is plain, as you say, easy of apprehension, and palpable to the senses of the commonest understanding."
Chemn. "And hence, per se, as a science, I should
conclude there was a fallacy planted in depths so
profound, and yet assumed to be so simple. But let
us endeavor to ascertain on what the whole science, as
claimed, is based; and for that purpose can you tell me
the number of elements which make up the science?
I mqan by that, the salient points upon which it depends."




84        KLNGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
Geol. "There being no proof of what existed before
the historic age of man, you may say it depends on
appearances. This is the sole elenzment in fact, and that
element is subdivided into many classes of appearances. First, There is a class of appearances derived
from the primitive and metamorphic rocks, which indicate that portions of them have been in a state of
fusion, and the entire mass of them have been claimed
by geologists, on this account, to have had an igneous
origin. Though I will have the candor to say, that
there is no positive evidence on the face of them of
such an origin, and I do not think any geologist should
maintain it. Second, There is a class of appearances in
what we call sedimentary rocks, and they are so denominated from two causes.
" _First, Their structure, and
" Second, Their contents.
" The first is assumed because they are found to contain seams and fissures, and are in layers as a general
rule.
" The second, their contents, which are fossil minerals,
and are supposed to have succeeded animal and vegetable life, which they represent, and were not made in
their places by a creative fiat.
"There are various other minor appearances which




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.       85
aid to make up the data of the science, but these are
the most important."
Cihem. "Would the first and second classes of appearances, alone be sufficient to found your present
science upon, without the fossil minerals which these
rocks contain?"
Geol. "Nothing could be arrived at without the
fossil."
Chem. "Then the vitality of your science depends
upon the age of the fossil. So that if all the so-claimed
pre-Adamite fossils in the rocks were made by a crear
tive fiat, and the rocks themselves made in the same
way, there would be nothing left of the science of
geology. It would then be old-fashioned mineralogy?"
Geol. "Most certainly; but there is not much fear
that such a state of things can be made to appear, no
sooner than we can show positively that animals and
plants did precede fossils which we find."
Chemz. "The whole science of geology, so-called,
then, resolves itself into the small compass of a simple
matter of FAITH, that the fossils contained in the pre-Adamite
rocks, were preceded in all instances by animal and plant
Afue."
Geol. "We can not deny your proposition; but at
the same time we hold very strong to that faith."




86        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
Chem. "You will find no difficulty in obtaining disciples in a department where science is so cheap and
easily obtained, by the mere assumption of the garb.
Though a rigorous investigation will show that the
entire fabric of such assumption, is faith in the mode
and manner in which one class of archetypes in nature were introduced in place, and that faith is received at the expense of physical difficulties in the
laws of nature, quite irreconcilable with true science, and
a far superior and Christian faith diametrically opposed
to it. The mode of introduction of the fossil kingdom
into place, must yield to the law of universality allowed to all other kingdoms in nature. How do you
classify fossils?"
Geol "Into two great classes, the pre-Adamite and
the post-Adamite fossils; the former being those comnpleted before the sixth Mosaic day, and the latter those
which have been made since."
Chemn. " There is no difference of opinion respecting
post-Adamite fossils; the whole controversy rests on
the pre-Adamite field."
Geol. " That is true."
Chem.' How, then, shall we draw the division closer
still?"
Geol. "You believe these mere Mosaic pre-Adamite




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.    87
fossils were made by fiat law; while we think they
were preceded by vegetable and animal life, and were
made by development."
Chem. "You may, then, divide the pre-Adamite fossils into Mosaic and geologic; and the question of difference of faith between us lies in this, that we believe
them to have been the subject of fiat law, while you
believe them to have been the result of developnmed?"
Geol. "Exactly; this is the ground. We simply present to the world the facts developed by the fossil
kingdom and its dependencies, and state what our individual belief is, leaving others to believe or not, as
they choose. You can not blame us for our faith, or
for the faith of others."
Chem. "By no means; nor would we blame the Indian or any heathen for their religious faith, provided
they have been so educated, and had no other from
which to choose. It is so with the community: if they
continue to hear nothing but' geology,'' detrital sediments,'' upheavals,'' fossils,' and' fossils,' and'fossils'
again, the dogmas connected with them become stereotyped upon the public mind; and, whether it be
error or truth thence evolved, the result is the same
practically."
Geol. "You have led me away from the physical




88        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
facts upon which we commenced our conversation;
and, while I do not object to speak of first causes,
there is nothing which can be arrived at by their discussion that will lead to a scientific result: and I therefore would prefer the discussion of the facts, rather
than the faith connected with their origin."
Chem. " But you forget that in this lies your whole
science.  The oriqin of your facts is the whole qzueslzon;
and, if you did but discuss the facts, then, as I before
remarked, your science would be simply mineralogy.
But you add to mineralogy a theory of the origin of
its children, and pretend to tell the birth and age of
each. The circumstances attending the birth of the
pre-Adamite fossils are your especial science, which,
as you have said before, being self-evident, is simply
faith without proof. If you could demonstrate the origin of your facts, then you could prove your science;
but, until you can do this, my faith that one portion of
the fossil kingdom (the pre-Adamite) was made by a
creative fiat, while all since that have followed a law
at that time established and made effective, is as reasonable on the face of it as yours. And if you placed
all the kingdoms of creation upon one basis, and asserted
that each has evolved from some generative cause in the
absence of divine revelation and a Creator, your faith




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.     89
would abstractly be as reasonable as mine. But your
trouble lies in the fact that, after following divine revelation in the establishment of all the kingdoms except
the fossil kingdom, you branch off at this point, and
say this is an exception; and yet you can give no
proof of your assertion, while general reasoning must
bring you to a different conclusion."
Geol. "Then you have the idea that all the preAdamite rocks of the earth were made by a creative
fiat, and came from the hand of God as we now find
them?"
Chemz. " Individually I do, and for this reason: that
if I admit any one portion of creation to have been
the subject of fiat law, it seems that I violate all analogies if I deny it to another where no proof can be adduced to show a different origin. But that violation
of analogies becomes still more flagrant when I admit
it to all, and deny it to one, on no proof whatever."
Geol. " Well, all I can say is, that your faith is astonishingly strong, if you can believe that the pre-Adamite rocks were made as they now are by a Divine hand
and creative fiat 1"
Chemn. "You think otherwise; and now let us look
at the grounds which separate us on the abstract fact.
Is there any more difficulty or intricacy in the making




90        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
of any geologic rock, as an archetype, than there is in
the making of a man, a tree, or an animal, as such?
Each, you must remember, has its peculiar elements,
which make up the whole; and if reformed by natural
means, these elements again assume their places, to
complete the result."
Geol. "Yes, there is, and quite a difference. The
rock is made by successive external additions; while
each of the others-the tree, the man, or the animal
-is produced by another and quite a different mode,
adding internally the matter necessary to growth, instead of externally."
Chem. "You must not confound two quite different
principles, the one governing the introduction of archetypes, and the other natural laws governing their
growth. The two have no possible connection with
each other; and their blending together, it strikes me.
is the groundwork of the error in your theory. My
proposition was this: admitting the geologic rock to
have been made like the plant, the animal, or man, by
a creative fiat, is there more mystery, difficulty, or intricacy, in the making of the former in archetypes than
of the latter?"
Geol. " Taking that view of the case, I can not see
much difference; and, if there be any, it is in favor of




KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.    91
the plant, the animal, and man, over the rocks, since
each is a higher organism in Nature. The plant is the
lowest, the animal the next, and man the highest."
Ciemw. "Abstract reasoning, then, brings you, as it
will undoubtedly every ingenuous mind, to the conclusion that there is more mystery, difficulty, and intricacy, in summoning the mind to acknowledge and admit
the making of such archetypes, than those of the rock
formations. And while we admit the former very
readily, as being our faith grounded on education,
many deny the latter, from what seems to me a want
of self-education and close, analogical reasoning."
Geol. "You may reason as much as you like, and
frame your analogies how you may, you never can
make me believe, and. I will not speak definitely for
others; but I think you will never make geologists believe your postulate that the pre-Adamite rocks came
from the hand of the Creator by fiat law substantially
as we now find theln."
Chem. "This I do not expect; for you must remember that those who teach a dogma, if it be grounded in
faitll, as this is, are the last individuals to stultify themselves. The only mode of curing geology, if it ever is
cured, is to kill off the demand for the wonderful stories which it relates of scenes in a past world, exist



92        KINGDOMS IN LINES OF EXISTENCES.
ing only in imagination, and which are educating the
world in an unsound, unequilibriated, and false faith as
to the creation of this earth. And now, Mr. Geologist,
as we have had a very full conversation, pleasant because moderate, with your permission we will postpone
our interview till some future day, when these sugges.
tions, which are but general, will, it is hoped, lead your
mind into a true and rigid train of analogical reasoning upon the facts of the science which you advocate;
and that you will suppress in it that portion resting
entirely on faith, rendering' unto Caesar the things that
are Caesar's.' But should you yet determine to mingle
your faith with your science, make one that is worthy
of you. Incorporate upon it a religion worthy of such
faith, and submit the fabric as such to geologists and
their proselytes for acceptance; and Time will tell you
whether there is enough in admitting archetypes without parents, or fiat law, to all lines of existences, numbeing over three or four hundred thousand, excepting
one, and that the fossil mineral, to make your faith imperishable and your so-called science true."




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.      93
CHAPTER IV.
THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
THIS sublime production asserts, from inferences fairly drawn from its first sentence, that God, having completed the design of creation, commenced its execution
by manifesting his first fiats upon the heaven and the
earth. From the conclusions which are drawn out of
the account itself, heaven, as the original also indicates,
is expanse or space; and earth, as we well know, is
matter in combination, and in this connection is earth
still, but was in a state without form, and the place of its
future was void.
It then becomes a philological question in one sense,
as well as a scientific one in another, to resolve what
state matter must have been in, which was without
form and void. If it was conglomerate at all, it had
some form; and where matter is, there certainly is no
vacuum or void. The only reasonable answer which
can be given is, that matter was fiated into existence
in its lowest division, its primordial particle state, which we




94       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
well know has no form; and that that part of heaven,
or space, in which the combination was to be made to
cause "the dry land" to appear, was void.
Those geologists who have taken a limited view of
the nature of the fossil, have seen a wide field of openness "in the beginning," which has shaped their minds
to the conclusion that in this vast territory of their
fancy, or at least before what they denominate the
Mosaic creation proper, there was room for all geologic
changes. As a plausible geologic argument, it may
not be out of place; but when the dead conflict with
the fourth commandment must have been before the
eyes of at least the theologic portion of them, we
scarcely know what to think of their awkward positions respecting the Scriptures. The first three words
of our Bible have possibly aided many to adopt such
notions, from the fact that they would seem to refer
to an indefinite, indescribable something, one road of
which led to the Mosaic creation.
The fault, if it be one, is alone attributable to the
requirements of our English grammar, which compel
the introduction of the particle " the" before beginning.
The original reads, "In beginning;" and hence we can
read the first sentence of Scripture understandingly
thus:



THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.       95
"ffin beginning, or commencing, God created the heaven and
the earth."
This narrows the first creative fiat to a point, and
shows that God created or fated the heaven and the
earth into existence, and did not make the latter geolo.
gically. In this view of the introduction of matter into
space, there would seem to be required some explanation of the expression of Moses which immediately follows: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters." It would scarcely be becoming for any one to
undertake an explanation why the Creator saw fit to
move upon the face of the waters; though it may be
in place to show the condition of what was denominated awaters, in order to present the natural phenomena enabling him to do so.
Just as the word "earth" is used, as we have seen,
to express or denote matter in primordial elements,
so "waters" here are used to denote the primordial
elements of which they are composed. Water and air,
as will be seen, were made from the elements on the
second Mosaic day. Moses, who is not supposed to
have known much about gases or atmospheres (and
hence had not the language to express his inspiration
in better terms than he has), nevertheless so far explains them, that the idea is as truly expressed as




96        THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
though he lived in the nineteenth century. He makes
the clear distinction, too, between creative flats and fiat
combinations. This will not be observed except by the
close reader. There are four original principles which
make up entities, as far, at best, as this earth is concerned. The first is space; the second, matter; the
third, animal life; and the fourth, the immortal life of
man. From these four original principles all combinations in Nature are made. Hence, with an accuracy
only due to revelation, Moses indicates the creation of
these four cardinals by the term created in the account
just where they are introduced, and uses this term nowhere else. When a combination is fiated into existence, the terms are various, such as, "Let there be,"
" Let sprout forth," " Let bring forth," "Let us make."
Hence, it must be patent to the geologist that the
Mosaic creative account is carefully done, whoever may
be charged with its authorship; and we think it will
require more than the assignment of previous life to
the pre-Adamite fossils to overthrow it, especially as
they may be bound to the rule of fiat combinations
easier than to make them the single exception.
Let us now proceed with the explanation of the
two important and governing terms of the Mosaic creation, HEAVEN and EARTH. Many writers, in quoting the




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.       97
first sentence in Scripture, use the s in heaven, making
it plural. We do not find this in the original, either
in the first or second chapters, nor in the place referred to in our Bible. It always has been our belief,
and that is becoming confirmed every day, that the
Scriptures are so equilibriated and balanced in every
part, that they furnish upon their own pages definitions of doubtful terms and phrases.
Hence we need not give our own gloss to the term
heaven, for we can gain its definition from the record
itself. The object to be determined, is not what its
usual signification was in the original language when
applied to other things, but what the thing is here for
which the term stands. On a microscopic view of the
whole account, heaven, in this connection, means space.
or expanse, or vacuum. In the fifth day it is measurably
explained. "Fowl that may fly above the earth, in the open
firmament of heaven."
What is our experience, in a scientific point of view,
respecting the wing-bearing principle of the aerial
navigators. That the atmosphere, or as here, and in
the second day's work expressed to be firmament, is
the wing-supporting power, and hence the firmament, in
which they fly, is air. We further know, that air is
within the great vacuum, and is of it, but yet is not
7




98        THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
the thing itself, and hence, that they are separate
things, and expressed by different names, the one
being firmament or air within the vacuum - space - or
heaven.
Whatever may be the form, nature, or condition of
the final blissful abode to which we are going, denominated heaven in other portions of the Scripture, that
must of necessity, from the explanations given in
revelation, be another "heaven." As is well known?
we use the same terms to express quite opposite meanings; and it is the meanings that fix the terms, and
not always the terms which fix the meanings. The
same name may attach to a variety of individuals, and
we must refer to the surroundings of the man to explain
who he is.
Now, in respect to the word EARTH, used in the first
chapter of. Genesis, and the same term as used in the
second, we think they are of widely different meanings,
because of the spontaneous explanations in the record
itself. It has three meanings, in fact, so far as claimed
by the explanations of Moses.
First. Earth without form and void.
Second. Earth, "dry land," "with form."
Third. Earth, this planet organized.
To the want of these meanings, which are to be




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.      99
drawn from the face of the record itself, must be attributed much of the difficulty which has been felt
in making a unit of the Biblical account of creation.
For while all chemistry and science have well known
that primordial matter must first have been made, in
order to compound the various forms in nature, they
were not prepared to find that matter expressed under
the term, earth without form and void, the identical state
in which it must, of necessity, have been, in order to
make entities in the universe according to existing
laws of nature.
And when many of these primordial elements were
combined on the third Mosaic day, when land and
water were arranged together, and earth was in that
conglomerate state called "dry land" (which we well
know is the first earth in another form, because dry
land contains every known primordial particle of matter in combination), there is a harmony and a truthfulness in the spontaneous explanations of the work
itself which prove its origin.
In the specification and application of rivers and
states, certainly pointing to the first condition of this
earth, which commences with the fourth verse of the
second chapter, begins the third meaning. The first
chapter is the account of the creation of the universe,




100       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
while the second goes on relating the condition of
the man in the garden of Eden, his fall, and the consequences to mankind of his disobedience.
The account proceeds to state, that after space and
matter in primordial elements were created, light was
made by a combination fiat. We see no grounds for
assuming the contrary, and hence, infer that all light
which is now in the universe, was made at one and
the same time, and of the three primordial rays; also
all the subtiles directly and indirectly connected with
it. It is well known that most matter manifests a
different state at night, from that of the day, except
light, which is the same at all times.
Hence light could be combined on the same day on
which its primordial elements were created, without
violation of natural law, while other matter required
to lie over till the second day to make its first cycle of
existence, of day, evening, night, and morning complete,
and prepared as perfect elements for the fiat combinations of that day.
Thus we conclude that, as all light was made at this
time, every ray, joining this earth's void with all other
points of space, was in place thoughout the universe
on the instant that light was completed. This stultifies the theories of astronomers, who claim, as proof




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.     101
that the world has been longer in action than the
Biblical chronology calls for, because it would take
light millions of years to arrive at the earth from
remote stars; travelling at the rate of two hundred
thousand miles in a second of time.
The general theory is, that light is not matter, and
whether it is or not, is of no moment as to the fact of
its creation. For whether it be matter or the manifestation of it, is of little consequence. It is what it
is; and was made as we have related.
The first three days, which may be regarded as
natural days, were made so by withdrawing the light
at night, and making it manifest by day, until the
revolutions of the heavenly bodies were established
on the fourth day.
The work of the second day consisted in making
pure air and pure water from the gases or primordial
elements, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. It will be
observed, as a peculiarity in the account given of this
day's work, that it lacks the confirmatory clause of" God saw that it was good."  Its omission here, and its
careful attachment to each of the other five days, led
to a searching investigation of what this could mean.
Every word of the record is so pregnant with meaning,
that the failure here, of what we considered the essence




102       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
of the narrative, ntaking for the uses of man, that it
seemed at first a stumbling block, a weakness, or an
omission.
After much labor, and the application of principles
as to the necessities of the formations of the third day,
we found that every department in nature, claimed by
the account to have been introduced on that day,
required pure air and pure water for their formation,
according to chemical synthesis. Hence was found
what we suppose is an answer to the peculiarity, and,
certainly, it is a true one, if the earth was formed as
stated by Moses.
On the succeeding third day, these same waters
were not only used in combinations of solid substances,
but were gathered together in places to make seas,
rivers, &c., and what we call their impurities were
then added, and they became " good."
The remainder of the third day's work consisted in
making all geology, except that which has been disintegrated and re-formed into other like things since;
and establishing the vegetable kingdom.  On this
day the great reservoirs of earth without form  were,
by the exercise of fat law in combination, placed in position in, and throughout this vast extent, and dry land
appeared to God, which, being composed of materials




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.    103
already referred to, was named by the Creator earth
still, or 1" dry land."
Thus were all forms which were to occupy this
planet finished, except the animal and man, and the
laws which were to regulate their existence, established, yet no motion had been communicated to a
single form in nature - all was quiet.
It is argued from analogy, that every heavenly body
was, in manner like the earth, moulded in place, and
like this planet, too, lay motionless in the first point
of their orbits respectively.
The fourth day dawned, and the light, which was as
yet unattached to the heavenly bodies, and had no
existence except in its fixedness, was mysteriously
joined to them, they first having been endowed with the
power to emit light, while other heavenly bodies had
the quality given them to reflect that light, and hence
we have two kinds of heavenly light —emitted and
rejected.
And now the vast machinery of the universe was
prepared for motion. The great law of equilibrium
in nature was established, and the Creator gave his
command -"move on thou rolling orbs, and in your
united beauty and harmony establish two luminaries,
the greater to rule the day, and the lesser to rule the




104        THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
night; and be for signs, and for seasons, and for days,
and for years; let the stars also obey this command."
Movements onward in their orbits, and roundward on
their axes followed, and gravity was coeval in its birth
with equilibriuzm and motion.
It is quite a common interpretation to suppose the
sun and moon were made on the fourth Mosaic day.
We have never found the fact stated, either in the
Bible or in the original, and hence, we must suppose
they were not. And if they had been so named, by a
little reflection it will be seen, that the " greater luminary," as the sun, does not rule the day, because there
is star-light and reflected light, which aid to make up,
with the sun-light, the greater luminary; while, for a
still stronger reason, the moon does not rule the night,
for there are times when it is not visible at all, as a
lesser luminary. The greater luminary is the combined
light of the sun, stars, and reflected light from other
heavenly bodies, to produce the sum total of light.
And the lesser luminary is the same light at night,
with lesser intensity, because of the absence of the
sun.
The work of the fifth day was in character, by
creative fiat, and by fiat combinations —the first, the
creating of animal life, and the second the making




TIIE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.   105
archetype forms of fishes, aquatic animals, and fowls
of the air.
The work of the sixth day consisted, in like manner,
of two kinds of fiat introductions — the archetype
forms of the remaining animals, cattle and creeping
thing, and the crowning act of the creative energy,
the creating of immortal life in man.
The work was finished on the seventh day, and God
ceased to do more, in creating and making; and hence,
we infer, that no new creations have been made since
that time, which corresponds with all history, and
scientific deductions, reasoning from a complete equilibrated system.
The engraving on page 107, is designed to illustrate
the six days' work, and the kind of work done in each.
From every one, run the parallel shaded lines to the
bottom of the page, which may be supposed to represent lines of existences, commencing at their day of
creation, and continuing down to the present time.
Each may be assumed as any one entity, which is
reproduced, or is reproducing itself by natural laws.
They begin with space, matter, and light, each of the
elements of which have continued the same to the
present day, and hence the right lines representing




106      THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
them. The second day is the minerals and vegetables,
which commenced and have continued in lines of
reproduction since, and so on, till the entire six days'
work started in equilibrium on the seventh day. This
has, we think, continued unchanged in the lapse of
time since the Mosaic creation, no matter by what
chronology that event may be measured as having
happened in the past.
And the relations between these various lines, the
one with the other, seem to be a demonstration in themselves, that these mutual dependencies have never been
changed. Hence the theorist, who grounds his dreams
upon such changes, nay, total obliteration of them,
time and again, simply to give force to the anti-Biblical
Christian faith, that the fossil is a sole exception to fiat
law, certainly must, in all honesty, acknowledge that the
parallel lines displayed on the next page, are stubborn
and wilful witnesses against him. Let him move them
if he can, or let him arrest their onward course in
nature; when he can do either, then let him pronounce
the geologic faith founded in an exception, superior to
the Biblical Christian faith, founded in the rule of fiat
law, and upon the unyielding parallel lines which he
can now see before him.




THE MOSAIC CREATION.,,.L
Present Lines of Existences.








THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.    109
We have thus given a reading of the Mosaic account
found inside -not outside of the record. There are
numerous comments on this narrative, and we may be
wrong in some of our exegeses, but they have been
carefully considered, and we think they will stand the
test of the severest science, philology, and theology.
A more detailed elaboration is given in another work,
where fuller explanations of our positions will be
found.
In examining the account simply as an hypothesis
of a creation, there are two elements which are most
prominent to the reader, " time" and "order."  It
would be as absurd, regarding the philological truth
of the narrative, to call the work done in the sixth
day, that which was done in the first, as it would be to
make any similar substitution of the work done at one
portion of the account, for that recorded to have been
done at another - or to change in the slightest degree
the order of introduction of the elements as stated
therein.
Hence any hypothesis (whether it be true or not)
which changes the order of the introduction of any
one of these elements, is a new and distinct hypothesis
from this, and can have no allegiance to the Mosaic,
and if its advocates claim its truth, and urge its recep-,




110       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
tion, they, in the same breath, declare the truth of the
one and the falsity of the other. There is no relief
to be obtained from this cardinal principle, and, however much men may have deceived themselves, by
allowing their judgments to be warped in entertaining
such doctrines, the fault does not lie in the principle
itself, but in the carelessness with which such indiscretions are committed touching what the world receive
as the inspired word of God.
What, then, do we find to be the "time" of this
account? or, is its time named at all?  "In beginning" is the first of the time of the work in which
"God created the heaven and the earth." Will any
one deny, seriously, that this was the beginning? But
more than this, had this earth, or the universe of matter, or whatever may be comprehended by the term
"earth," been combined as a whole, revolving or stationary, as denoted by this term? Would the prophet
emphatically declare that which c" had form" to be without
form? Where is that man of letters, who, in the carelessness of construction, will unwittingly crowd back
upon God, the words of his prophet, and hold that
"earth," whatever was meant by it, had form.
Let the philologist be candid and true to himself,
aid, if he will ignore the Mosaic record, then be bold




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.     111
and say the " earth," at this epoch, had form, or what
is tantamount to the same thing, that no record of the
formation of the earth (meaning this planet) is given,
except it be found in the above expression. Whereas,
we think the truth of this expression may be acknowledged, in the well-established scientific synthesis, that
all matter must have been made at first in primordial
particles, and subsequently combined, as is recorded in
the second, third, fifth, and sixth days' work.
The entire work of the first day, including the
making of combined light, must have been performed
simultaneously at the dawn of the first day.  Its
account could then be read understandingly, if it
ran thus: "In beginning, which was at the dawn of
the first day, God created the space and matter, in
primordial elements, and made light for the universe."
In a synthetical point of view what would of necessity follow the introduction of the elements to which
we refer, and which were "without form," and the
place of their combination was a " void," or a "vacuum," or simply "space?"
In running down this channel of creation, the mind
instinctively calls for the " forms" of things, or combinations of those elements already made, which had no
form. As a stepping-stone to that result, science re



112      THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
quires the making complete those substances which
are necessary to make subsequent combinations. Hence
the necessity of the second day's work, before the completion of all forms of matter in Nature (except animal life and man) which constituted the third day's
work, pure air and pure water. Analytical chemistry
develops the fact, as we have before stated, that these
are necessary, singly or together, to constitute most
forms of matter when aggregated of primordial elements.
The use of these agents in making the "dry land
appear," as the account states, is well known to every
scientific man, and especially to the synthetical chemist. To whom did these combinations appear? Not
to man or to animal, but to God. "Let the dry land
appear," was his command, and from all we can discern
was directed alone to the primordial elements composing " dry land," to take their places in combination in
the various forms of the mineral kingdom.
We invite the special attention of the friends of the
theories of Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Pye Smith, and in truth
the long line of reconcilists of geologic theories with
the Mosaic account, who have taken written ground on
that subject, to the fair consideration of the expression
which we have just quoted, "Let the dry land appear."




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.    113
In viewing this mnatter with candor, it has occurred (as
a means of testing the influence of geological discoveries, as they are termed, in warping and distorting
the statement of plain facts contained in the Mosaic
account) to ask this question: "If the original facts of
the fossil minerals had never been discovered, what
would be the construction placed upon this expression (we do not speak now of the inferences drawn
from these facts, but simply of the facts themselves as
entities)? and how would the work of the first three
days have been explained?" The difference between
the true answers to these questions and those dictated
by their theories, will show how far the true philological interpretation of the word has been swayed by the
latter suppositions.
The question, then, naturally arises, " Did the dry land
appear for the first time, as stated by Moses? or had it
appeared before to God, as stated by Dr. Chalmers, Dr.
Pye Smith, and others?" If it had appeared before, as
they state, the Mosaic account is untrue in inference
and plain philological construction.
Mr. Hugh Miller gives, in a very condensed form,
the theory of Dr. Chalmers, which is more universally
adopted by the theological geologists than any other.
"It teaches, and teaches truly," he says, "that between
8




114       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
the first act of creation, which evoked out of the previous nothing the matter of the heavens and the earth,
and the first act of the first day's work recorded in
Genesis, periods of vast duration may have intervened;
but further, it insists that the days themselves were
but natural days of twenty-four hours each; and that,
ere they began, the earth, though mayhap in the previous period a fair residence of life, had become void
and formless; and the sun, and moon, and stars, though
mayhap they had before given light, had been, at least
in relation to our planet, temporarily extinguished."
This is Dr. Chalmers's theory in 1814; and, as Mr.
Miller truly remarks, "the scheme of reconciliation,
perfectly adequate in 1814, was proved in 1839 no
longer so." And he further adds, in respect to that of
Dr. Pye -Smith, "It virtually removes Scripture out of the
field. I must confess, however, that on this and some
other accounts, it has failed to satisfy me." Hence the
Miller hypothesis, which we will consider hereafter.
This is chopping up Scripture in a way which we
most decidedly protest against; and, in the mile, it is
difficult to tell, from the accounts of the contestants,
which receive the severest wounds, the assailants or
the assailed.
As the "reconciliations" of the learned divines are




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.     115
often quoted as valid, let us glance for a moment at
the elements of this Mosaic and geologic theology. If
the rule of evidence which is applied to an ordinary
witness, in a common court of justice, be applied to
the great witness who gave to the world his testimony
about the creation, we should expect to find in that
account, not only the truth, but the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If, then, we should expect to find the
whole truth respecting a creation, would that account be
partial? Would that account state that light was made
on the first day, when it had existed chiliads of years,
if not an eternity before? Would the witness state
that all things were mnade in six days, when only a
portion were so made? In short, would he give an
account out of which by no possible means could be
wrenched the truth till other and then unborn witnesses should spring up, each in his turn contradicting his
neighbor, and each in his turn insisting that the other
" virtually removes Scripture out of the field"?
Then to which one of these eminent geologists are we
to turn for the truth, if there be truth in their interpretation of the elements of rock-formations, upon which
to frame an hypothesis of a creation?  If we had assigned us the task to show the inconsistencies of each,
we fear the reader would tire; we certainly should.




116       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
But, as the whole question of conflict between geologic theories and Scripture turns upon one single point,
whatever may be the detailed views of each practitioner in the fossil art, it will not affect the one idea
which is common to all.
The coincident element which they claim is, that the
pre-Adamite fossils were all preceded by vegetable and animal
life. They also claim the same with respect to postAdamite fossils, and in this latter all agree. But if the
pre-Adamite fossils were all preceded by vegetable and
animal life, there is a clear and distinct conflict in
terms between any dogma, which claims this to be
true, and the Scriptures. For, on the ground stated
before of the witness, if he states the truth, he must
likewise state the whole truth; and if he has stated
the whole truth, and said nothing of previous creations, he has not told the whole truth; and if he has
stated nothing but the truth, he has certainly not told
the truth when he reiterates in the fourth commandment that all things in heaven and earth were made in six
days.
Now, if the fossils, and fossiliferous and other rocks,
and their contents, were not made in six days, one or
the other of the two statements must of necessity be
quite imaginative, to use no harsher term.




THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.    117
This single point of difering faith-that is, whether
the pre-Adamite fossils were or were not preceded by
vegetable, and animal life —is the only difference between geologic and scriptural ground. While the geologist admits every other line of existence to have
started by a creative fiat, in completed form, without
parents, he denies that rule to the fossil kingdom.
There nay be grounds for such a supposition, and there
nay be sufficient reasons yet shown to prove the postulate; but we have looked in vain for them, and think
none have been or ever can be given. These learned
theologians have read the scriptural faith loosely at
best, and we are utterly at a loss to imagine whither
their acumen in philology could have betaken itself.
But if, on the other hand, theirfaith in the pre-Adamite
fossils having been preceded by vegetable and animal
life was superior to their faith in the statement of
Moses that everything in heaven and earth (which includes these fossils) was made in six days, the learned
divines had the right and it was their privilege to assert such faith; and that, too, with the boldness of a
Luther or a Calvin.
While, however, we admit their undoubted right to
enjoy their peculiar faith, we at the same time most
strenuously protest against the implied promulgated




118       THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION.
doctrine that flat denials of Christian and received
faith are religious coincidences. Nor can more be said
for such individuals than to find a charitable excuse
for them, based in the broad errors to which the human mind is naturally subject. In some instances,
they are the feeble, tremulous Christians who make it
a business to attempt to patch up the supposed deficiencies of the Bible by careful attention to what they
imagine its weaknesses. We are of opinion that no
ordinary attack upon the Word is worth noticing; but
when teachers turn traitors to their trusts (whether
through error in conclusion or not), and from this
cause the pulpit, instead of resounding with the harmonies of revelation, is made to ring with the deathknell of Holy Writ, it should startle into sublime action the dormant energies of those who can raise a
voice or wield a pen, to say, "Hold!"




CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH.       119
CHAPTER V.
CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH WITH SCIENCE AND THE
SCRIPTURES.
IF, on a full and fair investigation of the grounds
upon which the geologic faith rests, it shall be found
that there are more natural phenomena which can be
satisfied by giving'the pre-Adamite fossils the rank
which geologists claim for them as against the opposite ground, then it will be left for each individual to
say whether he will cast aside the Scriptures, alter the
fourth commandment, and change the substance of the
Bible thus far, or accept it as it is. It is a fact conceded by all scientific men, that the Mosaic account, if
assumed as true, satisfies all the phenomena of Nature,
while the geologic faith satisfies but few comparatively; and hence, in a scientific point of view, independent of Divine revelation, is the superior hypothesis:
for each hypothesis, judged on this ground, must be
referred to this one co-ordinate of truth.




120          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
The vast array of difficulties which even a geologist
himself finds in closing up any conceivable rational
hypothesis, are counted in great numbers, even in any
one stratified rock and its contents. But when the
rules of settled science assume the task, it is utterly
hopeless even to make a starting-point. For the simplest understanding of philosophical principles teaches
that you must have an equilibrium  in Nature at all
times. Hence, if you start your geologic formations
in fusion, in solution, or from one kind of rock-formation, it will be seen at once that if such a state in Nature was in equilibrium, the next was not; and therefore a new set of natural laws is required to operate it.
But all these points have been fully discussed in
another work, and need not be here repeated, except
in a condensed form. Nevertheless we reassert, as we
did there assert, that the reasons which have been thus
far adduced to support the geologic faith (that all preAdamite fossils were preceded by vegetable and animal life) are false to all equilibrialted science:First. Because they require, as necessary to support
that faith, the free action in igneous fuidity of matter,
previous to the making of ALL first forms in Nature,
which involves the absence of existing affinities and
qualities of matter, and an equal degree of fusibility




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.       121
of all known substances, which is absurd, since all the
metals (except, possibly, platinum) and minerals are
destroyed at a temperature which will melt granite
rock.
Second. They claim, also, as necessary, a succession
in forms of matter, which now have mnztal dependencies,
and hence this entire range of'dependencies and affinities must have been changed (which may be regarded
as an absurdity in an all-wise design), upon the introduction of each successive set of completed forms.
Third. As a result of such claim, the relations between organic and inorganic matter, in the successive
geologic ages, must, of necessity, have been changed
upon the introduction of a new series, and hence involves, at each, the reorganization of previous natural
laws — because the inorganic elements, which now
support the organic, are not common to each geologic
age in which the organic is claimed to have existed..Fourth. And further, the existing intimate relations
between the mineral kingdom and organic nature, in
administering to the wants of the latter, is 2made operatie through the combined agency of all rock-formations
and thze rains. It is a well-known fact, that all plants,
animals, and man, would cease to exist, but for this relation, and the means to support it. The manner in




122          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
which this relation is kept up is apparent, since the
rains percolate the fissures of the rocks, and pick out
the mineral matter required; and differences of levels
made by the mountains and irregularities of the surface of the earth, enable these waters, thus burdened
for distribution where necessity requires, to follow
down their paths, till they at last arrive at the ocean,
whence they are again evaporated, and again sent to
perform the duty assigned them. Hence, if the preAdamite fossils were preceded by ife, it will become
necessary, as a consequence, for those holding that
faith, to show by what means that pre-Adamite life
was fed and sustained without these sedimentary rocks,
and the present order of rock-formations.
_Fiftkh. As to the mode of natural action required at
first to compose the so-called sedimentary rocks, three
agents are assumed as directly engaged to bring about
the result.  First, the granite rock proper; second,
chemical agency; and third, water. Like causes produce
like results. Hence, the same three causes being engaged, the varied results said to be obtained, require a
fundamental change in the laws of nature at the commencement of any new deposit, or widely-differing
result; so that, in completing the scale of the sedimental rocks, the laws of nature, whatever they may




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.      123
have been, required a fundamental change at each
step, till existing laws were established. Science, as
received, knows of no such irregularities, and until the
geologist shall be able to show, that like causes in
nature produce difering results, he will fail to get the
true men of science to subscribe to his pre-Adamite
fossil faith.
Sixth. The granite rock is assumed, on the strength
of this faith, to have been the original holder and
mother of all stubstances which are now found over
it, and composing the so-called sedimentary rocks.
Hence when, as we do find in these latter rocks, substances which can not be found in the granite, nor anything allied to those therein found - but which, on the
contrary, by all known laws, could not claim  their
parentage in that source- it becomes a matter of
grave speculation with the geologist, in order, as is
now admitted by many, to reconcile such phenomena
with the pre-existence of life to the pre-Adamite
fossils.
In truth, we might go on citing the contradictions
to known laws of nature, till the reader, and certainly
the most zealous geologist would be wearied with the
list; and while this is so, such is the frame of the
human mind for novelty and mystery combined, that




124         CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
these stories, wrought out entirely in the imagination,
are readily assumed as a superior faith to that which
requires no contradiction.  So that, instead of the
geologic faith being, founded in data, which prove
themselves, they confound the faith upon which they
are based, and prove the condition which must have
ushered into existence the pre-Adamite fossils, as well as
the rocks which contain them. For as far as our limited
analogical reasoning goes on such abstractions, of which
nothing can, of course, be positively known, if we set
aside revealed truth, we can discover no more mystery
in making a fossil without a parent, than a crystal, a
vegetable, or an animal. But all men are not alike;
for some will say -"God would not thus deceive
man;" while others would say —"Such a deceptive
history of the earth is inconsistent with the divine
character." To all such reasoning but little need be
said, for God is probably as well informed why he has
chosen to make the world as it is, as they are why he
did not. The deception, if any, lies with the reader
of his natural theology.
The true analogical theologian, or man of science,
would be most heartily deceived, however, if he found,
as is true, that all archetype forms were admitted to
the rank of creative fiat law, and one line of exist



WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.      125
ence was excepted without a reason. If he found in
nature two things lying along side of each other, of
the same composition, and only of different forms, the
one admitted to the fiat law, and the other rejected,
simply on assumption of him who had no grounds to
advance to prove the differing origin, the logician, the
theologian, the naturalist, and the man of science
would be still more heartily deceived.
If he were a geologist, he might not see the deception; but if he was not, and read from nature and
Moses, the exception would be an adverse fact which
would destroy all analogies.
But leaving this branch of the subject, let us turn to
the Mosaic account; and whatever may be the conflicts in the field which we leave, there are not so
many, but yet more glaring ones, in that into which
we are about to enter. Leaving behind all questions
of faith and things which are based upon it, as well as
all questions collaterally growing out of "Which is the
true faith?" as supported by the greatest number of
natural phenomena, we will proceed directly to the
main points of conflict between the geologic theories
of creation and the Mosaic record, elaborated and reiterated by the fourth commandment, which we regard as the basis of truth on which the Bible rests.




126          CONFLICTS OF GEOLi01,C FAITH
If these pillars, of an ancient and heretofore well-received work, are to be supplanted, by what may be
termed a superior faith in the pre-existence of life to
the pre-Adamite fossils, let us at best, before proceeding to the demolition, ascertain of what kind of metal
or material the structure is, which we are about to disintegrate and overthrow; or whether the fair fabric,
so beautiful in its architectural proportions now, will
be a unit by the substitution proposed.
There is, however, one point about which we hold
ourselves responsible - and it is a responsibility which
we will never evade - it is this: that if the pre-Adamite
fossils were preceded by vegetable and animal life, then the
Mosaic account, the fourth commandment, and the Biblical
dependencies upon them, are unmworthy of consideration, and
are of necessity untrue as the foundation of Biblical and
Christian faith.
This conclusion is not assumed —it can be proven
by the conflicts between the two, not only in natural
but revealed theology; and hence the broad charge
thatfaith based upon life in the pre-Adamite fossils is a
fat denial of the truth of the Scriptures.
Hence the following charges and specifications
against this geologic faith, because of these conflicts
and its being founded on an exception to fiat law:



WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.         127
CHARGE THE FIRST.
A denial of the truth of the Mosaic account of creation, the
fourth commandment, and the Scriptural dependencies thereon.
SPECIFICATION FIRST.
In this, that the first chapter of Genesis relates the
order in which all things were made, extending to six
days' work. Gen. ii, 2, tells that the work was made
not only in six days, but finished; that is, no more was
performed than was done in those six days. Exodus
xx, 11, relates, not only that the creation was performed in six natural days, such as the children of Israel
were enjoying at that time, but that all things in the
heaven, earth, and sea, nothing excepted, were made in
six days. Hence, if the pre-Adamite fossils and the
rocks which contain them were not made in those six
days (and they could not have been so made if organic
life had preceded them), then the Mosaic account, the
fourth commandment, and the Scriptural dependencies
thereon, are false and utterly unworthy of being received as the basis of a true faith.
SPECIFICATION SECOND.
In this, that the geologic faith claims an igneous
condition at first of all the matter of this earth as es



128          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
sential to its truth, and as essential as its foundation.
If that condition be essential as the main element in a
creation as stated, any account of a creation, to be
true, must state this beginning as essential.  Hence, the
Mosaic account, which gives no such idea either by
inference or otherwise, is at fault, and may be set aside
as wholly imperfect, if this point of the geologic faith
be true.
SPECIFICATION THIRD.
In this, that the geologic faith claims, as essential to
the making of existing forms in nature, not only a previous igneous condition of matter, but that this matter
should afterward cool to make the 1" dry land."  If this
heating and cooling process is essential in a creation,
then any account which fails to narrate such an essential element is untrue as a complete account, and
should be disregarded.
SPECIFICATION FOURTH.
In this, that the geologic faith claims in pointed terms,
and it is its most salient feature, that earth, air, water,
and light, were made, and were active on this planet,
myriads of years anterior to the date of the Mosaic
narrative; while the Scriptures assert, in unequivocal
terms, that all things were made in six days.  Hence, if




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.        129
the geologic faith be true, the Scriptures, which state
diametrically the reverse, are false -false in directly
stated facts, and false as a whole.
SPECIFICATION FIFTH.
In this, that the geologic faith asserts as true, that
animal life preceded the present vegetable kingdom
on earth; whereas, the Mosaic account states in distinct terms the reverse —that the present vegetable
kingdom was made complete two days before animal
life was created. Hence, if the geologic faith be true
in this respect, the Mosaic account is false in a direct
stated fact.
SPECIFICATION SIXTH.
In this, that the geologic faith, claims as essential to
its truth, the making of passive forms of the earth
from a common mother, the granite rock, by detrital
and water-wear, requiring millions of years for the
final completion in perfection of those entities. (These
passive forms are those which the geologists call fossils, sedimentary rocks, and their dependencies.) The
Mosaic account, on the other hand, states that these
completed forms came direct from the hand of God
within six natural days. Hence, if the geologic faith
be true in this respect, the Mosaic account is false
9




130         CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
in all the points above enumerated, and false as a
whole.
SPECIFICATION SEVENTH.
In this, that the geologic faith claims, as essential to
its truth, that many vegetable kingdoms have been
created, and have passed away chiliads of years before
the Mosaic epoch of creation. The Mosaic narrative,
on the other hand, states that the vegetable kingdom
was completed on the third creative day. Hence, if
the geologic faith is true, the Mosaic statement is false,
because the reverse is plainly set forth, and no stratagem of construction can make the two harmonize.
SPECIFICATION EIGHTH.
In this, that the geologic faith claims that animal
life was begun in a lower order of animals than now
exist, and in the deep mazes of the past, millions of
years before the date of the Mosaic narrative, and has
been gradually introduced by successive completed
creations, in completed forms, at distant and different
epochs from each other; that these completed creations have been swept away from some unknown
and unexplained cause, and successively new creations substituted in lieu thereof, till the present types
of animals and man, named in the Mosaic account,




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.        131
were produced.  The latter account, on the other
hand, claims no such commencement, no such additions, and no such destructions of life, but on the
contrary states, in plain, simple, and terse language,
that animal life was instituted on the fifth creative
day, and man was made on the sixth.  Hence, if the
geologic faith be true in these conclusions, the Mosaic
account is a huge fabric of deception, false in meaning,
false in spirit, and false in directly stated facts.
SPECIFICATION NINTH.
In this, that the geologic faith claims as essential to
the truth of its dogmas, that entire creations of plants
and animals combined have been made and swept
away, again and again, in order to arrange for archetypes of present organisms. Hence, if this was necessary to bring about existing results, it was an essential
element in the creation; and the failure of Moses to
state it in his account renders it, as a whole, entirely
untrue in meaning, and false as a perfect statement.
SPECIFICATION TENTH.
In this, that the geologic faith claims as essential to
its truth, that natural days, and hence, diurnal nzotions of
the heavenly bodies, existed millions of years before




132         CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
the date of the Mosaic account, and before the recorded
introduction stated therein of the archetypes of the
existing vegetable and animal kingdoms. The plain
and unequivocal statement in Genesis is the reverse;
that the vegetable kingdom was made in full fruitfulness and complete, the day before'diurnal motions of
this earth began, and that the animal kingdom was, in
like manner, introduced afer' they began; and hence,
if the geologic faith be'true, the Mosaic account in
this respect is false, because of directly conflicting
statements —false because of a conflict in every element respecting the dates and order of introduction
on earth of the archetypes of these kingdoms.
SPECIFICATION ELEVENTH.
In this, that the geologic faith claims, as essential to
its truth, that millions of Mosaic creative days, or
lights, were required to fit the earth as it was on the
sixth Mosaic day, or light. Thus, while the geologic
faith claims an indefinite and almost an innumerable
number of lights, the other records there were six only.
Hence, if the geologic faith be true as to the total time
required to make the earth and all on it, the Mosaic
is utterly untrue and false, because of a diametrically
opposite statement.




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.          133
SPECIFICATION TWELFTI.
In this, that the geologic faith requires, as essential
to its truth, the controlling element, that the sun, moon,
and stars, evolving their attributes of greater and
lesser lights, were in place and in mnotion, not only three
days or lights before the fourth Mosaic day, or light,
but chiliads, or an indefinite number of days or lights
before that date.  While the Mosaic account states
distinctly and clearly, that on the fourth day "God
made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day and the lesser light to rule the night;" and the
object of such establishment was declared to be, "to
divtide the dauy from the- night, and to be for sgqns and for
seasons, and for days and for years;" and the plain philological reading is, that here commenced the first days
thus established, and this fact, if not stated plainly
here, is directly so stated in the fourth commandment.
Hence, if the geologic faith be true, in this respect,
the Mosaic account is utterly false, and unworthy of
consideration, as the conflicting statements are too
plain and apparent to need comment.
SPECIFICATION THIRTEENTH.
In this, that the geologic faith requires, for its truth,
that rains had fallen during the entire period of the




134          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
existence of a pre-Adamite world, in order to evolve the
processes of feeding organic ferms as they are now carried forward; whereas, Scripture declares, Genesis ii. 5.
that it had not, at the date of the Mosaic account, rained
upon the earth. Hence, if the geologic faith be true, the
Bible is false, because of a conflict in a direct statedfact.
SPECIFICATION FOURTEENTH.
In this, that the geologic faith requires, as its great
unit, that creation was accomplished by two modes,
that of creative fiats and development; whereas, the
Biblical Christian faith, as a unit, claims creation to
have been the result of fiat law. Hence, if the one
be true, the other is false.
It is useless further to protract these specifications of
conflicts between the geologic faith, and the Mosaic
account and Scriptures. We might, however, add such
conflicts, extending to every element in the geologic as
compared with the Mosaic. Suffice it to say, that as
two distinct hypotheses of a creation, scient)ically viewed,
there are no two elements in common, except the introduction of man. And certainly it must have caused
a smile to pass over the face of any reconcilist, if he
were truly a scientific man, when he would read his
own labored argument.




WITHI SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.       135
We venture to say, there is not a scientific man 3
the land, whether he be a geologist or an anti-geologist,
who would assert, that any two hypotheses of f creation were the same, when elements essential to the
two, were at variance. These elements may have the
appearance of being the same in both, or may be
claimed as so nearly allied, the one to those of the
other, as to hope to make them the same; but all such
endeavors can not overcome a direct conflict in the
two differing elements.
If, then, there is one element in an hypothesis of a
creation not found or admissible in another, the two
h!ypotheses are diferent as a whole, and this principle will
not be disputed by any man of science. Nor can we
understand the idiosyncracies of the intellect, if it be
true to itself, which calmly asserts the fact of the
possibility of a reconciliation. Consequent upon the
geologic faith of previous life to the pre-Adamzite fossils, as
we have seen, are these numerous conflicts with the
Mosaic narrative. These conflicts will never be reconciled though they prove the groundwork of their faith.
Then, if the geologic faith be the superior faith, on a
full investigation of the subject, let the geologists, with
the aid of fossil light, reconstruct our present Bible
for themselves, and let the Mosaic and Christian Bible




136          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
stand as it is. For whatever may be the faith of the
unscientific, and those who take "c popular geology" for
a guide in faith, there will yet be a numerous class,
not only among the scientific, but tile learned in the
land, who would prefer the received Christian faith,
based on the present Bible.
The simple difference in faith between the two classes
will be this, which we have stated in substance before,
the geologist will believe that vegetable and animal life preceded
the pre-Adanite fossils, and hence a rejection of the
present Bible (for the Bible must be true as a whole,
or false as a whole); and the other class will receive
the Bible as it is, and will have faith that God could as
well make a fossil a completed fiat form without a parent,
as any other one line of existence; and hence, that
the pre-Adamite fossils were made as they are, without
having been preceded by "life."
To those energetic geologists and philologists who
wish to persuade themselves into a reconciliation of
these two antagonistic faiths, and who, for this purpose,
explain the Mosaic creative day as an indefinite period
of time, embracing any number of days, nights, mornings, and evenings-we will remark, if they were
schoolboys, and proposed in earnest to their teacher,
that they could prove the digit one was any other num



WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.        137
ber, or any number whatever, and any thing, we should
think the parallel an apt one. Let them read the
establishment of the luminaries in the fourth day, to
make days, years, &c., and let such philologists make a
new language, if they would wish to convey a new
idea from the transcript.
Nor would this simple element of arranging a meaning for the word daoy aid the recoicilist, since upon
such a supposition tIere would be but one element in
common between the geologic and Mosaic hypotheses -that of the introduction of man upon this planet.
This, according to the geologic hypothesis, is the last
introduction of distinct creations, and such is the statement in the Mosaic account. This would simply open
out the period for the introduction of each of the successive classes of work recorded to have been done in
the Mosaic, and would not at all aid in a reconciliation
of the introduction of successive, completed, and active
creations of combined animal and vegetable life, and of air,
water, and light, or any two of them.  The Mosaic states
the successive introduction of- first earth, or matter
without form and void, then light, then air and water, then
dry land, then the vegetable k'ingdomn in seed-bearing, then
motions of heavenly bodies to make days, years, &c.,
then the animal Ikingdom, then and finally man.




138          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
It requires no great mental exertion to see that the
geologic faith which calls for the reverse of this order
of introduction, or relative action, can not be reconciled to
the Mosaic account.  For combined creations with every
element in action except man are claimed, by the geologic faith, not only to have existed, but to have passed
away again and again, before the Mosaic-recorded creation began. And this faith is based upon the supposition that the pre-Adamnite fossils were preceded by
animal and vegetable life; for these fossils are the
only phenomena by which such conclusions are arrived at. It would then seem to be wasting words
to show that the conflict between the two hypotheses,
whatever may be the geologic as compared with the
Mosaic, if not the latter in exactness, is wholly irreconcilable, whatever may be the result, and whichever the
world may adopt as true or false.
It then would seem evident, that to settle upon a
faith respecting a creation (irrespective of revelation
and the received faith), it becomes necessary for each
hypothesis to prove its grounds, or at least so far, by
analogical reasoning, as to show a consistency in its conclusions. Now, there are other hypotheses of a creation
far less assailable, by analogical reasoning, than the
present geo6ogic, and yet not the Mosaic. The geo



WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.        139
logic fails upon its analogies, because it admits that
every form  in nature, except the fossil-mineral form,
was created by a fiat and without a parent. This may
be well; but when the exception is made, those of an
opposite faith want the argument to show why the
creative exception was made, in this particular instance,
as a ground for a new faith.
It is, of course, impossible for the geologist to prove
that the pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by either
vegetable or animal life, and hence they can never prove
what they denominate their science. And looking at
the one line of truth, and not to collaterals, the preAdamite fossils may, to the eye, present no more
proof of having been made by a creative fiat than the
first quartz-crystal, diamond, topaz, or tree or animal,
if the latter could have been preserved, like the former, imperishable. And on a fair review of the collaterals, on the supposition that the pre-Adamite fossils
have all been preceded by vegetable and animal life,
there arises a long line of impossibilities, improbabilities, violations of natural laws, diving mountains and
dancing uplands, aimless makings and destructions, all
teeming with Godly folly (if we call wisdom his present course), weakening reverence in the mind of an
analogical reasoner for such a reputed Maker.




140          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
We now come to charge the second, made against
the geologic faith, as a ground for its rejection and the
maintenance of the Biblical Christian faith.
CHARGE THE SECOND.
That while the geologic faith denies the only settled faith
in a creation which the civilized and Christian world have
adopted, it szpplies no consistent and connected hypothesis in
liezt thereof.
SPECIFICATION FIRST.
In this, that each geologist has a faith of his own;
and there are as many specifications, or deductions
from the assumed main faith of life having preceded
the pre-Adamite fossil as there are geologists. Hence,
if the assumption be true, every deduction from such
truth should be true also, and hence the same. But as
all geologists disagree in their deductions from the one
assumed truth, so far as their own evidence goes, it
proves there must be falsity in the assumed truth.
SPECIFICATION SECOND.
In this, that all hypotheses of a creation, or partial
hypotheses given to the world by geologists, are in
direct violation of natural laws, requiring states of this
earth never known to man, and the changing of natu



WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.       141
ral laws from time to time in the various ages of their
pre-Adamite world.
SPECIFICATION THIRD.
In this, that no geologist has given to the world an
hypothesis of a creation which satisfies every phenomenon in Nature, and hence can not be the true hypothesis, so far as it is now partially or wholly explained.
In respect to this charge, much might be said; but
for the present, we will only remark that the flat denials of the truth of the Bible by the geologic faith
renders it an important point for us to determine,
whether there is any more diffculfy in believing that
God made by fiat the pre-Adamite fossils (however
strange their forms and locations) than to believe that
this earth was once a ball of fire whirling through
space-a state only to be dreamed of, and a condition
of the earth or heavenly bodies entirely unknown to
man by a precedent!-or that the granite rock was
the natural mother and the waters the father of all
pre-Adamite fossils, metals, and minerals.
So far as our individual credulity can be taxed on
this point, we must acknowledge that some pre-Adamite fossils, said to be the representation of animals, may
at times confound us; but we know that God did make




142          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
the fossil at best, and hence could make by fiat law
the archetype without life. But, so far as the ball of
fire goes, or granite being the natural mother of all
things, we do not know that God ever made a like ball
of fire by any process, or constituted granite rock the
evolving power of material forms, or that he has ever
changed his natural laws; and hence we think it is
more reasonable and rational to believe that he has
made the pre-Adamite fossils as he made all other preAdamite forms, without parents, than that he has pursued the extraordinary and unknown course without a
precedent, to make the geologic faith true.
CHARGE THE THIRD.
That the geologic faith being untenable, either in science or
received Christian faith, its promulgation is vicious in its tendencies, and hurtful to the peace of minzd and comfort of
mankind.
SPECIFICATION FIRST.
In this, that the geologic faith strikes at the head of
Divine revelation and the foundation of Christian faith,
with the intended effect to overthrow both; and hence
intrenches the presumptive rights of many, robbing
them of their dearest and most cherished jewels, endeavoring to turn them to dross, and offering no equivalent in their stead.




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.       143
SPECIFICATION SECOND.
In this, that the geologic faith guides the minds of
the unscientific under the false colors of "science" (because geology can not prove its postulate that preAdamite fossils were preceded by vegetable and animal
life), by telling the apparent "truth" only, and not giving the whole truth, that each one may judge for himself;
thus disturbing faith, without rendering an equivalent
or even an approximate substitute, confusing without
setting in order, harming without redress, and finally
leaving the mind of the seeker after truth in a chaos
of violated natural laws, and (from a want possibly of
early opportunities of scientific education) totally helpless; and, unable to guide itself through such labyrinths of learning, it trusts its faith upon the reputation mayhap of men of known scientific standing, who
certify their conclusions as science without a word of
scientifc truth upon which to base their certificate.
We wish to be distinctly understood as to the basis
of our remarks respecting geology and geologists. To
that geology and those geologists who claim for their
new faith an independent ground from the Bible and
Christian faith, and so publicly avow it, we have nothing to say; for they have as good right to their fiiith,




144          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
right or wrong, as the Christian has to his, until otherwise convinced. We only speak of geology in the
abstract as untrue in science, and geologic faith as antagonistic to Bible and Christian faith. So that, if
there are some who like geology as a speculative
study, they have a right to such pursuit, until they
claim for it a seat among the sciences, which are common property to certain truth-holders, or to be Christian faith, the specific right of another class.
Faith in the truth of Scripture (and of necessity
that of Genesis, the fourth commandnent, and tlhe writings
of Moses) is the sole property of the believer. So, too,
is the peace of mind consequent upon its Maintenance,
or loss by its disturbance, the sole and rightful property of the possessor. To invade this property by vagaries and falsities, to deny the truth of Scripture through
misnamed and baseless science, to derange the peace
of mind of those who have faith, by disturbing its foundation with false calumnies, is what in all well-regulated and equilibriated rights between man and man
has its well-known and well-defined term.
The slanderer who hurls his well-aimed shaft at the
spotless character of a helpless female-inflicting a
wound which no power on earth can heal, or restore
the lost peace of mind either of the parent or the suf



WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.       145
ferer-commits an offence which is akin to the harm
and wrong done to those who cherish a true faith, by
attacks of men of known reputed true science, carrying
that reputation upon their barbed arrows as enteringwedges for their shafts of geologic false science. Nor can
their position be any more charitably regarded than
that of the slanderer, while they persist in the invasion
of those sacred rights of others, until they can prove
what they assert is the foundation-stone of their
charges against the scriptural faith. When they can
show that the pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by
vegetable and animal life, then scientific men may
call "a science," based upon this fact, a truthful science;
and its name may carry its own weight with it. But
he who calls a supposition or an assumption like this, a
science or a truth, is doing as much to inflict a wrong
upon those who look at that name as truth, without being able to prove the reverse or even the fact, is in
every way dealing with as helpless an individual as
the stalwart slanderer does when he attacks powerless
innocence.
Let the slanderer prove his charge, and his fellowmen will measurably forgive his indiscretion. Let the
geologist prove his postulate of vegetable and animal
life preceding the pre-Adamite fossils, and a much
10




146         CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
larger apology will be found for him. Every man well
knows that no such proof can be made; and hence,
what is the conclusion, so far as it affects the geologist?
Those who have no reputation as scientific and Christian men to lose, may assert, may declare, may assume, may
argue, that the pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by
vegetable and animal life, which they well know they can
not prove; but to those scientific and Christian men who
possibly kneel weekly if not daily before the shrine
which their pre-Adamite geology stultbfies, denies, and if
succcessful completely overthrows, they are left to the choice
offaith in their own hearts: yet not without blame are
they left to assert as science or truth that which they can
not prove, or rob and plunder by means of such assertions that from those less gifted, which they can not
restore in kind, or in any possible way rebuild the fabric which they so ruthlessly destroy.
The earliest offence chastised for at the schoolroom,
as most individuals are aware, is the childish falsehood.
To such an amazing extent is this principle of truth
instilled into the minds of the youth, that a misnomer
is often the subject of severe chastisement there, and
a superior repetition by the parent at home. In truth,
it may be said that no one principle receives as much
attention, either in the primary education or in the




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.      147
family circle as that of cultivating a reverence for
truth, and calling things by their right names. A
false impression may be as easily gained by a false
name as by a long story told to convey the same idea
as a whole. It matters not how the idea is conveyed,
whether by signs or language, whether prolix or brief;
the falsity consists in the wrong impression conveyed.
What, then, may be said of the older children who
deal in geologic assertions and general geologic terms or
nomenclature? For, so far as the principle of strict truth
goes, we can not see that the older, geologic children
should be governed by a less stringent rule on this
cherished cardinal than the lisping schoolboy. Now,
for an illustration, let us suppose that the boy was a
geologist, and by dint of his research in a neighboring
field to the schoolhouse he had seen in a rock the form
of some portion of a fossil, which, from his knowledge
of anatomy, he ascertained to be the tooth of the megatherium, and by his acquirements in comparative
anatomy (this being the law by which the fossil kingdom is read) he could in his own fancy reconstruct
the imaginary animal, if it had or had not lived to his
knowledge.
He returns to the school, collects his fellow-pupils
around him, and in true geologic language begins to




148        CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
tell the story of what he has seen in the field a little
over the hill, just out of sight. He expatiates upon
the enormous size of the animal, his habits of life, his
claw-armed toes more than two feet in length, his ponderous skull, and finally finishes the scene by drawing
the outlines of a huge monster upon the long side'of
the house, to the great fright of the young ones, who
peep over in the direction of the supposed monster,
and shudder lest they should see him rise up over the
hill, to devour them in a twinkling.
It is plain to see the hidden power which such a
story would have upon such an audience, when the
speaker in whom they have confidence was the narator.
The impression upon their minds would be nothing in
comparison if the boy had told the truth, and nothing but
the truth. If he had said, as was trute, that he had found
a piece of rock, which had the form of the tooth of the
megatherium, but that no other thing was found in
that place, and that some people thought that because
this stone had been thus found, there once lived on
earth an unknown animal which, for want of a better
name, was called a megatherium-do you think the
little creatures, on such a statement of facts, would
have been shy of the spot where the schoolboy geologist had declared the animal was?




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.      149
But what would have been the fate of that poor
geologic boy in those days of teaching and instilling
of truth, and the communication of it to others, when
it should have been announced to the teacher the
huge deception which this boy had practised upon the
school, frightening half of them to that extent that
they were afraid to go to their homes alone, and the
remainder that they would not come again without
a parental escort? It is plain to tell that he would
have been first beautifully " dressed down" by the
school-teacher, and on his arrival home would have
had the castigation probably repeated, with additions
for telling an outrageous falsehood, and also'for the
harm done to the school in disturbing the peace of
mind of the young pupils by false relations of what he
claimed as truth.
We know of no rule which would make an exception
with the full-grown geologist, when he tells his hearers
of oceans, mountains, upheavals, and distortions in
nature, and talks of animals and creatures which have
existed and passed away, on grounds no less frail than
those of the schoolboy.
Geologists, apparently forgetting all philological
rules, and dealing in terms at best false in themselves,
speak of these assertions as facts, never thinking to




150          CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
call things by their proper names. They call stones
animals, or bones, or living creatures, or anything they
choose; and those who do not stop to reflect, like the
school-children,.assume the fictitious facts stated as
truths, because of the confidence they repose in the
speaker.
Change the nomenclature of geology and all its
essence is gone —hence it is plain to see in what its
essence consists. Tell the plain, simple, naked truth,
and nothing but the truth, and what is known as truth
of the formations of the earth, and no one can object
to such doctrines, or the conclusions drawn from these
data. Let the non-geologist have a description of the
stones found, which are claimed as animals, their size,
shape, color, composition, location where found, the
state in which they are found, and all such particulars,
and let the conclusions be fairly drawn by each observer, and then let the whole truth respecting the
probable origin of all first or pre-Adamite forms accompany the description. In other words, let the
whole truth be told, and geology will take that rank
which truth will assign it.
It would certainly be superfluous, in all seriousness,
for the advocates of the scriptural Christain faith to
admit as coincident, or even as approximately so, the




WITH SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.       151
geologic faith respecting the manner, date, and order
of introduction of material first forms upon this
planet, as a starting point, whereon not only to base
a reconciliation, but as an endeavor to prove the great
narrated truth heading divine revelation. And although many able minds have not only seriously considered that the two might stand together on the same
platform of truth, but have openly avowed the same
in labored arguments; nevertheless, we think those
positions have been taken by many who have endeavored to shield the scriptures from what they have supposed to be true science, instead of examining whether
the so-called science itself was true.
They have been led insensibly to assume the starting
point, namely, that the pre-Adamite fossils were an
exception in introduction of first forms, and were, in all
instances, preceded by vegetable and animal life.
This being assumnzed as true, the Bible account necessarily falls, as we have seen, by the numerous conflicts
and contradictions in direct stated facts.
We understand the Christian and scriptural faith to
be founded upon the general supposition, that the
Bible is true in its statements, and especially so in its
recorded manner of the introduction of entities, as
bearing directly and necessarily upon man's condition




152         CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH
on earth, and as a proof of the power and attributes
of the Creator. The statement, then, if true, must be
a unit in itself, not only true as a whole, but true in
all its statements, as parts of the whole. We need
not apply this rule alone to statements in the Bible,
but we can refer it to every day experience. If we
meet with a man who tells an open falsehood, and we
detect him in it, his credit as a man of truth is lost,
and no matter what other statements he may make,
they will be received with distrust.
Let the world gain the idea that one positive tdrtdth
is fastened upon the divine word, and the consequence
will be, almost universal infidelity.  The scriptural
and Christian faith demands a belief in the truth of
revelation, not only as a whole, but in every recorded
fact. It demands that the plain facts stated in scripture should be received as true upon the face of the
language used, even in allegory or parable.  The
stated facts must be true, or possible, whatever may
be their direct or indirect application.
So that, if the creation be spoken of as having taken
place in six days by Moses in Genesis, and by him
again referred to in Exodus, where he not only says
that the heaven and the earth were made in six days,
but all that therein is, we must assume that to be true.




WITHI SCIENCE AND SCRIPTURE.      153
This statement in the fourth commandment has
been received by Jew and Gentile, by Christian and
Israelite, as true. True as to the kind of day, as to
the number of the days, as well as to the work done.
If we are at liberty, as being convenient to suit our
special creed, or particular fancy, to alter and amend the
word six and substitute ten, one hundred, one thousand,
or any other number, we should be equally at liberty
to alter and amend days, and substitute years, millions
of years, or chiliads of years, or periods of time defin
ite or indefinite; or, instead of saying the " Lord
made," say the Lord did not make, and, in truth, make
any statement, however untrue and at variance with
the recorded word.
It is strange how sound intellects, if honest to them
selves, could for an instant maintain, that the days here
named were anything but days such as the Israelites
were enjoying, or that the number six was any other
number than six, or that the statement that all things,
nothing excepted, were made in these six days, were
any other than six natural days; or, that the geologic
faith, which requires the total annihilation of this portion of the fourth commandment, and other portions of
scripture, is coincident with the scriptural and Christian
faith, which is based upon the record as it stands.




154         CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC FAITH.
Let the geologist be true to himself, and firm to his
faith (if he finds ground for it), but let him be ashamed
of that servility, which compels him to resort to misnomers, miscounting, and misstatements, to curry favor
with any sect, or any other faith. Let him assert, and
show his grounds for that assertion, and plant himself
firmly on his belief, that pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by vegetable and animal life, in direct opposition
to the scriptural and Christian faith that they were not,
and the geologist has a free field, and a fair start, unencumbered by any other faith, to make his the shining
light, if he can prove the foundation of his faith to be
true, that vegetable and animal life did precede the
pre-Adamite fossils.




EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.    155
CHAPTER VI.
EXPUNGING THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF CREATION, AND THE
SUBSTITUTION OF THE GEOLOGICAL, BY HUGH MILLER.
IT is generally conceded, that no man who has written the English language, in the present age, possessed
that elegant control of words, and been able to combine them in such fascinating sentences, as the distinguished Hugh Miller. Though he has gone from the
theatre of action on earth, his mind's efforts are in
active exercise throughout the land, producing a deep
and lasting effect.
To eulogize his style, his composition, the sweet
simplicity of manner to his reader and his works generally, is the spontaneous effort of every sympathizing
mind, and should be that of every ingenuous heart.
It should, in like manner, be the duty of every Christian pen to denounce, in unmeasured terms, his attacks
upon the Bible, and his frenzied attempt to blast the
truth of the Mosaic narrative of creation, and pre



1]56    EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.
sumptuously propose its elimination in substance, and
the substitution, in lieu thereof, his particular theory.
Such, however, is his power and control over words,
and such his skill in their use, that while he apparently
supports the scriptures, he, nevertheless, denounces
them, and that, too, in a way calculated to produce
the greatest amount of harm. His own words, when
closely analyzed, will undoubtedly bear us out in this
position; an! whatever may have been the state of
mind which conduced to this result -the result alone
is what we are bound to consider, and not the cause.
Mr. Miller's first efforts in geology were mainly
directed toward developing the surface fossils found in
his Scottish rambles. His "Old Red Sandstone," and
"Footprints," abound in beautiful and accurate descriptions of members of the fossil kingdom; and from
the entire oneness of purpose which characterized his
researches, we see no evidence, upon the face of the
works themselves, which indicate that the thought of
classifying fossils into pre-Adamite archetype forms
and post-Adamite fossils ever occurred to him. We
hear him, however, tell of his laying open a nodule (a
loose rolling stone) with a single blow of the halmmer, and peering at the entombed work of the Creator.
And with a positiveness that is truly amusing to a




EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.    157
candid mind, he asserts that this was the representation
of the form of' a plant, or an animal, which lived in a
certain geologic age. "How do you know," says the
more analogical mind, "that God did not make the
enclosed fossil, as well as the material, or even the
nodule, a fiat form, without a parent?" For it is certain he made the nodule at some time complete, and
without a precedent, and why not the fossil form,
which is only one element of the existence of the
nodule as a whole, as well?
" But," says Mr. Miller, " the fossils are so complete,
so accurate, so life-like, so true to the natural forms in
life, they must, of necessity, have patterned after life."
Did he ever ask himself who causes and makes the
fossil now?....And if God makes them now, and grows
them daily, who made the beginning of all things?....
Who made the rocks, and who makes them now? Is
a fossil form, per se, anything but a rock?
But blind to all analogical reasonings, he presses on
the exception to all rule in common with other geologists, that the fossil kingdom was ingrafted with parents, while all other first forms in nature started without, in a creative fiat. To a mind as needle-like as his,
more keen than able, the glaring inconsistency which
he displays in battling down the positions of develop



158     EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.
ment advanced by the author of the "Vestiges of
Creation," and showing most clearly, as he does, that
development of one form out of another was not the
order of creative wisdom, and that every line of exist.
ence started complete from the hand of the Creator;
he stultifies his own labored argument, by declaring in
his reasons, in substance, if not in words, that the fossil is an exception, and not his well-established rule.
Mr. Miller may have been ranked with the reconcilists, Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Pye Smith, until the appearance of his " Testimony of the Rocks." Here he
throws off all restraint, if not disguise, and boldly
asserts what other geologists substantially, but more
tamely and cautiously, have suggested, and which all,
in common, believe. He boldly asserts, there, that all
things in heaven and earth were not made in six days,
and calls upon his readers to disbelieve the Bible,
which asserts that doctrine. He insists, too, that the
word "day" used in the first sixth of the Mosaic narrative shall be eliminated, and the geologic term, "Azoic
period," substituted therefor. He insists that the word
"day" in the second sixth shall be stricken out, and
the high-sounding geologic term, " Silurian, or Old Red
Sandstone period," substituted therefor. For the word
"day" in the third sixth, he proposes the substitution




EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.    159
of "Carboniferous period." For the word "day" in
the fourth sixth, he calls upon his readers to substitute
the "Permian and Triassic period."  For the fifth sixth,
the "Oolitic and Cretaceous period."  And for the last
sixth, he proposes the " Tertiary period."
To those candid minds which look facts in the face,
and call things by their proper names, this is certainly
a most startling proposition, as coming from a man
who has such rank and standing in the world as a
Christian and religious author.  There has been no worse
book published against the authenticity and truth of
the Bible than his, and certainly none more destructive, in a fascinating way, to the inquiring mind after
truth; for, while he apparently gives credit to the writings of Moses, and upholds them ostensibly, it is evident that, like the skilful pugilist, he elevates the head
of his enemy, that he may deal him more powerful and
well-directed blows. It may be well for some geologists to assert the reconciling and Christian biblical
character of Hugh Miller, as an excuse for such a bold
attempt to submerge the Bible account of creation in
a maze* of geologic names and a fog of fossil forms;
yet the truth is just here and nowhere else, that he
has proposed to eliminate the Mosaic hypothesis (if
it may be called one), and substitute therefor his own.




160     EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.
It seems that this charge is well chosen and conclusively shown from his "Testimony of the Rocks;" and
however charitable may be his friends, or however
Christian may be his followers, he stands there branded
with as bold and reckless an attempt as was ever made
by man, to overthrow the authenticity of the Bible.
And, as we have before hinted, the cause which has
conduced to this result is not for us to handle: that
painful duty, if done at all, must be done by those who
had better opportunities than transatlantic critics for
observing his declining and last days.
But the work itself stands as a beacon-light to geology and geologists, at the head of a long line of beauty
and knowledge; and its damaging influence is just
equal, whatever may have been the circumstances or
condition of mind of its most talented and distinguished
author. It is the last thing we would do, to disturb
the peace of mind of his friends, near or distant; we
are, however, not dealing with the man, but with the
principles which he controverted. These principles
are the imperishable rights of the world, and, in their
defence by us, language may be used which possibly
seems severe; but let no one mistake this language
for the principles themselves.
What, then, are the grounds upon which these elimi



EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.    161
nations and substitutions are urged? Not upon the philological construction of the language used by the inspired author; not upon any grounds found within the
record itself; not upon other inspired writings as bearing directly in explanation; nor upon any historic or
monumental archives: but simply upon his own reading of certain forms in Nature, which convey, by reason of certain individual proclivities, certain supposed
truths.
For the sake of an illustration of this ground of
opinion, let us suppose that every tree that was ever
made, including those which sprang-from the hand of
the Creator by a first fiat, was still upon the earthhaving been, by some miraculous interference, preserved when they had arrived at complete forms; suppose that, in this state of things, Mr. Miller had wandered over hill and dale, to examine and determine
which trees were and which were not pre-Adamite?
in other words, which were the ones nlade by a fiat,
and which those grown from a seed? But let us make
the supposition a little more geological. Suppose that,
in places, he found a peculiar kind of tree, almost uniformly felled, with many others atop of it —sometimes
more kinds, sometimes fewer kinds, and sometimes none
-yet all perfect as when made or growing: what
]]




162     EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.
would be the conclusion respecting the origin of any
or all of them? or could he point out a tree made by
a jat, or one grown from the seed?
Mr. Miller, with his keenness of argument, would
say, and rightly too, that the tree which lay under fell
first (for it would be unreasonable to argue that they
were made in that position, since it is one not of natural growth, but of decay); and he might possibly, in
like manner as in his famous story of "Dobbin and
Jack," and the "top-upon-bottom order of things" in
the ditch, determine which fell first and which last.
But when the analogy runs into the fossil and rock
kingdom, that top-upon-bottom argument fails, because
the rocks and fossils are in their natural positions, and are
found just as they grow from day to day under our own observation.
"But," say Mr. Miller and his geologic friends, "in
the rock and fossil kingdoms we find twigs of trees
only, and parts of animals-a petrified shell here, or a
tooth there —and in every kind of rock different fos$ilated animals and plants. Why is this?" All we can
say is, that some soils produce oats, some rye, some
wheat; some one kind of tree, and some another;
some climates support one kind of animal, and some
another. We can not tell the reason why, though we




EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.    163
know the fact. We know the fact, too, that the fossil
kingdom is now going on in its formation by this fragmentary rule; and we are satisfied with this fact as it
stands, and do not call upon the Creator or our own
frailness for a reason.
But because Mr. Miller was not able to master a
reason for such (to him) a strange and deceptive
course of the Creator, he proposes, in common with
others, to strike out the Scriptures, and, if a Bible be
allowed, substitute his speculations for recorded truths.
Nor can we determine from his writings anything but
ridicule of the idea that God ever made a fossil form
by a fiat. He admits that fossils are made daily, as
trees, plants, shrubs, or animals, are grown; but denies
the probability that fossils could have had the same
origin in archetypes as these. Hence his faith that
pre-Adamite fossils were all preceded by vegetable or
animal life. Now, if Mr. Miller had pursued the course
of a truly scientific man, he would first have found it
necessary or convenient to prove his starlingzointd-the
foundation of his would-be science; that is, that God
could not and did not make the pre-Adamite fossils, or
the rocks which contain them, by a creative fiat. Nor,
so far as we are aware, has he ever attempted the
task; and while the Mosaic account and all its depen



164     EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.
dencies claim all things to have been made in six days,
it is truly amusing in one sense, and painful in another,
to see with what careless indifference that truth is ignored by the assumption of a foundation on which to
build his geologic framework and truly infidel structure.
So far as we can determine, the position of Mr. Miller is in some respects enigmatical. It is not to be
presumed that he so far underrated language as to
suppose he was upholding the Mosaic narrative when
he boldly and without the slightest reserve proposed
the striking out and substitution to which we have
referred; nor that a man of his deep reading and evident common sense could have supposed he was coinciding with Moses when he amplified upon the two
Records, " the Mosaic" and " the Geological," and the
"two Theologies." We may possibly explain the enig-.
ma by the curious position assumed by many geologists,
that while cutting and carving the Scriptures to suit
their science, they forget the fact that their assumption
is not true science. Mr. Miller, as well as other geologists, assert that the Scriptures can not be committed
to error by false science, and this we believe to be
true. Who, then, has the true science, he who can
not, or he who can, prove his postulate —not possibly




EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.    165
by tangible facts, but with such kinds of analogical
reasoning as all logicians admit to be proof?
What, then, the world has received for all time as
the biblical and Christian faith in a creation is not to
be overturned and destroyed by him who can not
prove the first article of a new and differing faith.
As a scientific and accurate reader, we fear Mr. Miller's reputation must suffer when it shall be known
that his knowledge of the Mosaic account, either in
the original or the English translation is at best quite
inaccurate, if not superficial. He labors through many
pages in his " Testimony" (under the head of the two
records, the Mosaic and the geological) to show that
Moses did not see, what he asserts in Genesis was an
act of the Creator about sixteen hundred years before
he was born; and bases his argument mainly upon appearances, which were deceptive. We give his language:
"Let me, however, pause for a moment to remark
the peculiar character of the language in which we are
first introduced in the Mosaic narrative to the heavenly bodies-' sun, moon, and stars.' The moon, though
absolutely one of the smallest lights of our system, is
described as secondary and subordinate to only its
greatest light, the sun. It is the apparent, then, and




166     EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.
not the actual, which we find in the passage-what
scemed to be, not what was; and as it was merely what
appeared to be greatest that was described to be greatest, on what grounds are we to hold that it may not
also have been what appeared at the time to be made,
that has been described as made?  The sun, moon, and
stars, may have been created long before, though it was not till
this fourth period of creation that they became visible from the
earth's surface."
This is his main ground respecting "appearances in
Mosaic vision," given to deny the record in another fact
as to the fourth day's work. If our distinguished author, who deals such heavy blows against the air, had
informed himself, he would have discovered that the
sun and moon are not even named either in the original or in the English Genesis. If they had been named,
as stated by Mr. Miller, and in the place stated, the
Mosaic account would have been akin to his own frail
science. The words are, "greater and lesser luminary."
For, as has been shown, the greater light or luminary
is the combined light of the sun and all other heavenly
bodies to rule the day; and the lesser luminary was
the combined light of the moon (when visible) and the
starlight. It would be as true as geological science, to
insert in the accurate Mosaic narrative, as Mr. Miller




EXPUNGING SCRIPTURE BY HUGH MILLER.     167
has done, the overshadowing error of "sun and moon,"
for the "greater and lesser lnzminary."
We will leave Mr. Miller and his reasonings, however, to the tender mercy of his admiring friends;
and, notwithstanding his terrible scientific and biblical
mistakes, he was the most elegant and impressive geologic writer of the, nineteenth century.




168        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
CHAPTER VII.
FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
THERE is no greater mystery, and when viewed in
the proper light no more mystery, surrounding the
existence of the fossil kingdom, in its multiform and
fragmentary lines, than there is in any other kingdom
to which we assign a more direct cause for its formation and usefulness. To our limited appreciation there
may be more reason in the bearings and uses of the
members of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, because we can see a more direct necessity which each
has to the whole. There is a mutual dependency, in
one sense, between the one and the other. The animal may not exist without the animal or the plant on
which it subsists, while yet there is another and
equally important dependence of both upon the strictly mineral.
While this dependence is admited by all, the manner in which it becomes manifest to us is not so plain.




FORIS IN TWUE FOSSIL KINGDOM.        169
The animal does not subsist on the plant proper, or
the mineral proper; nor does the vegetable consume
the mineral proper. The plant must be a completed
form, minus its vitality, before it can administer to the
growuth of the animal. In like manner, the animal must
be a completed form (in any assumed stage of completeness), minus its vitality, before it can be useful to
any other animal for food to produce growth, or support
life when grown. This is apparent without further illustration, and from which we deduce the following:That however, or from whatever source in nature the material be drawn which makes tup an entity, or completed result or
form, that result is an independent forn in the great catalogue
of LINES OF EXISTENCES.
It matters not what were its antecedents, or what its
parentage, or from what kingdoms it has drawn its
food, the result, when complete or partial, is a distinct
and independent form, and takes rank as one of the
great warp-threads of creation. Its size, its apparent
ulse, or its importance to us, is of no account in estimating reasons with Him who made all things. The
blade of grass which struggles for a scanty existence
on some barren heath, or the towering pine which
overlooks the forest - the scarcely visible insect which
feeds upon the apparently useless dust floating in the




170         FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
air, or s"the rich man clothed in purple and fine
linen, faring sumptuously every day"- the tiny pebble
which rolls its life away on some deserted coast, or the
proud rock-bound mountain of the tropics which rears
its head beyond the drifting snows, are each and all
of no less importance, as independent existences, than
is the Creator's etching on some slate rock, or a complete petrifaction, so called, of some huge, and to us,
unknown form of animal or plant.
All analogy in reasoning as to a creation fails, when
one line of existence, or one completed result in nature,
has a different origin assigned to it over any other, and
hence it becomes vital to show what is, and what is
not, a completed form, or, we might say, an independent form in Nature. We define it to be, that resulting
formn which has obtained an existence by the operation of the
active laws of nzature.
Thus we say a tree, or plant, or animal, is a completed result in any stage of its existence, while the
elements which compose either are not, because thecy will
lnot indepezdently grow and exist. The thigh bone of a
man may be an element in the completed result,
though we well know such an element can not grow,
or be made by any process in nature independent of
the man himself. Neither can the bark or leaf of a




FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.          171
tree grow independent of the tree. In like manner,
in the strickly mineral kingdom, the variety of crystalline forms show how many distinct results are found in
that department in nature. Each particular crystalline
form is a result of an active law in nature to produce
that result, and if the result be repeated, it will again
form after the pattern of the first of its kind.
So tyrannical and unvarying is the rule of repeating
forms in the crystalline kingdom, that corresponding
angles bounding the faces of the same kind of crystals
are identical. They also grow, by the mysterious connection of particles of matter with each other, and
form, by the same rules, to become completed results,
as do plants and animals, though by different natural
laws.
The question, then, which becomes of interest to us
is, are the forms in the fossil kingdomn compleled and independent results, and are thley governed by the samne laws in
forming as are all other independent resutlts in;natlure?
On the solution of this question, we think, mainly
depends the existence or annihilation of all argument
as to the condition of pre-Adamite fossils. For if it
can be shown that fossils, per se, are all of them, both
fragmentary and otherwise, independent reszt[ts, and that
all independents results are steps in lines of existences




172         FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
which started from the hand of the Creator by a fiat,
we show that the pre-Adamite fossils are bound by the
same rule, and hence were not preceded by animal or veyetcable lfie.
So far as this discussion goes fossils are of two kinds,
pre-Adamite or post-Adamite.
The geologic faith, on the other hand, claims no
distinction in origin of pre-Adamite and post-Adamite
fossils. They claim that a fossil can not be the subject
of a creative fiat, because they see the fossil is now
the result of a previous existence of a plant or animal,
after which it fashions itself in form, but not in substance, and hence, that all fossils must have followed
the same rule. When, then, you ask a geologist, "' Does
not man grow like the fossil, and the fossil like the
tree in analogy of natural law?" — they can not but
say yes; but, say they, the fossil is more intimately
connected with the plant or animal, than the man or
tree with their parents.
The trouble, we think, which the geologist has in
reading correctly the nature of the fossil kingdom; has
been that he has mistaken the fragmentary fossils, and
even the fossils themselves, as elements in the existence
of vegetable and animal life, instead of regarding them
as completed, independent results, and as forming, in




FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.      173
themselves, a kingdom quite as independent as those
from which they take their form (vegetable and animal), and their substance (mineral).
A parallel to the fossil kingdom can be found in the
kingdom of shadows. According to geologic reasoning, the principle of the shadow must have been of
subsequent establishment to that of the object which
casts it. This would be unquestionably an error.
We know it is difficult for minds, without much
reflection, to apprehend readily how the shadow, as a
principle of fiat law, and the thing which casts a
shadow now, must not always have been inseparably
connected. It must, too, be admitted, that the exact
shadow of a man was not made before the man himself, though shadows, as types of a line of existence,
undoubtedly were. Hence all we can determine as to
the date and principle regarding the introduction of
shadow as a line, must be as to the fact, and not the
form of the shadow made as an archetype.
The first man made in the sunlight on the sixth
day, cast his shadow the moment he was brought into
full life. But he would not have cast that shadow, if
the 1ight had not been divided from the darkness on the
first day, and the law thus been manifested in type.
In like mnanner, the archetypes of the fossil kingdom




174        FORMIS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
were made on the third day, when the rock formations
were completed, not, possibly, in exactness of subsequent plant and animal form, but in kind, form, and
extent, sufficient to meet the requirements of the law
of petrifaction then established in its great variety.
Neither the plant or the animal had yet been made;
still, when the plants and animals were made, they
were met in nature by the law of petrifaction, ready,
as in the case of the shadow, to go forward and produce a fossil kingdom in fragmentary and completed
forms, which we have denominated the post-Adamite
fossils; while those from which they formed in type
were pre-Adamite archetypes.
The reader must then understand, that a fossil is
neither ihe plant or the animal of which it is claimed
that it retains the form; neither is it an element of
either, or has it any connection, per se, with either.
All that man knows respecting the fossil is, that it is
the child of two kingdoms, the one giving it form, the
other food, and it does not affect the principle of its
advent on earth, or its existence as an independent
entity, whether it takes form from the vegetable or
animal kingdom, or its substance from the metallic or
non-metallic mineral kingdom.
It is the chil(l of two parents, as clearly and as un



FORMS IN TIE FOSSIL KIrNGDOM.       175
equivocally as is any human being, or any animal
existence. And as the law of reproduction varies in
every kingdom, so does the law of the production of
the fossil vary from  that of any known kingdom.
There are analogies, most certainly, between the formation of crystalline masses, and those masses formed
into fossils, by the aid of quite a different parent.
But scan the matter closely, and it will be seen that
every form in every kingdom has a peculiar law by
which its parents give it not only form but substance.
Let us examine, then, by what processes the fossil is
made or brought into existence.  To those who may
not be familiar with either the nature or composition
of fossils, it is a common idea that they are what geologists call then —plans, trees, aninmals, or parts of them.
This is not so. A fossil is a stone so c alled, or a collection of metallic or non-metallic mineral crystals or
amorphous masses of limestone in the shape of a plant
or animal, or parts of them, or an imprint upon some
rock.
How, then, are they produced, formed, or brought
into existence? for it matters not by what term you
denominate the fact. This depends upon two conditions, in the absence of either of which the fossil can
not be had:




176         FORMS iN THE'I  FOSSIL KLNGDO.M.
Fi.st. The condition of certain peculiar matter, once
either animal, vegetable, or mineral.
Secozd. The presence of the fossilizing vitality and
food, or mineral matter, of the proper kind to make the
fossil grow.
We may possibly be censured for asserting that fossils have vitality. Is there any complete result in Nature that has not its vitality? The tree, the animal, the
crystal, the rock, leave all a vitality, so long as they
exist as completed results. Destroy that vitality by
fire, or cause death by other means, and the tree, the
animal, the crystal, the rock, all crumble to their elements, each of which elements has its special vitality
as such, and can not be destroyed.
These vitalities are of different natures, and are as
various as the kingdoms to which they belong; nevertheless, these vitalities are as essential to the making
and retention of intact forms in Nature as that of
the matter which composes them.  It is, therefore, as
would seem, a fact which can not be denied, that fossils have their peculiar vitality, as well as any other
forms in Nature, because you can destroy them by heat
or chemical action, and the fossils crumble back to
their elements.
Fossilization, except imprints, is simply petrifaction,




FORMS IN TIIE FOSSIL KINGDOM.        177
and would seem to apply as well to the marltking of fossils as to the formation of rocks. We will, tlherefore,
first treat of the fossils which are petrifiactions, leaving
the subject of imprint fossils for after-consideration.
To produce the petrifaction termed "the fossil," as we
have seen, two conditions are necessary-the substance to give form, and the vitality, where petrifaction
will ensue, and the resulting form will be that of the
substance which was in a condition to take on the petrifying vilality. But if the form was a collection of
other substances (then vegetable or animal), which
would take up the petrifying vitality, then the resulting form would not be a fossil, but it would be a stone;
not in the form of either a plant or an animal, except
it would chance to be so, which is by no means probable, though such might be the case.
Hence, we perceive that it is not the amount or form
of the matter which may take on the petrifying vitality, but the condition in which the vitality may be
able to meet the matter.  It is plain, then, that the
petrifying principle must have been coeval with the
rocks on their very first manifestation in completed
forms under a petrifying law; the petrifying principle
being in the debris of plant and animal life, and in the
rocks proper, manifested in three different ways.  It is,
12




178        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
then, evident, in all sound reasoning, that if this principle was coeval with the archetype rocks, and was so
made operative in a fiat, there can be no valid reason
advanced to show that in the other two modes of manifestation-namely, in the vegetable and animal fossil
forms-they should have a different origin.
Now, we say that the archetype fossil-plant forms
and the archetype fossil-animal forms have no more
connection with the plants and animals themselves
than any other offspring has with the archetype parents
which have produced a line of existence; and hence,
like all.other things, were ushered into place in completed forms by a creative fiat zvithoul parens. For, not
only the fragmentary but the completed fossils, both
of plants and animals, are independent existences, possessed of vitality and substance, but, like all other
things, perform their special duty in the great scale of
creation.
To show this, let us suppose we were examining the
petrified tooth of a shark. When we look at the animal in life, we find that one element making up the
creature is a tooth; and we discover a similar tooth
petrified. Now, the geologist can discern no difference between the two lines of existence-the tooth in
the shark's head, and the petrifaction. But the anti



FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.       179
geologist asks the question, "Was this petrifaction
formed in such a depth of rock as to preclude the possibility that it is a post-Adamite fossil?" And, if answered
in the affirmative, he then assigns his belief that it was
a pre-Adamite fossil shark's tooth, and was a member
of that kingdom which was formed by a fiat without a
parent. Why? Because it is a completed existence,
and is not an element of a living shark. The shark's
tooth can not grow independent of the shark, while the
fossil can. Now, we have no difficulty in admitting
that the shark and his teeth were made by fiat; yet
another form, in another kingdom of an entirely differing composition, could not have been made in the same
way, because they correspond in form.
Upon that principle, there should not have been but
one shark's tooth made, as an archetype; since, if there
was, it must have been of a shark reproduced from its
parent. The argument, if it has any weight, precludes
the idea of such archetype forms having been made;
and it narrows down creation still further to suppose
that these lines of existences, having similar forms and
totally differing compositions, could have been made
by the Creative Wisdom in archetypes!
As further ground for separating the two lines of
existences from  each other, we would remark that




180         FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
they spring from different parents, are governed in
their formation by different laws, are fed by different
food, are sustained by different affinities, have different
offices (whatever they may be) to perform; and, while
the one is naturally perishable, the other is naturally
imperishable.
Thus we have shown, and it is believed conclusively,
that the fossils, although indebted on the one side to
vegetable and animal matter after it has lost its vitality,
and on the other to the mineral kingdom for their
birth and formation, there is a fossil vitality which controls them in their peculiar kingdom, constituting them
independent forms with life differing from that of either
parent. It matters not by what peculiar law of parentage a given independent line of existence is reproduced, no such line can be engrafted upon creation
without admitting at once the development theory of
the "Vestiges of Creation," so forcibly and ably controverted by the distinguished Hugh Miller. Each
and every such independent line must start without
parents, as did man, the animal, the plant, the vegetable, or the crystal.
Nor can we see by what plausible idiosyncrasy the
analogical mind can arrive at any other conclusion,
when that mind admits the creative fiat to have start



FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.     181
ed the vegetable, animal, and crystalline kingdoms in
all their members. We know the fossil has parents now,
and we can produce them, as we can produce those of
the plant, breed the animal, or form the crystal.
As we can not determine how many of any given
kind of tree were made as archetypes, nor how many
plants, nor how many animals, so too we are unable to
tell how many fossils, or in fact what kind of fossils,
were made as archetypes. Nor is it probable that it
was intended that man should know the length and
breadth of the hidden mysteries which surround these
peculiar forms, or be able to discern those which were
archetypes from those which are reproduced forms.
This naturally brings us down to the classification
of fossils, which certainly seems to be that one adopted
by all-the pre-Adamite and post-Adamite; but as to
which are and which are not pre-Adamite, it is impossible for the biblical Christian to agree with the geologist. It is undoubtedly true that very many fossils
attributed to parent plants and animals as having lived
in the pre-Adamite periods of time, are from plants and
animals of the Mosaic narrative; and, although they
are said to be extinct, they may be yet living on portions of the dry land or in waters entirely unexplored
by man.




182        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
There are others, too, which were of the Mosaic creation, and have lived on the earth since, and have probably become extinct. From these thoughts two propositions emanate:
First. The geologist can not show to the contrary,
and there is probability in the supposition, that the
pre-Adamite fossils are the archetypes of the Mosaic creation; and, if the plants and animals are not found on
the earth now, they have passed away in a natural or
cataclysmic decadence: and thus that order is marked
in the upward fossiliferous series of the rock-formations
as the plants and animals have been eliminated from
existence from time to time.
Second. No geologist, of his own knowledge, can assert that the plant or animal parent of any particular
fossil which he may select, no matter what or which, is
not now in growth and existence somewhere upon the
earth!
As a corollary to these propositions, there follows
this, that no geologist can say what fossils are and
what fossils are not exclusively contained in any given
rock-formation. So far as his knowledge goes, there
may be every species of fossil, yet found, discovered in
each and every of his so-called geologic periods.
We now speak of knowledge as the basis of what




FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.       183
geologists denominate science. We admit that there is
far more probability in the idea that the fossiliferous
range upward in the rock-formations are archetypes
and records of the Mosaic creation; and that the history there related is the true history of the order in
which these various lines of existence have passed
away in point of time, if they have so passed away,
than that every geologic period contains the entire
range of fossiliferous entities. In this view of the fossil kingdom, a positive utility is discernible; while in
the chance placement of fossils here and there-the
result of aimless distruction of all living things, according to geologic periods —nothing but mysteriousness can be deduced. It should be the first aim of any
reasonable, rational creature, who reveres his Maker,
when he attempts to translate the secret signs in Nature, to give that coloring to God's acts which tends to
show the greatest amount of wisdom and the least appearance of folly. If, then, the geologist be not hopelessly engulfed in his theories, he will pursue this
course when his eyes are open to the truth. He will
not translate that to the condemnation in folly of his
Creator which can be turned to wisdom. lie will rather yield some of his cherished principles, and look at
things as they are, and read them accordingly.




184        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
While we have the fossil forms under consideration,
we are bound to meet in some place, and it may be
done here as well as elsewhere, a stronghold of the
geologists, and one which Mr. Hugh Miller handles
with such amazing strength and force —the fossil corprolite. Mr. Miller remarks on this head, that c' geologists find not unfrequently among their fossils, the dung
[corprolite] of the carniferous vertebrates charged in
many instances with the teeth, bones, and scales, of the
creatures on which they had preyed, and strongly impressed in at least the corprolites of the larger Palaozoic ganoids of the enalosaurus of the secondary period, by the screw-like markings of a spiral intestine
similar in form to that now exemplified by sharks and
rays." And he then goes on in a triumphant strain
of argument that, in his own mind, apparently settles
the question.
There is just one inquiry to be made about any
petrified corprolite. Do like corprolites now petrify
by existing laws of Nature? If so, what are its
parents? Mr. Miller says the parent on one side
are the larger ganoids of the Paleozoic and existing
sharks and rays, with rifle-bored embrasures; and ze
say, upon the other, the vitality of petrifaction, which,
acting in connection, produces the independent result




FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.       185
so triumphantly elaborated by himself, and referred to
by other geologists. As an independent member of
the fossil kingdom, it typifies a separate line of
existence, and is as much entitled to its archetype as
the parent on either side.
It is believed that most geologists would grant, that
the ganoid, although possibly the child of a pre-existing
ganoid, spontaneously suggests the idea of an archetype ganoid at some time without parents. So, too,
the corprolite unpetriifed, should not have its archetype
because it is an active element of the living ganoid;
but when that element assumes, by virtue of new
parentage, an entirely neiw stubstaznce, it is no longer the
first element, but a new, completed, independent result,
which, like any and every other natural form, should
be entitled to be ranked as separate lines of existences,
and hence must, in all analogy, have had its archetype
form.
But the startling point of triumph conceived to be
secured by Mr. Miller, and copied extensively by other
geologists, is not so much in the elaboration and skilful handling of the corprolite itself, as in the unfolding
its internal structure, and displaying it, element by
element, as conclusive proof of its origin. And we
would remark, that here is the stumbling-block of the




186         FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
geologist, he makes no distinction between an element
in one result, and that element when it takes on a new
composition, and becomes itself another and completed
result. He claims, a'nd undoubtedly claims truly, that
the corprolite is c" charged in many instances with the
teeth, bones, and scales of the creatures on which they
have preyed." We use his language, but must correct
his meaning, since the language, as it stands, conveys
a false impression.  The unpetrified corprolite may
contain C teeth, bones, and scales of the creatures on
which they have preyed," but the petrified corprolite,
if it be an archetype, contains no such things; it may
contain petrifactions in these forms, and, if the corprolite be a petrifaction post-Adainite, following its preAdamite type, then these teeth, bones, and scales were
once elements of living entities, which have lost their
places as elements of an old, and become, in form and
composition, elements of a new, organism.
The perfection of fossils is urged by geologist to
disprove their archetype origin. So nearly, say they,
do they resemble the living forms, that no human skill
could imitate their correctness. We can not see the
force of the argument, as disproving their archetype
origin, for, instead of its being an adverse, it is a coincident proof. For it is scarcely possible that the ele



FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.        187
ments would more cautiously and carefully preserve
the matter to be petrified, and do the work better than
He who first moulded them as patterns for the manifestation and subsequent action of the law.
We pass, now, from the complete and positive petrifaction to a more difficult subject, the semi or partial petrifactions, where the matter was undergoing
the process, and from some cause has been arrested,
leaving the petrified and the unpetrified substances in
connection. It is from this class of fossils that geology
draws most of its strength, and by a skilful confusion
of these with the completed fossils, both archetypes
and types, all are ranked upon the same footing as to
origin. So little of analysis and generalization is there
in the mass of the human mind, that a geologist has
but to present to an audience a half-formed fossil,
where the bone, or shell, or fibre of wood is visible,
and the fossilizing process'attached in the same specimen, and the conclusion, in such minds, is irresistible,
without explanation, that all fossils have been formed
in the same way. Present to that same audience an
increasing and growing plant, and without previous
education, the conclusion would be, that all plants
grew in the same manner, till reflection would show'them that there must, of necessity, have been a first




188        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
one, and that first one could not have made itself; but
was made complete by the same power which causes
its repetition.
It is only by the analysis of principles that such
reasonings respecting fiat forms are established, provided we can not draw a direct parallel in nature.
But when analogical reasoning is certified to by a
familiar example, the reasoning becomes a demonstration. If, then, we show an example where one form
in nature is so far changed as to loose its identity (and
by a hidden law quite as inexplicable as the making
of fossil forms, from once living ones), then this grows
into another distinct passive existence, and from that
developes into an active and living existence, we show
a direct parallel to the birth of the fossil, and its independent state.
We refer to the familiar history of the zoological
order, lepidoptera, or butterflies and moths, where
parentage produces a different species of existence
from itself, and where the intermediate matter or form
has no attribute of its parent; and this latter form, as
a parent of another, has no attribute of its offspring.
We give this illustration in this place to show, that as
the chrysalis is a completed and independent form in
nature, it must have had its archetype in the primitive




FORMIS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.      189
creation, as well as the catapillar, which is its parent;
and the catapillar, in like manner, owes its parentage
to the lepidoptera.  So that, in truth, the butterfly
does not reproduce itself, nor does the fossil reproduce
itself; but the butterfly, from its larva, produces an
independent and totally different form, while the animal not only reproduces itself, but does, in addition,
just what the butterfly does in another way, produces
the fossil, an entirely different and independent thing.
Now if the catapillar be not an independent form in
nature, what is? and if it had not its archetype in the
primitive creation, what had? We do not intend to
be understood as basing the main argument upon this
simple illustration, for there may be those who will
deny that the catapillar is anything more than the
young butterfly making its way to maturity. We
think, however, the position is sound, because offspring
generally resemble parental forms, and are of the same
general natures, whereas the catapillar, the chrysalis,
and the butterfly bear no analogy to each other. Nor
can the chrysalis be ranked as an ova, for then it would
be an element of the butterfly, and would be barred
from the distinction of an independent existence, and
grown to maturity as such.
There is another curious instance in the crystalline




190          FORMS LN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
kingdom,where masses of crystals are combined almost
nightly, at certain seasons of the year, in the very fanciful forms of plant-leaves of an endless variety. We
refer to frost-marks upon glass windows, but particularly to those more extensive and perfect ones seen
upon flag-stone pavements. They are, when formed,
in principle analogous to the fossil; that is, the crystals composing its mass, although different, are arranged in precisely the form of a fossil. But this peculiar line of existence neither has the composition of
a fossil nor has it the same parentage, and hence is
not properly a fossil. Though not a fossil, it is, nevertheless, so nearly analogous that it assumes similar
forms and similar crystalline composition, and is as
mysterious in its formation and uses as the fossil itself.
The frost-mzark kingdom, in its variety of forms, is no
less determined as a kingdom than the range of fossil
forms. Nor is it less determined than the plant forms,
which are the parents to portions of the fossil kingdom; for the frost-marks upon mud can be the parent
of a fossil form.
We only adduce these lines of existences of frost-marks,
fleeting at times as they are, to show a pervading mystery in forms in nature, and that even certain crystalline forms ma/ce of lhlemselves, either with or without an




FORAIS IN TILE FOSSIL KINGDOM.      191
apparent parent. If a leaf be moistened and laid upon
a frosted glass, the imprint is left in a frost-mark. We
at once say the cause is apparent. But if that same
or a similar mark is made while we sleep, we say
the cause is a mystery. Why? Simply because
we are in the habit of looking to causes to produce
effects. We know by experience that the moistened
leaf and the law of congelation of water are the parents of a frost-mark made in the manner specified,
and we count with certainty for the result.  But we
can not tell what the parent on the one side of the
frost-mark is, which forms of itself, though we do know
the parent on the other side, the law of crystallization
of water.  The tlo fossilfrost-marks, the one made by a
moistened leaf, and the frost-leaf made without it, may
not be identical in form; nevertheless, to a casual
observer who did not knzow the parents, both would be
attributed to the same general cause. And the geologist himself, if brought upon the stand, would testify
that they were mysterious forms made by the operation of natural laws; and although in form they were
genierally analogous to living plant-leaves, nzo plani life preceded their formation!
The analogy between the frost-print kingdom and
the fossil kingdom may not be readily admitted; but




192        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
we can see no difference whatever in principle, and for
the reason that the frost-mark or leaf is a completed
result in Nature, and no reason can be assigned, abstractly, for its spontaneous appearance, which can not
be a conclusive reason why God could make in like
manner the fossil a complete form, without an apparent
parent as well. Or even go further -that he can in
like manner make them now, or could at any other
time, without vitiating his mode of creation. The illustration goes to show that forms in Nature, both as to
their origin, or archetypes, and their reproduction, are
somewhat beyond the reach of knowledge in man, and
that the fossil and frost-print kingdoms, which are alike
puzzles in themselves, are not. to be read as science by
any pretender. He may have his belief, or his faith,
as to the origin of such forms, or the motive which
guided the creative fiat, or guides the creative control; but that man places little value on a scientific
reputation who certifies such unknown and indeterminable results as science of the nineteenth century.
And here the reader must allow us to call attention
to what in this connection is, and what is not, science.
To endeavor by chemical or philosophical knowledge
to determine the particular law in Nature which operates in developing these forms, their composition, or




FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.      193
the affinities which cause them to exist, is what is true
science if the result be correct. But to endeavor to
show the origin of these forms, either in a creative
fiat or by a process of development, is bringing science
to determine a result which every man knows can not
be done; it must be simply a faith; and he who asserts those things to be science which belong to the
region of the unknown, simply makes for himself an
immortal niche in the vast vault of speculative philosophy, which the stern realites of true Science in
known things is making more and more apparent
and appreciable as she makes her onward strides in
imperishable truth.
But to return to the semi-petrifaction.  The geologist will be compelled to establish two points
respecting such an entity, before it can have any
weight in his argument, to establish his faith that
pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by vegetable and
animal life:
First. That the bone or fibre of wood making part
of tile fossil is bone or wood — that is, that they are
chemically of identical composition; and -
Second. That these semi-fossils were pre-Adamite.
It is most confidently asserted that no fossil which is
six thousand years old could, in the decadences of na13




194         FOR S IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
ture to which it must in that time have been exposed,
contains either bone or wood in the state in which
they existed in the animal or plant. That there are
appearances in the fossil which resemble bone or wood
is not denied; but that real bone or wood exists in
any fossil which can be shown to be six thousand
years old, is denied upon all well-established laws in
physical philosophy and chemistry. The Creator has
made the perishable, perishable in the operation of
his natural laws. The perishable is not in Nature
imperishable, without the aid of man to make it
measurably so.
If the geologist, however, can show that the semifossil was a pre-Adamite form, it would go some distance as a make-weight in his theory. But even that
proof might not be conclusive evidence that this
compound, or semi-fossil, did not have its archetypes
fashioned by the creative-fiat law. This question is
not so clear as the one respecting the pure fossil. It
is self-evident, however, that no such proof can be adduced; and, until it is, there is no occasion to prove
the contrary. And to use the heavy and conclusive
argument of our distinguished geologist, Mr. Miller, we
settle the question respecting the semi-fossils by saying that the hypothesis that they are pre-Adamite is




FORMS IN TIlE FOSSIL KINGDOM.      195
the geologist's, and not the anti-geologist's, and the
proof lies with the former.
The strongest argument of geologists to support
their faith is derived mainly from two grounds:First. That they find in one great division, or period (as they denominate certain conventional divisions), different fossil forms from those in another;
and -
Second. They find a succession upward, beginning
with the lower orders of animals, and ascending to the
higher.
Admitting, for the moment, that their positions be
true (and, as far as our knowledge goes, they have
been true, at least six months at a time, during the
popularity of geology), candidly considered as a whole,
what does it show, if the pre-Adamite fossils were not
preceded by vegetable and animal life?  It manifests
no more reason in itself (except, possibly, as we have
remarked before, to show  the order in which some
lines of existences, which were Mosaic, have since
become extinct, if that be true), than it is an answer to the abstract question, why they were made
at all?
The reason why the Creator has disseminated the
fossil kingdom in the rock formations in the order in




196        FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
which we find them, can no sooner be answered than
the question, why one rock is found in America, another
in Europe, another in Asia? or jewels in one part of
the world and not in another? or gold in California
and the Siberian mountains? or why one soil will produce wheat, another corn, or any other peculiar cereal?
or that coal is found in one place, and is not a universal
element? The entire range of questions as to placement of entities, both living and fossil, is involved in
the unknown, and he who can give a certain reason for
any such mysterious placement, can tell why one kind
of rock is honored with a peculiar fossil, or why, possibly, the fossil was put in them at all.
But the " top-upon-bottom" argument of our distinguished scientific fossil historian, Hugh Miller, is the
superficial fly-trap which entrances the "yellow-covered" reader in science.
If, however, he had resolved his argument into a
truthful analogy, and asked his reader to have accomnpanied him while he related the story, how man was introduced upon earth, what was made of him first, what
last, on the "top-upon-bottom" philosophy, and the
time consumed by the completion of his stately fornl,
judged of by the time it now takes to do the same
thing, he would have done much to illustrate his own




FOR.AIS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.     197
knowledge upon the subject-matter in hand, and which
he denominates his science.
The analogical reader might then ask his instructor,
"on what ground do you separate the entities of the
sixth day, yoelr'tertiary period,' from each other, and
say this was, and this was not, a creative fiat? If your
"top-upon-bottom" philosophy be true at all, why is it
not true when applied to man? to plant? or to animal?
and if man was made in the tertiary period, how much
of that period was consumed in his making? Did
the marrow of his system stand forth as a completed
work? were the layers of his bones, and muscles, and
flesh, and, finally, skin, arranged in the order of the
" top-upon-bottom" science? and the time consumed in
their making, judged of by the time it takes to perform the like operations now?
Such questions propound their own answers, and
the great school of philosophy which can not be
denominated by a better name, than the geological
owes all its strength, and all its fallacious conclusions
to this 1 top-7pon-botlom"" argument, and, as a whole,
resolves itself into one question, why has the Creator
put one thing in nature on or over another? Till this
question is answrcred and satisfactorily proved, geology
will never have as lnuch as a starting point in science..




198         FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
There is another element which the geologic faith
claims, of importance in establishing a succession of
creations, indicated in the rock formations.  They
claim to find fossils in one class of rocks, which they
do not find in others, and of these fossils, possibly,
some do, and some do not, correspond with forms in
life which they represent.
In the "Encyclopedia Britannica," vol. xv., p. 184,
will be found the following statement respecting the
fossil kingdom, which has the appearance of the offspring of a candid mind, and may be considered a fair
exponent of the geologic theory on this point:"Of many thousand species of marine zoophta —
mollucs, crustacea, fishes, &c., very few can be exactly
paralleled in the system of living nature, most of them
are extinct, and only to be understood by the application of laws derived from the study of the most similar
existing race.  The amount of resemblance between
the fossil and the recent tribes is extremely variable:
a few are perfectly identical; a considerable portion so
far similar as to be referred to the sa-me genera; a still
greater portion can be included in the same great
families; almost all can be referred to the same great
classes, the vegetable and animal kingdoms. The differences of form and structure are thus known to be




FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.          199
of the same order as those which, at the present day,
belong to the productions of d/ferentr climates and different local conditions.... The general effect of the whole
investigation is, to prove a unzty of design pervading the
fossil and living creations-one general system  is discovered -and the variations are referred to difference of
circumstances."
Two suggestions follow this statement:First. Has the geologist penetrated every rock formation throughout its entire extent, to determine
what fossils it does contain? and,
Second. Has he, in like manner, explored every portion of the earth and waters, and can he say, definitely,
that the animals, so represented, are not now upon the
earth, or, if not, that they have not lived in the postAdamite times?
So far as the geologist knows, every rock formation
mau contain every known fossil form, and many more
now unknown, since his explorations can never exceed
one millionth part of any given formation. In like manner, he can never assert, truthfully, that any animal, in
part or in whole represented by a fossil, does not, in this
day, live in some portion of the earth.  These two
facts should, of themselves, be sufficient to arrest attention, and show the enquirer after truth that no dependence




200         FORMS IN THIE FOSSIL KINGDOMI.
can be placed upon such undeterminable conclusions, unfooundedl# drazn frnom such vague data.
Nor can the geologist, as we have said before, show,
except inferentially, that a single fossil form was preAdamite, yet all analogies in nature lead us to the
conclusion, that there must have been pre-Adamite
archetype fossils, to have started the law of petrifaction, in example, just as every line of existence was
started in a completed archetype form, and the law
regulating its reproduction was first made manifest in
that form.
There is still another class of fossil forms which
have not been considered, and which, to every mind,
presents more of mystery, and leads it insensibly to
lean to the conclusion, that such forms at least, whatever may have been the origin of those which we have
considered, were preceded by the causes which appear
to have produced them. We refer to the imprints of
various kinds found upon rock formations: being -
Imprints of the vegetable kingdom.
Imprints of fishes and animals.
Imprints of raindrops: and
Imprints of animal tracks.
This brings us to the division of the post-Adamite
fossil kingdom into two classes, or rather species:



FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.          201
Eirst. The species having animal and vegetable mzatler
minus vitality for one parent, and petrifaction or tIe rockconsolidating principle for the other, and which we have
considered.
Second. That species having vegetable, animal, or mineral mattler with or without vitality for one parent, and the
combination of the petrifying or hardening prineiple in rock
with plasticity of gmatter for the other, and which makes
the class of imprints of which we are about to
speak.
The stone fossil, being the first species, is plainly
discernable from  the second, though the two accompany each other in the same manifestations. For the
imprint is sometimes found to be wholly or partially
filled by crystals, or amorphous masses, like a cast in
a mould.
The rain-drop imprint is handled with amazing force
by the geologist, and the foregone conclusion on the
mind is that rain must have produced such an apparent
phenomenon. The first question which may be asked
respecting it is -" Is the imprint a pre-Adamite or.
post-Adamite form?" If shown to be the former, then
it is, like all other pre-Adamite fossils, an archetype;
for analogical reasoning brings us to the conclusion
that all reproduced forms must have had a fiat origin




202         FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
in an archetype, as the pattern for a reproduction, not
possibly in exact size but in character, such as to
establish the law in a manifestation.
In like manner, the imprint of animal tracks following the same law, we may expect to find in pre-Adamite rocks this peculiar entity in archetype. It matters
not how strange or odd the thing may appear to us,
or how unable we may be to found in reason such
lines of existences upon the rule of fiat law, or manifestation in a pattern; these reasons become more apparent on close analogies.
The imprints of vegetable and animal matter with
or without vitality - of matter neither vegetable nor
animal — only vary the parent on one side, while the
other is due to the plasticity of matter and the rockhardening principle.
These, we think, include all the classes of imprints
which are urged by geologists as grounds for the
adoption of their faith, and may be regarded, in connection with the stone fossil, as composing all the varieties or types (for we will not cavil about terms)
which compose the fossil kingdom.
In the examination of these, as bearing upon the
geologic theory, the first question to be decided, when
any fossil imprint is produced, is, whether it is a pre



FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.      203
Adrihnite form. But, as we have said before, this can
not be ascertained for a certainty; yet all analogical
reasoning induces us to believe there were pre-Adamite imprints of the nature and kind denominated: else,
how can they re-form now?
If we adopt the principle of a creative fiat at all,
we must apply the rule to all lines of existences, or
show plainly a reason for an assumed exception — or
our reasoning fails upon its own data. Now, when the
rule of the creative fiat is adopted, it simply amounts
to bringing natural archetype forms into existence
without parents. If, then, a natural form has no parent which gives rise to its reproduction, then that line
of existence is exempted from the rule. But we have
yet to learn of any form in Nature which has not its
parent or parents.
The parentage of the imprint, we have seen, is most
undoubted, and is as clearly established as that of any
other line of existence or in any kingdom made up of
those lines. The animal, vegetable, and mineral parents are each more plainly seen than the other; and
we may, with profit to the reader, ask here, what is
PLASTICITY OF MATTER?
Why can a cat make a track on the snow?
Why can a horse make a track in clay?




20         FORMS IN TIlE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
Why can a man make his track in mud?
Why can waves ripple up a beach?
These are all questions referred to the plasticity of
matter, and we can just as soon answer them as we
can -
Why a cat can not make a track on steel?
Why a horse can not make a track on the rock?
We can answer these after our own fashion; but we
can assign no other reason than the fact that they
were made so. There is no abstract reason why snow
was made plastic to receive an impression; nor is
there any abstract reason why steel should not have
had the same quality, other than the uses they were
to be put to, suggested by the wisdom of the Creator.
Nor do we think snow could lhave had that plasticity imparted to it, to give birth to new and independent forms of matter, without that law of plasticity
was manifested in the independent forms there to be
obtained.
The snow-tracks are independent entities, and are
of a different nature, as such, from  the snow-fl(ake
proper. They are forms in Nature, having parents as
clearly as man himself; and, though we may not readily appreciate the fact, they required archetypes as




FORMAS I: TH'E FOSSIL KINGDOM.      205
necessarily, in analogical reasonings of creative fiats, as
the most important entity on earth.
The plasticity of matter is the parent, on the one
side, of all such imprints, as conclusively as the petrifying (the opposite process) is in like manner the
parent of the stone fossil.
Reasonings upon causes why the Creator has made
this form or that, which we find in Nature, are visionary attempts to explain Omnipotence. There is, however, much depending upon faith as to the manner
and time of the making of this world. Not because
of its necessity as the basis of a science, or because it
will minister to the wants and comforts of the human
race, but as the basis and a fundamental element in
the biblical Christian faith. It is not for us to assert
whether these are well chosen, or for what reason they
have been thus engrafted; but one thing is certain -
that whatever is assumed respecting archetype forms
in Nature are equally unknown to the geologist and
the Christian. Both convictions, whether they be of
fiat law or development, are simple matters of faith.
It is, then, for the biblical Christian to assert, equally
with the geologist and as positively, that fiat law in all
archetype forms is the true science; while the geologist, whllo admits that law to every existence save one.




206          FORMS IN THE FOSSIL KINGDOM.
and that the fossil, may assert as positively that development in the fossil kingdom makes science alike tof
his faith.
Who will deny to the latter his right to that faith,
provided, he does not rest his acres upon other men's
titles?




HUGH MIILER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  207
CHAPTER VIII.
HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
THE independent mind, not swayed by the clever anecdotes and imaginary stories of this surpassingly gifted
man, will see, in all the arguments which he adduces,
that it is not so much the explanation of the revealed
by the discoverable, as it is to make the revealed subservient to the discoverable. In other words, it is apparent that his mind was wholly taken possession of
by his speciality, and a fossil was his God. Nor is he
alone in such a position. The stronger the mind, the
greater the application- the more earnest the research, the less are the opportunities for the consideration and digestion of other and, possibly, more
important collateral facts. The gambler pursues his
play till he quotes scripture to prove the uprightness
of his profession. The man who demands your purse
points to the distinguished death of two of his trade.
The atheist quotes scripture as an excuse for his ap



208   HUGHI MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
parent belief; while geology endeavors to show, in the
present instance, that the dreamings of Hugh Miller,
not the revelations of Moses, are to be taken as the
true scripture.
Mr. Miller evinces, throughout his entire works, the
strongest evidence of a man with one idea, and from
his own confession, little qualified to cope with the
Scriptures, either in the original, or as a close student
of the English translation. We care not how much
detail he may display in his knowledge of the "discoverable," nor how superficially erudite he may be in
compassing the entire subject of which he treats but a
fraction —if he be totally ignorant of the revealed,
certainly his'comparisons must be the height of folly.
It is a common notion among men, that to make themselves notorious or distinguished, they must pursue
one department of knowledge; and if Mr. Miller had
not departed from the rule, he would have been nigh
immortally distinguished, not only as he is, but those
laurels would have remained untarnished in the lapse
of time:
But he was evidently anxious to cover too much
ground, and has no doubt on this account, gone beyond his depth.  Had he confined himself to the
development of his mineral forms, and displayed his




HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED   209
amazing descriptive ability to spread knowledge respecting them, as such he would ever have been remembered in literature, free from the blemishes which
he has now left upon his fame. His early advantages
in education scarcely warranted the hope, that he
could, in a comparatively short period of time, master
geology in its wondrous detail, the sciences upon which
he supposed it was founded, belles-lettres, theology,
and the Bible, so completely as to set himself up as
teacher of all the former, and annihilator of the latter.
A man's opinions on any subject are to be weighed
by the reflecting portion of the community, first by
their supposed accuracy, and, if new, by the knowledge
which that man possesses, or is supposed to possess,
and which he has brought to bear upon the point
under consideration. If, then, we judge Hugh Miller's
works by this rule in science, where shall we place his
productions, wherein he has dealt only in assertions,
and,from the first line of his writing to the last, there is not
a single word of proof of his postulates?  He asserts, to be
sure, so can any author do the same. But we appeal
to his most devoted admirers, and ask whether he has
shown or proven that a single fossil which he has
elaborated upon, or explained, was a pre-Adamite fossil.
Now, if they are not pre-Adamite fossils, what does
14




210   HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
all his works amount to scientifically. This is the sum
and essence of all his geology, as opposed to scripture.
Then these evidences, and this "Testimony of the
Rocks," is testimony about what? That these fossils
exist, and are of the form, fashion, and shape that he
claims? For, in all that he has written, he does not
pretend to prove more; and, if he did, his proof is
nonsense, because, in the nature of things, he can not
prove it. Then why does he belie his postulate and
call it science? We can give no other solution of the
fact, than that he did not know what science was, for
we can not suppose he intended to issue false tokens.
As we have remarked, in the early part of this
work, there is no cloak which has covered so many
errors as that of "testimony," and particularly that
kind of testimony which is given without any positive
knowledge. We would, by common law, consign such
a witness to confined lodgings for a like offence. Yet
our distinguished writer comes on the stand as a
witness, publishes his testimony, and would lead the
public to assume, on his assertion, that the fossils which
he describes were pre-Adamite, and that they were preceded
by vegetable and animal life, and has called on the
world to execute Moses, and disbelieve the Scriptures
on such testimony!




HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  211
Like testimony would not be listened to in an ordinary court of justice, and we do not see on what
ground it shall be received by the world, to convict
the Scriptures of an untruth, when they have remained,
until now, unimpeached.
Many readers will excuse Mr. Miller, under the supposition that he is a reconcilist, and endeavoring to
make scripture and geology agree! What is a reconcilist?  Who is a reconcilist in a conflict?  What
need is there of a reconcilist between geology and
scripture? He must be dreaming who would wish
to declare, that to be coincident which requires reconciliation.  The term  itself shows opposition, shows
conflict, suggests that the one and the other are at
variance, and it is used by men who well know what
they say, and by its use they would fain calm the fears
of the scripturalist, till their dogmas gain footing, under an assumed name and title.
The distinguished writer shows a cant throughout
his works, a patronizing style, as much as to say, " we
do n't want our science shall run down the Bible, and
I am endeavoring, in every possible way, to avert that
dire calamity; so we will call days periods, and fix up
Genesis so as to make it agree with our trute science."
Now our own sentiments are, and we believe them to




212   HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
be those of the Christian world, the sooner the Bible
is run down and overwhelmed by such science the better; and instead of doing Christians a favor by such
attempts at reconciliation, you do them  great disservice.
The Bible is true as it stands, or false as it stands;
and if, on its face, it is committed to error and falsehood, geological patching will do it no good. It is not
a leaky hull that any skilful calker or mechanic, with
his stone hammer and graver, can either make tight or
loose at his option.
It is not our intention to deal harshly, but kindly,
with Mr. Miller's errors and mistakes. Our object is,
to show wherein he is on false ground respecting the
creation and the writings of Moses, and do it boldly
and fearlessly.
We, too, believe, with him, that the entire scriptural
truth rests upon the Mosaic record, for he says, "the
grounds of the Mosaic record are those on which the other
scriptvlures rest."  Mr. Miller seemed well aware, to attack the Mosaic record was to attack the entire Scriptures, and hence, seeing that his assumed postulate,
that pre-Adamite fossils were preceded by veyetable and
anizmal life, led to a direct conflict, he has pursued the
one-idea course of changing the channel of the Bible




HUGH ~MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  213
stream, rather than inquiring, for an instant, whether
his assumed postulate was true - a very natural error
for a man of his peculiar temperament and views.
It becomes, then, of vital importance, not only for
the geologist, but for the Bible and Christian believer,
that each shall understand how mulch of the Scriptures
is cancelled by the geologic faith; that is, how much
of the old and new gospel dispensations is untrue, in
a plain philological reading, if the earth and all that
therein is were not made in six days.
Gen. i. 1: "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth."
This is copied into the creed: "I believe in God the
Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth."
The time consumed in such making is asserted in
the fourth commandment; and hence, as effecting the
main truth of the biblical narrative, the time consumed
in making is as essential as the fact that God made the
heaven and the earth at all.
Ex. xx. 11: "For in six days the Lord made heaven
and earth, the sea and all that in them is."
We think, then, that we shall be borne out in saying
that the truth of biblical and Christian faith is founded
upon the important stated fact that God is our Maker,
and that he. made us and all things in the manner




214   HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
stated in the fourth commandment. For we consider
the manner of making evinces as much the power of
God, as that he made the worlds at all, and is as essential an element in our faith.
Then, what shall we say of Hugh Miller as a reconcilist, or of any one of his predecessors, Dr. Chalmers,
Dr. Pye Smith, and others? Is there to be harmony
in flat contradiction? It matters little how much
fame a man may have spread abroad for himself
through the press; his assertion that unequals are
equals will not make them so. If every man who has
lived since the time of Noah had asserted that God
did not make heaven and earth it would not change
the fact. Nor do we think it changes the fact even
though Hugh Miller, Dr. Chalmers, or Dr. Pye Smith,
and every man of science who has lived, had concluded in his own mind that God did not make the
earth in six days, but that it took Him an indefinite
time divided into conventional geological periods.
No sooner can facts be changed by such opinions
than the language expressive of these facts. Language is as fixed in its nature as the facts or ideas, be
they facts or no, for which it stands. There are many
books written out of the Scriptures, but very few in it.
And if the eminent divines who have lent themselves




HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  215
to the reading of a bible in the rocks- where, from
the nature of things, detached scraps are gathered
here and there, quite as likely to mislead as instruct,
because important parts may be unknown - had devoted themselves as assiduously in another field, the
Genesis of Moses, they would have discovered the
key that would unlock all the mysterious forms in Nature which apparently are to them  enigmas. And
with all due deference to these distinguished names,
we think at least they would have discovered the conflict in all important points between the biblical and
Christian cosmogony, and that of the geologic.
Let us return, then, to Hulgh Miller's "discoverable"
and " revealed," and see the grounds on which he
would advise the world to adopt the geologic instead
of the biblical and Christian faith, as to the infinitely
great question, who did make uts, and how were we made?
We find him, in the very front of his argument,
bringing up as his most important witness, " because,"
as he asserts, "it is estimated to include within its pale
nearly one third of the whole human species" the reliable superstition of Buddhism. We find him saying,
" lindooism  has been regarded as furnishing examples of the geologic doctrine of succession of creations
extended over immensely protracted geologic periods;




216   HUGH 2MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
and Buddhism represented as charged with both the geologic doctrine, and perhaps less astronomic deduction of
a plurality of worlds." This head and front of his
argument bears its own comment.
He then goes on to show the final result of completed heathen cosmogonies, and winds up by discarding all of them as nothing, and 1" a farago of wild and
monstrous fable," except that element in them which
he extracts - the "geologic successions" - and which he
elaborates with amazing ability. Thus far, then, by
his own showing, is the geologic doctrine a heathen superstition, and is not a new and rising science as claimed
by its votaries. He claims the superstition to be true,
and as entitled, from his so-called geologic proof, to
take rank as a science.
Then, if there should remain any doubt in the mind
of the reader as to Mr. Miller's true position with respect to nigh the whole church militant, that doubt
could be settled by the following passage, as he claims
for his discoverable an exalted rank. "Unfortunately,
however," lie says, " what God seems to have done for
his revelation, influential theologians of both the Ronmish and orthodox churches have labored hard to
undo; and from their mistaking, in not a few remarkable passages, the scope and object of the vouchsafed




HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  217
message, they have at various times striven to pledge
it to a science as false as even that of Buddhist, Teuton, or Hindu"!!  This is all consistent, and we follow
him on as he touches the clergy and their teachings
in a less open but more sneering manner. "I was not
a little struck, lately," he adds, "by finding in a religious periodical of the United States, a worthy Episcopal clergyman bitterly complaining, that whenever his
sense of duty led him to denounce from the pulpit the
gross infidelity of modern geology, he could see an
unbelieving qrin rising on the faces of not a few of his
congregation."
If this be an original witticism, perpetrated for the
benefit of Mr. Miller's readers, it is certainly for the
cause of his sneering infidelity a good hit. If it be
even a copied idea, revamped in his peculiar style, and
thus receives his endorsement, it is well done, and the
sneer will be immortal with his immortality.
But we come now to the great argument which he
levels at the Bible, to show that there is no science or
philosophy in it, and none necessary to its utility.
For thlis purpose he brings up the long line of heathen cosmogonies, and successively shows how their
supporters have erred in their versions of a creation,
and then cites Cosmos, whom he styles the geographer




218   HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
of the Church, and brings forward all these errors as
evidence that those who believe in the biblical cosmogony must be in the wrong. So far as our limited
knowledge extends, these various cosmogonies are not
found in the Bible; but their authors, like those of the
geologic cosmogony of the present day, were anxious,
nay asserted, that there were good grounds for believing them to be true, and some were found therein.
And the cosmogony of Cosmos (laughably displayed by
Mr. Miller) was claimed by him, as the geologists now
claim theirs to be the biblical cosmogony. So it has
been, and so it will be while the Bible lasts; some declaring that it is not a text-book on geography, others
that it is not an astronomical teacher -others, still,
that it is not philosophy - and hence it must not be
claimed to be a book of science, but a book of revelation solely.
It shall be time enough to exclude the Bible from
either geography, astronomy, philosophy, or from science in its enlarged sense, when a natural fact stated
in it shall be shown to be false. If the natural facts
which may be stated on three grounds- history, revelation, and personal knowledge- recorded in the Bible, are not what is in thfe strictest sense science, we
are not aware what science is, or what it consists of.




HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  219
A natural fact, if stated truly, may be history or -revelation, but can not be less than a scientific fact.
There are many facts stated in revelation, which are
rightfully scientific facts, yet the weakness of science
has not yet resolved them, and they may ever remain
where they are.
A  controlling idea runs throughout Mr. Miller's
argument, when he endeavors to show that it is the
fault of the anti-geologists, that geology is not received
as the cosmogony of the Bible. He says, "Geology
rests on a broad, an extending basis of evidence, wholly
independent of revelation, on which they (the anti-geologists) profess, very unwittingly in all the instances I
have yet known, to form their objections. What they
need, at most, promise themselves, is to defeat these
attempts to reconcile the two records, which are made
by geologists who respect and believe the Scripture
testimony."
This may be taken as a sample of the geologic mode
of reconciliation of the " discoverable" and " revealed,"
and, certainly, it is blowing hot and cold at the same
breath. First, he asserts the evidences of geology to
be independent of revelation, and proposes a reconciliation
between the two, by having revelation absorbed in
geology. He then complains of the anti-geologist, be



220   HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.
cause they will not surrender revelation to geology,
and lauds the geologists for their respect of reconciliation with the Scriptures. This is geologic logic manifest in its sublimest form, and worthy of such double
elucidation as Hugh Miller alone could invent.
No, the truth will show itself at times when a writer
might wish to conceal it. He foreshadowed what he
knew must eventually be the result, that any attempt
at reconciliation would result in total disunion, when
he said, "what the anti-geologists need, at most, promise themselves, is to defeat these attempts to reconcile
the two records," &c.
So far as we can discover from the entire tenor of
the "Testimony of the Rocks," and especially the
article under the head of " The Discoverable and the
Revealed," it would be difficult for a casual reader to
determine which result Mr. Miller was laboring for
most, the reconciliation of the two records, or their
establishment independent of each other.  He was,
beyon4 all question, an out-and-out geologist, imbued
with every element of his theory, and excited to a
pitch almost bordering on frenzy, and yet contrived to
sprinkle into his writings, so artistically and skilfully,
just enough of Christian soothing reconciliation to entrap and ensnare those who were lulled by the sweet




HUGH MILLER'S DISCOVERABLE AND REVEALED.  221
music of his style into unconsciousness, and who did
not, in that dreaming state, penetrate the fog of words
and rhetoric with which he surrounded them. Many,
unquestionably, at some future day, will read his works
with a different bias, and no doi4bt will be astonished
at the conclusions to which they were drawn, solely
by dint of elegant language and bewitching harmony
of words.
We can spare no more space to the consideration
of the peculiar idiosyncracies displayed in his works.
There is a truer judge who will speak when we have
done. Posterity will do them justice, if we have dealt
unjustly by them. The man we admire because of
the magnetic fire which his pen put into everything it
touched, and the gallant style in which it was done.
But his geology, alas! what science! his theology,
alas! how anti-biblical! and his writings, alas! how
plausible and how hurtful!




222            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER IX.
CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
THE point at issue between the geologic reconcilist
and the biblical Christian, resolves itself, as we have
seen, into a mere question of FAITH. To the geologist
proper, who bases his faith respecting a creation upon
the same grounds as the reconcilist, the same arguments used for the one will equally apply to the other.
Yet to the former we can not object to his faith, so
long as he does not endeavor to force it upon others
under an assumed name.
But to the geologic faith as attempting to supplant
the biblical Christian faith, our remarks are more
pointedly and specially directed.  It is unnecessary
to say, that if the geological faith was the same as the
biblical Christian faith, there would be no cause for
reconciliation.
The thought, then, which naturally suggests itself,
what is the geological reconcilist's faith? and what is




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.            223
the biblical Christian faith in respect to the conflict
under consideration. As we have seen before, there
are two classes of fossils, whether viewed in the geologic,
or by the scriptural faith, as there have been two
classes of trees and plants, two classes of certain forming rocks, and two classes of animals.
These two classes are plainly and easily made in the
mind of any common thinker. The one class being
pre-Adamite, or those made before man, and the postAdamite, or those which have been reproduced since
that time. Now it matters not at what time mankind
was introduced upon this planet, these divisions are
still good, and are the ones we wish to call special attention to, in order to apprehend the difference between
the geologic faith and the biblical Christian faith.
We wish to be understood when we speak of time
respecting the introduction of man, we mean, that by
whatever biblical chronology that epoch be dated, that
date divides the two classes, making pre-Adamite and
post-Adamite.
The difference between the geologic and the biblical
Christian faith is, as to the mnazner and time in which
pre-Adamite forms in nature, on this planet, were introduced
by the Creator.
So far as the geologic faith is concerned, it is quite




224             CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
difficult to decide upon any one of the various suppositions made by different geologists, as to this manner
and timte; for those suppositions are as numerous and
different as the geologists who are their authors. But
notwithstanding this diversity, there is one point upon
which they all agree, and we shall assume that as the
element by which to compare and test their faith, as
in conflict with the received biblical faith: that is,
each geologist rests his proof of manner and time
upon previous life, to the pre-Adamite fossils, which
are in the forms of animal or plant, either fragmentary
or entire. Each geologist, too, varies the manner and
time to suit his peculiar notions, while all assert that
it was not by creative fiats as to manner, nor sixz days as
to time. The biblical Christian faith asserts the opposite, that creation was performed as stated by Moses,
by creative fiats as to manner, and six days as to time.
It is unnecessary to remind the reader, that neither
the geologic nor the biblical faith can be absolutely
proved as we can a problem in exact science, and if
it were so, we would not style it faith, but science.
Much of the importance which the geologic faith has
attained, is referred to the fact, that geologists have
called their faith science, and thereby misled many
into the belief, because they supposed there was posi



CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.            225
tive proof when there was not. Any intelligent person knows, that what relates to a creation must be
taken on faith, yet there are analogical proofs resulting from sound reasoning, which approaches proof, but
which is not actual proof.
Hence we call geologic faith,wvhat others might style
geologic science, but geologic faith is one thing, and
geologic science is quite another. For there is such a
thing as geologic science, and it may be stated to be,
the development and classification of the fossil and
mineral kingdoms. While geologic faith, about which
we speak, relates solely to the origin of a portion of the
things developed and classified by geologic science.
Now it is the easiest of all things to blend the two
together, and it is a most difficult thing, for the casual
thinker, to separate the two, and distinguish between
that which is faith and that which is science.
Then, too, there is still another division as to that
which relates to the origin of those forms which are
developed and classed by geologic science.
First. Faith as to the origin of those which are preAdamite.
Second. Science as to those of the post-Adamite.
whose origin comes under the knowledge of man.
Hence, we see there is a broad and clear distinction
15




226            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
between what is faith in geology and what is science
To the science of geology, either as to the development or classification of the things which fall within its
pale, or of that portion which is post-Adamite, and
which has its origin within the knowledge of man, we
have but little to say'. They are facts, and any man
can see them for himself; but the conclusions in faith
as to their origin in the pre-Adamite age, is the substance of our animadversion.
The reader who would understand the course of
reasoning respecting the two faiths, would do well to
look carefully at the few preceding pages of this chapter, for he might not, by careless reading, take the full
meaning intended, and he would necessarily labor in
the succeeding argument.
What, then, are the pre-Adamile forms upon which a
geologic faith is grounded? For the purpose of greater
clearness, we will name very many of the most important, though their origin, as claimed by the geologic
faith, all depend upon and are controlled by the single
set of forms — the fossil kingdom. They areMountain-ranges.
Metamorphic rocks.
Rocks with seams and in layers.
Limestones in their varieties.




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          227
Sedimentary rocks so called.
Boulders of various kinds of stone.
Slate rocks of various kinds.
Sandstones of great variety.
Coals of all descriptions.
Soils of various kinds.
And the pre-Adamite fossil kingdom.
We are not aware that geology: assigns any origin
to the following pre-Adamite metallic substances:Iron in mass;         Cerium in mass;
Lead in mass;         Vanadium in mass;
Zinc in mass;         Tungsten in mass;
Copper in mass;       Titanium in mass;
Tin in mass;          Columbium in mass;
Antimony in mass;     Osmium in mass;
Nickel in mass;       Palladium in mass;
Cobalt in mass;       Rhodium in mass;
Arsenic in mass;      Iridium in mass;
Manganese in mass;    Silver in mass;
Mercury in mass;      Platinum in mass;
Bismuth in mass;      Gold in mass;
Cadmium in mass;      Molybdenum in mass;
Tellurium in mass;    Uranium in mass;
Chromium in mass;
And their almost infinite compounds in mass; or, of




228           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
Silicum,         Barium,
Aluminum,        Zirconium,
Calcium,         Lithium,
Magnesium,       Thorium,
Potassium,       Yttrium,
Sodium,          Glucinum,
Strontium,
And their various compounds, except such as enter
the rock formations and fossils above stated; or ofWater of various kinds.
The atmosphere.
Oxygen,          Chlorine,
Hydrogen,        Fluorine,
Nitrogen,        Carbon,
Sulphur,         Phosphorous,
Boron,           Bromine,
Iodine,          Selenium,
And most of their compounds; or of the subtiles,
heat, light, electricity, magnetism, and galvanism.
All the above-named substance, and we may say
most if not all of their compounds, are admitted, by
both geologic and biblical scholars, to be pre-Adamite.
It will be sufficiently accurate to call all pre-Adamite,
without distinction, as being the burden of the geologic
and biblical Christian faith.




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           229
It is fairly claimed, and, we think, no geologist will
gainsay the position, that no theory as to the formation of the sedimentary processes could be maintained
without the aid of the fossil. There is no internal
evidence which would be controlling in such a conclusion without them, and hence, we say, the pre-Adamite
fossil governs any geologic theory as to the formations
of the pre-Adamite earth. So that, although it may
not be the only ground on which the geologist reasons,
it is, nevertheless, the controlling one, and hence may
be treated as the exponent of the theory, whatever it
may be.
Then respecting pre-Adamite forms relative to the
geologic faith, there are two distinct classes.
First. Those to which geologists pretend to assign an
origin in development.
Second. Those of which they can give no possible
account whatever except as of fiat origin.
While in the biblical Christian faith there is but onze
class, that of creative fiats.
Some geologists approach so near to the latter, as to
admit creative fiats in all pre-Adamite forms, except in
the fossil kingdom and its dependences. These are
the views of Mr. Hugh Miller, of Dr. Chalmers, of Dr.
Pye Smith, and that class of reconcilists.  In other




230            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
words, they admit creative fiats to the light, to matter,
to water, to atmosphere, to the existing vegetable
and animal kingdoms, but deny it to the rock formnations; and as for the pre-Adamite substances and forms
which we have named, as not accounted for by geolo
gists, they skip all that department of Nature, for they
neither develop it according to any hypothesis, nor
show it as of fiat origin. It is not difficult, then, for
the reader or geologists themselves to determine, how
heavily against such witnesses, under the solemn garb
of testimony, lies the implied charge of possibly telling
the truth, and reserving the whole truth. As a matter
of story-telling, we know well that a writer is bound
by no such restraints, and he is at liberty to say as
much and what he pleases; but geologic writers generally, and we may say, universally, are not men of
straw, they are men of avowed scientific acquirements,
who, if they do not subscribe to their works and opinions as testimony, the world assumes, from their character and reputation, at least that it is such.
We may safely assert, without the fear of contradiction by the most hair-brained geologist, that there is
not one "c completed result," or natural form, in a hundred, which is accounted for in the geologic developments, or assigned any other origin than that in crea



CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.              231
tive fiats. But to return to the two faiths. Let us
then sum up, if we can, all those forms in nature which
are admitted by geologists generally, as of the fiat
origin. For there are two classes, even of these, as
bearing upon a conflict with the biblical Christian
faith.
First. That class of forms which are admitted as of
fiat origin, within the Mosaical six-day creation.
Second. Those claimed as of fiat origin, in distant
and different geologic periods.
Of these two classes no distinction can be made, as
to the manner of the fiat.  Each are admitted to be
the result of God's creative will exercised upon primordial matter, to produce, instantaneously, the various
completed forms. The only difference is, as to the
date, or time, at which they were introduced.
There is but one more class of substances, or forms,
which make up the entire list in nature considered as
of geologic origin.
These are reproduced and resulting fossil forms, from
pre-Mosaic geologic fiat forms; and on this ground is the
entire controversy, as between geologic faith and the biblical
Christian faith, because the latter claims, as stated by
Moses, that all substances and forms were fiated in six
days, while the former asserts that these fiats were not




232             CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
in six days, but extended through vast, unknown, and uadetermrinable, and distant, and dif'erent periods from each other.
These, we think, are the true and only grounds of conflict between the two faiths, setting aside all minor and
unimportant considerations.  For the geologist will
perceive, that if the reproduced and restllting fossil forms,
from which he draws the inference of date, were also
admitted into the Mosaic six-day fiats, the two faiths
would be the same.
The whole question of conflict between the two
rests upon the evidence which the geologists present,
to show this simple question of date of creative fiats.
Their reasoning on the evidence is of two kinds, inferential and analogical; while the evidence and reasoning
on the part of the biblical Christian faith, is not only
biferential and analogical, but approximately scientific.
We say scientific, because the geologic faith requires
the laws of Nature to be changed from what they are
now to bring about their dates, and asserts conditions
of matter which have no precedent - a decidedly unscientific assumption; while the biblical Christian faith
presents as evidence in its favor these unscientific assumptions, shown to be such by scientific conclusions
supporting every point in the chain of argument, by a
precedent and the equilibrium of Nature.




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.            233
We will first consider the inferential arguments of
the geologic faith, presenting every point fairly and
fully; at the same time the answers by the biblical
Christian faith; then in order, and in like manner, the
anaclogical; and finally bring forward, in conclusion, the
scientice reasons why the geologic faith is inferior to the
biblical Christian faith, and why it should be totally
discarded. It will be necessary to use some scientific
arguments against both the geologic, inferential, and
analogical evidences and conclusions; but the main
scientific argument will be reserved to the last. We
wish to be clearly understood what we mean by the
two kinds of reasonings on evidence, both inferendial
and acalogical, from which are derived one set of conclusions. It may be difficult at all times to distinguish between the two, and they sometimes occur together and in such manner as to be inseparable. Nevertheless, the inferential evidence we think to be that
conveyed to our senses without a precedent, made appreciable by our general knowledge of things, while
the analogical is a more conclusive kind of evidence,
and is made so by the fact that we have experienced
the same or like thing before as a precedent.
For example: if we are passing through a wood,
and discover what looks like the tip of the antler of a




234            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
buck, we examine it, find that it has all the little hillock prominences, the color, evidences of wear, and
texture of bone, which we know, from our experience,
must of necessity have belonged to the animal with
which we are acquainted - we at once say, " Yes, this
is the tip of a buck's antler." This is reasoning by
analogy; and, although apparently a plain case, the
conclusion from the evidence may be utterly erroneous. For, suppose some ossiferous artist had been
amusing himself to imitate the antler tip, and had so
well succeeded as to prevent detection by a casual observer-or suppose another and quite a different animal, entirely unknown to the observer, had passed
that way, and left this little token of an accident —
where is your analogy?
Both these suppositions are in the range of possibility, and hence your analogical conclusions might not
be true; and if not true by such analogical evidence,
much less can the inferential be assumed as such, yet
both at times may be true.
There is a host of just such evidence, though not as
strong as the antler tip, advanced by the geologic faith
in support of its foundation — date of creative fiats.
There is a small portion of the pre-Adamite forms only
from which the geologist can reason analogically, while




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           235
those from which he must reason inferentially are
numbered by overpowering odds.
Those from which he must reason inferentially are
the entire of the massive rock-formations of the earth,
the mineral kingdom, the metallic kingdom, and that
portion of -the fossil kingdom which has not been represented in the knowledge of man by a precedent
plant or animal, and its subsequent fragmentary or
complete fossilization. For, although some of the sedimentary rocks do, under certain circumstances, reform after their pattern in character, they have not,
in the knowledge of man, attained the massiveness of
the originals. Their massiveness is the precedent which
is a bar to any analogical reasoning respecting subsequent formations.  Analogical reasoning will hold
good, however, as to their being the same kind of
rock, and forming like other things after a pattern,
but in no other sense. The circumstances of formation, by the showing of the geologic faith, are widely
different in both cases, and hence similar circumstances
and causes can not be adduced as a ground of analogical reasoning.
There will be no pretence either that the vast range
and magnitude of the granites, or the primary and
non-forming rocks, can be adduced as analogical rea



236            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
soning to support the geologic faith. There is no pretence that they form now, and hence they have no
precedent from which to reason on their probable mode
of formation.
There is then, we contend, but a small class of forms
in the fossil kingdom from which -the geologist can
reason as to the mode of making, and introduction of,
analogous and like forms in the pre-Adamite world.
Before proceeding to consider the evidences, the
reader must understand that each form in Nature
which is different from another, and which is reproduced persistently so near like its predecessor that the
senses can determine its kind or type, is called one step
in that particular line of existence. These lines of existences have been steadily running down from their
first introduction to the present time; and while no
two have ever been merged into one, or any new existence sprang from an old one, it is conceded that
very many of these lines have run out in comparatively a late date. This latter fact it may be well to
notice, since it may solve some of the enigmatical
problems respecting the fossil.
The first set of inferential evidences which the geologic faith advances is the appearance of certain rocks,
which do not now re-form,'indicating an igneous fluid




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           237
condition of the materials of the earth as the grand
starting-point, and is, we should judge, from that fact
the nearest point to which they can approach the
words of Moses in the first line of the Bible: "In
the beginning, God created [space and matter] the
heaven and the earth." Our reasons for using the terms
"space and matter" are given under the chapter on
the first of Genesis in this, and more fully in another
work; and we may remark here that it is a very common error in writers, and more especially in geologic
ones (of which Hugh Miller stands a pre-eminent example), to use the terms " heavens and earth," instead
of " heaven and earth."  It is " heaven and earth" in
the original, in both the first and second chapters of
Genesis; but in the latter, by some typographical
error, it has been printed "' heavens" in the English
translations, and hence, possibly, the almost universal
mistranscript. There is but one idea, however. to be
gained from both expressions.
We have treated the igneous geologic theory so
fully in another work, that it seems like copying our
own words to rehearse them here; but the argument
would scarce be a unit without at least some of its salient points. And we feel to make an apology to the
reader, for taking up his time by a lengthy refutation of




238            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
such a supposition. Yet all folly is wisdom till exposed,
and hence to the task. There have been wise men who
have advocated seriously the former igneous condition
of the matter of the earth, and we think there are still
some who entertain such dreamy musings even in the
present day; though, whether they do so to provoke
argument, and thus spread their profit and Quixotic
doctrine, or whether they do so seriously in the belief
that it was true, we can not say. We take the fact as
we find it, and lament the scientific condition of that
man's mind who can seriously subscribe to the apparent folly that arsenic, lead, silver, gold, sulphur, carbon, quartz, granite, and limestone, were once a molten, honogeneous, plastic pudding! Well, it is an
amusing story for some because of its oddity, and possibly because of its downright absurdity. But let us
suppose it to be true as stated, and we try the experimnent ourselves, based upon this fire statement as a
precedent, because that which has been once done in
a natural way can be done again, either naturally or
artificially, by the use of like means; for, be it remembered, this is the foundation-principle of all geologic
faith, and the principle must as well apply to one set
of things as to another. As the geologist says there
is nothing like seeing the thing done, and testing re



CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           239
aults by our own senses; we then arrive at conclusions which can not be gainsayed! And so, let it be
supposed, we put on the crucible filled with the facts
which we have enumerated, to prove the great and
fundanmental truth of all geology, the igneous condition of matter at first. We then put into the vessel
the substances, arsenic, lead, silver, gold, sulphur, carbon, quartz, granite, and limestone, and apply the heat.
Finally, we have the soul-stirring gratification of seeing the mass gently crouching itself into the depths
of the fire-surrounded vessel, but we are stifled with a
most suffocating smell.of sulphur, and, as we discovered afterward, was fortunately driven from the place,
as our chemist told us the arsenic might have finished
our geologic experiment earlier than we had intended.
The curling clouds of smoke which rose from the little
pit as the heat increased were finally swept away, and
we began to behold the realization of our fondest
hopes. The mass was melted, and we stood in silent
but deep meditation over, as we supposed, a fragment
of the primeval world. Alas, how pregnant were our
thoughts! We fancied, as the heat became less aSgain,
we should find a real fragment of a real world in the
blackening mass, and we nigh burned our fingers in
our indecent haste to reveal the inner mystery and




240           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
prove our igneous postulate. In our too eager longing for the consummation of that event, the geologic
hammer was raised too high, and fell upon the halfcooled mass, shivering it to atoms! Alas! experiments
are not always successful. We searched for our gold —
it was gone; we next looked for our silver — alas! it
was gone also; of the sulphur there was not even an
odor left; of the lead, not as much as a bright drop,
nor anything else save a semi-glassy, brittle mass,
which did not even resemble granite, quartz, or limestone. Not satisfied with the result, we started for a
chemist; told him the whole story, and, as we progressed, a twitching might have been observed around
the corners of his mouth; and when the whole story
was ended, he looked at us for a moment and burst
into a roar of laughter. We expostulated, told him
that was no way to treat a scientific matter, and asked
an explanation, and we give it in his own words.
"My friend," said he, "I perceive you have attempted a most laudable and praiseworthy undertaking- -that of proving the truth, or showing the fallacy, of the foundation of all geologic faith as to the
course of creation. The result of your experiment,
however, seems by your own relation to have done
neither. But you have made a good start, and I will




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          241
aid you with my knowledge as far as I can. There
are three laws which control this question of igneous
fluidity of the matter of which this earth is composed,
namely, different degrees of fusibility of the various
substances; different degrees of heat at which they
are volatilized, or, as we term it in common language, destroyed; and different specific gravities.
You must have seen, in your experiment -and if you
did not, you would have seen it if you had observed
closely - that every substance (namely, the gold, silver, lead, arsenic, sulphur, and carbon) had totally
disappeared before the granite commenced to fuse.
This supposed fact, then, which geologists assert as
the foundation of their faith, is simply impossible, as
your experiment demonstrated. Nor can the fusion
of the various substances of which the earth is conmposed be sooner made together, than you can fuse
together gunpowder and granite, without the total
destruction of the former. It is equally rational to
suppose, and would be equally true to assert, that the
present vegetable and animal kingdoms and man, inhabited the earth in such molten condition, as that the
other elements, which would be destroyed by such
heat as well as they, existed in that state unharmed.
Admitting, for the sake of argument, a total abrogation
16




242            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
of the laws of nature as to heat, what shall be said of
the law of gravity?
"It is plain to see, that even though such a state were
possible, the heavier parts would descend to the centre,
while the lighter would rise to the top. The average
specific gravity of the rock formations is about three,
while gold is twenty; that is, gold is about seven times
heavier than granite. It is useless to speculate about
such conditions, for without a total abrogation of existing natural laws and qualities of matter, such a condition is impossible."
The explanation of the chemist seems sound, as
must be patent to every mind. Now let us examine
the grounds given by the advocates of the primordial
igneous condition of the earth, and see how strong the
evidence is which leads to the conclusion. They say
certain rocks, in detached locations, have the appearance of having been in a fused condition. Possibly, to
a geologic witness they may, but we have never yet
seen a piece of primitive rock the size of a man's hand,
that looked as though it had ever been fused, except
it came from a volcano, a blast-furnace, or some other
place where artificial heat had been ruling. It must
be remembered by these surface-skimming individuals,
that a lengthy period has elapsed since the Mosaic




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           243
creation, and time sufficient to extinguish and light up
many volcanoes has rolled away into the past.
The reasoning upon these data, few and meager as
they are, is not analogical, but inferential, as no parallel or precedent has been discovered within the
knowledge of man, on which to found an analogy.
The inferential is scarcely maintainable, since no nearer
similarity can be found than the crucible, of which we
have spoken, and if that be assumed as a parallel, the
most that can be drawn from it is, that rock materials
when once fused, loose their special vitality as such,
and they never return to their primitive state.
From this igneous fluid condition, the sage geologic
cosmogonist elaborates upon a shrinking and crimping
process in cooling, by which he can demonstrate the
manner how Chimborazo, or other towering peaks, were
elevated, deep valleys were cast down, ranges of mountains were raised, beds for future oceans were scooped
out, and, by such chance throes, were prepared the
groundworks and foundations of a world like ours.
Crazy dreaming! No, nor as much as that, because
dreams are generally analogical. These are very simple suggestions, only fit for destruction by one single
ray of truth shed upon them. If the supposition had
the first shadow of strength to support it, a secret sat



244            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
isfaction would attend its demolition. But- like many
other assertions, they stand up till overthrown.
Hence we say, if the igneous condition were even
possible, the pudding must have been very cautiously
and carefully mixed, and one kind of material must
have been divided from another by wondrously accurate plans of division. For there are no two kinds of
granite or primitive rock alike, in the various valleys
or mountain peaks on the earth! They may have, in
some few instances, striking similarities, but no two
mountains in the world are alike in structure or in
material, which they should be if derived from the
igneous mass as claimed. Any man must value his
reputation for science, or for truth, and measure them
by rare co-ordinates, who soberly sets down to give such
trash to the world. If he were writing an April-fool
card, or a penny-a-line moon story, the squib would be
well put. And when we read the:,,, an inquiring
doubt runs through the mind, whether the author intended them as jocular science, or as a forlorn probability.
We pass, now, from this foundation stone of the geologic faith, or from the liquid to the solid portions
of it, leaving any mind, not satisfied with our exposition, to pursue the phantom still further if they wish.




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.         245
At this particular point of the geologic faith its advocates are at bay, and for our own purpose of having a
completed and full geologic faith as to a creation, to
overthrow, we sincerely wish that they could be helped
out. But having no theory of our own to advance on
their failure, that point of their faith must go by default.
We refer to the ushering in of air and water upon
the earth. Now some geologists unwittingly have
introduced them by creative fiats; but others, more
deep, have ignored this mode, because that weighs
heavy, analogically, in favor of the biblical Christian
faith respecting the introduction of pre-Adamite fossils
by a creative fiat in like manner. So that, having no
theory of successive development, in layers or otherwise, to adduce, and finding that creative fiats would,
measurably, prove the biblical Christian faith, to the
great damage of the geologic, they have wisely (for
themselves) leaped over the chasm thus geologically
made, and skipped the whole subject philologically,
leaving the tight-woven cosmogonist in a slough of
geologic despond. We do not know but that the defect
is somewhat balanced by the admirable accuracy of
detail with which they make up the remainder of their
geologic cosmogony. But looking at the failure in an




246            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
enlarged view, it would seem that an hypothesis of a
creation which fails utterly in these two great points, is
weak indeed, and if its advocates help themselves out
by a miracle, they seek the controlling element of the
biblical Christian faith.
We now launch ourselves into that wondrous sea of
geologic science, so called, at whose portals the finger
of truth has written letters on the wall- LIKE CAUSES
PRODUCE LIKE RESULTS- and like these letters, carry
with them a particular meaning. If the advocates of
the geologic faith were guided by the axiom abovequoted, then rock formations from a common parent
would scarcely be developed. Assuming that the geologic cosmogony has brought us down to solid rock all
over the face of the earth, in ridges and furrows, accidentally made by any cause - and by any other cause,
the atmosphere surrounded the earth, and the waters
covered some or all of the aforesaid rock, -and the
world was then water, rock, and atmosphere, three of
the great elements of our present world - what then?
From this stand-point we may stop and ask a controlling and highly interesting question, both as regards the one or the other of the two faiths. Does
the geologic faith evolve all forms in nature, from this
granite rock by detrital and water-wear, or does it




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           247
admit creative fiats, when each and all the various
lines of existences, which are and have been operative
during all time upon the earth, were first introduced?
There are geologists who contend, that all forms in
nature have been evolved from the granite rock, as
well as another class which admit creative fiats to all
lines of existences except the sedimentary rock and
soil lines, and the entire of the fossil kingdom. To
the first class, who are of the" Vestiges-of-Creation"
school, and who pretend to no Christian faith, and
hence, are not endeavoring to fasten upon it what the
biblical Christian faith assumes to be false tokens, we
have no answer to make. They may believe, if they
choose, that a raven was hatched from the egg of a
crystal, or from the crystal itself; such faith finds its
own refutation in more extended and refined knowledge.
But it is to that class which, in order to be ostensibly
shielded under the Christian faith, are compelled to
take just enough of it to suit their purposes, demolishing it as a unit of truth, and still claim to give a superior
geologic faith. We hazard nothing in saying, that this
latter class, and whom we are answering, admit creative fiats in every line of existence in the vegetable
and animal kingdoms, in the metallic, non-metallic,




248            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
and all primordial matter, while they urge the development process to all rocks, stones, and soils, above the
granite basis, including the fossil kingdom, both preAdamite and post-Adamite.
The character of the reasoning in the development
supposition is more analogical than inferential, yet
there is very much of the latter; we admit, frankly,
there are analogies for the development of certain
forms in the mineral kingdom, and, as analogical
reasons, they are just as strong, and no stronger, than
the analogy respecting the creative fiats. If we admit
creative fiats to one line of existence and deny it to
another, nay, if we admit them to all save one, we
must show a wondrous reason, amounting to positive
proof, that that one wuas not the subject of a creative
fiat, or the logic will fail upon its own data.
Hence it becomes necessary, at this point of the
argument, to show that all the pre-Adamite lines of
existences claimed as such by the geologic faith, are
dependent for their development upon one. The sedimentary processes claimed to have been evolved from
the granite rock by water-wear, and detrital, are
judged of on two grounds. First, that these rocks are
in layers of various and differing inclinations, from
horizontal to vertical, and hence supposed to have been




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          249
deposited, and subsequently to have been upheaved by
some force into these various positions. And, second,
from the fact that fossils are found in them, which lead
to the supposition, that a creation of plants or animals
lived upon the earth at the time these rocks were thus
supposed to have been deposited.
It is but too evident, that without the fossils no supposition of date could be deduced. For the fact that
one rock lies over another, or that they have seams in
them, would not be sufficient evidence to draw the
geologic inference, that one was made before the other.
Hence, we think, no objection will be urged, in assuming that the fossil controls the whole question as
to geologic development of pre-Adamite forms. Then,
as the whole ground of assumption depends upon the
fossil, we may treat all other lines of existences as
having started in a creative fiat. This simplifies the
argument, and enables the mind to arrive at the grain
without wading through such mountains of chaff
As far as the experience of man goes, like causes
produce like results, and revolving this in our minds,
we naturally ask, why comes from this water-wear and
detrital of one kind of rock, so many different and
widely-varying forms? Why comes from the same
cause the gneiss mountains-the mica, talc, schists,




250            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
and slate, in their great varieties - the wondrous and
widely-spreading clay slates- the extensive grauwacke
conglomerates — the so-called silurian limestonesthe immense masses of the old red sandstone - the
towering mountains of limestones - the necessary, but
mysterious variety of coal-beds -the magnesian limestones - the immense layers of sandstone called the
new red — the large family of limestones under the
titles of shell, lias, oolite, and chalk beds - and, finally,
the clays, soils, boulders, and that vast variety of other
forms not spoken of by this hazy supposition —the
metallic and non-metallic substances in their endless
compounds? With a gravity due to sublimer subjects,
our scientflc geologist asserts this great and well-established principle, that like causes produce like results, yet
to accommodate the pre-Adamite fossil, and make it an
exception instead of being obedient to the analogical
rule of creative fiats, he calmly expunges this cardinal
of science, and makes the solemn fact a farce.
If this vagary have a shadow of comeliness as a
science or truthful hypothesis, why can not the granite
evolve the metals, or the non-metallic compounds, as
well as the vast rocks said to owe their origin to this
source, and which hold them all within their deepdown solidities.  How does this stalworth phantom




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           251
tell the story of the broadcast jewels, the thread-metallic veins, their secret mineral and metallic hiding-places,
which when revealed are like star-dust in the deep expanse of space. Can it tell why one star is brighter
than another star, or why they are at various distances
from each other, or whether they are, or are not, the
clippings of some great central mass of granitic starlight, shaved off in the processes of time, by some
huge, unknown, indefinable, and mysterious machine?
We can determine no good ground for one proposition being superior to the other, except that the
latter is newer than the former, and may be the basis
of as consistent an hypothesis. The failure of the
faith to give an approximate idea how these thousands
of elements, in the so-called sedimentary rocks, could
have been mechanically, or by fiat, introduced in place,
makes the faith assume rather the character of a joke
than a serious reality. ~ For, suppose we assume that
the geologist be driven, as he is, at last to admit-their
introduction in place by a creative fiat, what shall be
the nature of that. fiat? Shall it be by the rule which
is admitted as that which bears the greatest amount
of probability, that kingdoms are the subjects only of
such miracle, or that each mass or fibre, as the detrital
and sediment went on, was added, as the mode of




252            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
creative wisdom. If the latter, the world, in the earlier geologic age of water-grinding, would present the
splendid spectacle of a country flouring-mill, where
netted cobwebs catch the flying dust, and where each
thread or mass was, relatively, a sparkling line of
jewels, or suspended metallic compounds, glistening in
the streaming sunlight, as it fell through some accidental opening upon these otherwise unseen beauties.
The first natural suggestion is, why are the preAdamite fossils elevated or depressed (for it matters
little which term is used), in their origin, above or below the jewels or the metallic compounds?  For they
are nigh of the same composition as the former, while
they are far less intricate in construction than the latter. Taking, then, the analogy of thousands against
one, where is the logic which binds to the conclusion
that the pre-Adamite fossils were an exception to
the rule of creative fiats, calling upon the Creator to
do on this account a million, yea, billions of times
more work than would be necessary to produce the
required result, making his creation a huge folly of analogical contradictions, violating natural laws at every
single step, calling upon monstrous unknown and unprecedented causes to show forth power and wisdom?
What geologist is bold enough to say to the world,




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          253
if he respects himself, that he sees a probability, in
any department of Nature which suggests an analogy
or an inference, that twenty thousand cubic miles of
limestone have been evolved from granite rock?  Why,
this simple, single, isolated, declared fact eclipses Munchausen, as well as the Arabian Nights Entertainment
in the strong analogy of Aladdin's lamp. We will not
say that the geologists have been as frank as to bind
themselves to the exact number of cubic miles, but they
have calculated the amount of coal to be about fifteen
hundred cubic miles; and we shall come far short of
the fact, if we assume near thirteen feet of limestone
for every foot of coal; and we will repeat the inquiry
here -Which bears the greatest amount of probability of being true, this single hyperbolical assumption
respecting the impossible origin of the vast family of
limestones, or that the pre-Adamite fossils were made
like other admitted forms, by a creative fiat?
Every chemist and mineralogist well knows that
lime enters into the composition of the granite rock;
but so sparingly, that, to obtain this amount of carbonate of lime required by the geologist, carbonic
acid gas, in volume nearly equal to our atmosphere,
would first be necessary, and then the debris of granite
which would be left would make nigh twenty times




254            CONCLUDING ARGUMENr.
the bulk of the entire so-called sedimentary rock-formation. Now this is a mechanical, or we may say possibly an arithmetical, calculation, which any schoolboy
can make;that is, given the quantity of granite rock
(which in an average contains sufficient lime, for.all
kinds do not), and given the amount of limestone on
the earth. Not only the volume of carbonic acid gas
which would have been required, but the debris of the
granite rock left, could be as accurately calculated as
can the number of feet in a cord of wood.
Hence we say the family of limestone-rocks of the
earth, each and every of which perform their offices as
original elements in the great design, is a positive bar to
the geologic faith that these rocks have had their origin in detrital and sediment.: And we here assert, for
the benefit of those bearing the biblical and Christian
faith, that no devices of sophistical arguments, in out
opinion, can ever be adduced, which will make the
limestone family dependent upon the granite rock
and detrital for its origin. There are internal as well
as external evidences, which quite overshadow any
such supposition; and if the truth or falsity of the Bible is to depend upon this element of geologic proof,
the more the subject is handled, the weaker it becomes as evidence to show that pre-Adamite fossils




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.            255
were preceded by animal and vegetable life, or that
none of that kingdom have had their origin in creative fiats.
We would be more particular to elaborate like fallacies in the clay slates, the coal-measures, and other
portions of the detrital faith; but we have done that
in another work, to which, for further arguments in
the so-called sedimentary rocks, we beg leave to refer.
There is, however, one point, not handled to any extent there, to which we will briefly refer here. If the
cardinal principle, that like causes produce like results, be
true, let us apply that principle to the making of soils,
gravels, sands, &c., whieh — surmount the rock-formations. Now, if we did find in this department of Nature anything to warrant a conclusion, either from
their form or material, that they are of sedimental origin, where is it? The geologist assumes the horizontal layers of the various rocks found as evidence that
they owe their origin to sediment.- Now, do they
claim the same law to the soils, sands, and loam which
cover rock-formations, as of the same birth - waterwzear detrital and sediment?  If so, why do we not find
the soils in layers and in levels analogous to the rocks
referred to? Is there any plausible explanation of
the fact? or will thev skip this, as they do every other




256            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT
adverse fact, and generously yield up to the Christian
faith of fiats these unsolved enigmas?
Will they explain how hill and dale of loam and
soils are the products of their consistent faith? how
wide-spread districts occur which have7 no possible analogy to the sediments of the Ganges, the Amazon, the
Mississippi, or the Rhine? Neither in composition nor
in general form do they spontaneously suggest such a
parentage. Look at the section of any bank of earth
which contains stones and boulders, of all forms and
sizes, from that of a robin's egg to that of a church (of
no mean size, either), and see if you can mark the analogy in an alluvial deposit? If the aspirant will do so,
or attempt it even, he will have as much ability and
boldness as has been displayed by the lamented and
we believe deluded, honest man, Hugh Miller. For it
mattered little what was the task with his logical pen,
whether it was in nature or metaphysics, he would
so skilfully handle, elaborate, and distend truth, and
smother error, as to make his own deductions positive
proof-for his reader.
It is so, we fear, with many honest geologists. They
have an idea to carry out, and see honestly all of one
side of a question —handle and magnify truths to the
fullest extent of their tension; while those which weigh




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          257
against their dogmas are left to speak for themselves
how and when they can. This is too much in the style
of schoolboy dialectics; and what seems the strangest
element in the whole matter is, that really great men
have scanned the horizon of Geology with a glance;
have assumed all her dogmas as true, because they
see so plainly before them that the fossil must be the
sarcophagus of a plant or an animal. And so with as
little thought upon collateral truths as they bestow
upon the food which succored either, they jump to all
the conclusions advanced.
Before closing this branch of the subject, we must
call the attention of the reader to a family of forms in
the crystalline kingdom which are analogous to those
of the fossil kingdom, as they will possibly aid the
mind in detaching itself from the foundation of the geologic faith-that of necessarily calling for vegetable
and animal life wherever we find crystalline forms
which resemble some fancied or real plant or animal.
Look you at that section of a block of marble (carbonate of lime, the same material of which most of the
fossils are composed), and let your imagination be lively and earnest; search over it, and see if you find anything resembling a form in either the plant or animal
kingdom. Nay, let your analogies run further-men
17




258           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
and women in chariots drawn by flying steeds; armies
in battle; men in single combat; old women in tatb
tered raiment; snakes, lizards, and reptiles; volutes of
infinite sizes and shapes. And in the agate kingdom
stranger forms still: oceans rolling their waves against
an imaginary shore; rivers wending their silent, tranquil way downward to the sea; drowning forms and
triumphal marches of conquerors, displayed in almost
speaking truthfulness.
What are these to the geologist? Can he in these
forms read the handwriting of God? Will his materialism tell us whence come these things, and whence
comes this life-sheet upon which they are written? Are
they sedimentary? Have these fanciful forms lived on
earth, and been ground to dust, and are these the crystalline petrifactions which have resulted from such
analogous changes? Let our distinguished literary immortality, Hugh Miller, have used his geologic steel
and stone-cutter's graver as carefully on these forms,
to develop them, as he has used his hammer in the
geologic field and his pen in the study to develop his
analogous forms, and the world could be filled with
fossils; nay, could be besprinkled with forms at will,
typical of every line of existence, known or unknown.
There are forms in Nature untouched by the cau



CONCLUDING ARGUMENT,           259
tious pen of geologic faith; and, although these pencillings amounting to solidities in distinct colorings, are
not exact forms in analogy, the mystery respecting
their establishment as the handwriting of a Creator is
no greater as to a fiat, than that of a detached fossil
form of the same composition, and representing similar
forms. In the kingdom of imprints, however, there
would seem to be a closer analogy. Nor can we see
more mystery in the making of a grain of sand than
in creating the fossils. Nor is there an element in creation more mysterious in its introduction by fiat than
another. All analogical reasoning respecting a creation fails on its own data if any different principle is
admitted; though, as we have said before, we do not
object to a geologic faith such as is advanced, except
so far as the biblical and Christian faith is affected by
it. For the good of man, and the enjoyment of our
own domain and acres, we heavily protest against those
who advocate a scheme calculated to do so much harm,
and the unwarranted trespass which it seeks to establish as of right.




260            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
CHAPTER X.
SCIENCE OF THE GEOLOGIC FAITH.
WE have now said all that our space will afford respecting the inferential and analogical evidences which
the biblical Christian faith has to present as a ground
for its acceptance, and the rejection of the geologic.
We now come to the scientific evidences, which, in a
general way, we have collated on page 120, and to
which we now refer.
Throughout all Nature there is an equilibrium: by
which is meant, not only that every element is in
place, and balanced by the whole, but likewise that,
by their working together in decay and reproduction,
that equilibrium is continually maintained. While matter takes on different forms, the affinities and actions
of these various elements preserve their precise powers; and no one line of existence gets the advantage
of another, by taking more matter than is appropriated
to its existence. Were this not so, and the energies




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           261
of Nature were directed, as claimed by the advocates
of the geologic faith, to the making of limestone, for
example, that formation would go on till all the carbon and lime in Nature were exhausted; or if they
were operating by their own affinities, without equilibrium and counterpoises in the various lines of existence, those would triumph and form, the elements of
which possessed the strongest affinities for each other,
and the result would be, not an equilibrium, but Nature's
energies would be exhausted on those forms. Hence,
there is a check and restraint put upon affinities, to
the extent that each line of existence, however weak
may be the affinities of its elements, retains a controlling vitality, which in the order of Nature enables it to
secure its share of decomposed matter, to flourish, and
to maintain its existence. Nor will that existence
cease so long as the vitality and other parent, whatever
it may be, act together with sufficient matter within
reach to make them effective.
We thus determine, by reasoning upon these data,
whether absolutely correct or not, that each kingdom
in Nature has a certain amount of the matter of this
earth set apart for its especial use, and that the decomposition of one portion of it gives material for an analogous form to spring to life, requiring some one or all




262           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
of the elements thus liberated: because the dependence of one kingdom  upon another, and upon the
whole, bears a constant relation to each other; and if
any one kingdom should fail to form, that on which it
depends would fail also, and so on, till all such existences having mutual dependencies would be brought
to an end.
It will, then, be readily seen how this want of existing equilibrium would affect all Nature. The absence
of any one kingdom, or the excess of another, would
involve the reorganization of natural laws for a new
state of things, because new affinities and relations
would arise on the withdrawal of even one kingdom.
Then how can we use this probable fact to show the
falsity of the claimed geologic developments? If the
principle be a sound one, the entire range of natural
affinities and dependencies must have been changed at
every successive introduction of a new kingdom-the
formation of every new rock in the mineral kingdom,
or an excessive and unnatural growth of the vegetable
kingdom.
This goes to show an analogical if not a-scientific
reason why the world should have started in an equilibrium of existing entities, and that that equilibrium has
remained intact to the present day. So, when the ge.




CONCLUDING ARGUMErNT.         263
ologist talks of igneous fluidity of matter, or of that
state of things claimed as detrital and sediment, which
only can be paralleled to a huge mill grinding out a
world, where is the first scientific principle regulating
matter, the present equilibrium? Or, when he talks of
creations which have existed half made with respect to
ours-of their destruction, and reorganization anew,
with portions of the last-dropping the remainder,
and that too without a precedent to offer from which
to reason, where is his scientific equilibrium?
The lines of existences of families seem to us to be
the warp-threads of creative design; and, as we trace
them back in the imagination, we can not determine
why, as they now mutually depend upon each other,
and weave forward the woof of Nature, they should not
have always played alike and in unison to the vast
alimental shuttle of vitality and life. When, too, we
know what the shuttle is which bears the filling, the
supposition becomes riveted into a fact that, the existing equilibrium proves the necessity of its own vitality
during the existence of an organized world.
If, then, it shall be shown that in each of the geologic periods claimed, there were no means of feeding
animated nature analogous to that by which the process is now carried on, it- is a dead lock to the supposi



264           CONCLUDING ARGUMFNT.
tion that animal or vegetable life existed at all; except,
indeed, that the ingenious geologist might assert that
in those ages they did not live by absorbing alimental
food, as they do now. This proof, we think, is conclulsive, when the manner by which the process is now
achieved is explained.
Everything in Nature is consumed in some way by
its neighbor; but that consumption accomplished by
the vegetable and animal kingdoms is sufficient for our
present purposes.
In looking out upon Nature, we often wonder why
it should rain, and deplore the existence of unpleasant
weather. Though the husbandman knows its value,
he scarcely comprehends the reason, except from experience that it is good. He sees that it refreshes and
supports vegetation, and thus it becomes a proof to
him that in some way the rain administers to the wants
of the plants. But the chemist is enabled to show to
him what there is in the plant which it absorbs and
feeds upon, and hence shows from what sources that
food must of necessity be obtained. The next and
most natural inquiry follows, "From what storehouse
comes this supply?" And here is the whole question
respecting the geologic pre-Adamite feeding. Where
were the corresponding means which the pretended




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          265
pre-Adamite animal and vegetable kingdoms had of
procuring food and sustaining life?  Let us see:Science having determined the well-established facts
respecting the kind of food which: the vegetable and
animal kingdoms draw-from'the mineral, and also having determined the vehicle by which this food is conveyed to them, namely, the rain-waters (which are made
effective to this end by the relative powsiwns of the rocks
with each other, and also by the differences of levels,
by reason of one being higher than the others), he
looks for the means by which and with which this constant process was carried on in the:pre-Adamite world,
when it is asserted by geologists that these positions
did not at all times exist.
It is found, by the chemical analysis of river-waters,
that most of them contain the following substances
held in solution, namely.:Carbonate of Lime;
Carbonate of Magnesia;
Silicate of Magnesia;
Peroxyde of Iron;
Peroxyde of Manganese;
Aluminia of Manganese;
Sulphate of Lime;
Sulphate of Magnesia;




2C: 6          CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
Sulphate of Potash;
Sulphate of Soda;
Chloride of Sodium;
Chloride of Potassium;
Chloride of Calcium;
Chloride of Magnesium;
Carbonate of Soda;
Silicate of Potash;
Phosphate of Lime;
Phosphate of Iron;
Organic Matter;
Suspended Matter.
We inquire, "Whence come the river-waters?" and
the answer is, " From mountains and surfaces more elevated than that point to which they flow." To make
our proof complete, the chemical analysis of rain-water
before it falls to the earth shows that it contained few
if any of the above substances, which demonstrates
that, after they fall to the earth, these various compounds must be absorbed by the water. Then, too, it
is ascertained that in dry seasons these substances are
more sparingly found in the water than in very rainy
weather. So the proof is rendered conclusive that the
rains are the direct agents and are the vehicles by
which these substances are drawn from their resting



CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          267
places on the hills, and conveyed downward'to the
oceans.
In their passage, the fresh-water kingdoms of plants
and animals absorb what they require, permitting what
the marine plants and animals need, to pass on. Science determines also the causes of the rains to be
evaporation; and hence the round process of Nature.
Waters of the oceans are evaporated, pass to the atmosphere in vapor; and, as though the Creator had arranged matters about right, notwithstanding the geologist, these mists wander on in the currents above until
they come against an elevation, or denser current of air
which, if either be sufficient to raise the vapor to a
height in temperature great enough to condense it.
the rain will fall as the inevitable consequence. But
should the vapor not be in condition, or the height be
insufficient for condensation, it will pass on until it
meets a higher and still a higher peak, or denser current of air, till at last the rains will descend —and upon
what?  Upon the cultivated fields of the husbandman,
it is true, but they will also fall, upon the way up-towering, barren, and-rugged heights, where none save the
Creator would think them either necessary or welcome.
What can be their mission in these lonely, uninhabited
wastes?




268            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
It requires the entire range of the geologic rocks
to answer this question, for it is to supply the articles
of food which we have before enumerated, to the wanting world below. Each particular layer contains its
peculiar necessary, and that necessary can not be obtained
from any other source. Why, then, the towering mountain, along up the sides of which you can read the names
of those storehouses of food piled in regular, nay in a
methodical order, the one upon the other, to its very
summit?  Why are they exposed to the view of the
curious geologist, who spies into their composition to
draw his inferences? Does the intelligent reader believe they are the result of a shoving up from below
by a mechanical process, the bare assertion of which
would be a disgrace to the first day's work of a stupid
apprentice?  But if the result be attributable to the
power of an omniscient Creator. working for a design,
it becomes at once possible, but not by the action of
organized forces as they are now established.
These storehouses of food are traversed by seams.;
are turned up at various angles; are placed here and
there, but with a regular succession as to which is
highest and which is lowest, and with the separation
between them as decided as there is between.the animal and man. It will be seen at once that if there




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          269
were no mountains arranged in the manner specified,
both as to height and composition, how would the
rains be condensed? and, if so condensed, what would
be the utility of their precipitation, if they had no immediate duty to perform? How would they be enabled to convey to the plants and animals that on which
they subsist, if that subsistence was placed beyond the
reach of the rains? Hence, to carry forward the feeding processes under our equilibrium, the rains fall
upon the mountains and hills, percolate into the fissures, or pass over the surfaces of these storehouses of
food which are exposed upon mountain-sides; pick
from them, as the bee gathers his honey, that which
their affinities command them to do, and joyously dancing, singing, and leaping, with their little burden,
down steep, over cliff, and finally debouching into the
silver thread which leads to some gigantic river, while
it pours a stately stream into the spreading ocean. In
each step of the progress of these mountain-sparkling
waters on their mission, repeated time and again, they
find the eager plants and animals waiting their coming. Their wants are supplied, and the unburdened
waters pass on, to be returned again to their work.
Then, assuming this to be the mode of feeding plant
and animal life now and by means of these elements,




270           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
does it not show that there was not life in the pre-Adamite geologic world? For certainly there were neither the mountains nor the completed layers of storehouses of which we have spoken in combination there.
Nor were they in the position for the rains to circulate
through their seams, because they are claimed to have
been horizontal. This must necessarily have been so,
if they were merely sedimental. There were no elements in action in the so-called geologic pre-Adamite
world which could either now or then compass the
present mode of feeding. What, then, must be the inevitable conclusion? Either that the laws of Nature
have been changed at different so-claimed geologic periods, respecting the manner of feeding, or that there
was no vegetable or animal type to feed. The geologic believer that vegetable and animal life preceded
the pre-Adamite fossils may take either horn of the
dilemma which suits his purposes best.
All equilibriated chemical science must overthrow
the geologic faith on this ground, if on no other. But
to some minds, assertion is as good as proof; and it
may be well, in this place, to say a few words about
earthquakes, upheavals, and volcanoes, to show that
the results in nature claimed to have originated in the
laws which now govern them in their action are entirely




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.         271
impossible. Who will deny that there is action upward in the volcano, or disturbance in the earthquake?
or who will not say that lava is the result of the first,
and sometimes the destruction of cities, the result of
the second? But who will say that he has seen a
granite or gneiss mountain, or any of the food storehouses we have spoken of, thrown from a volcano.
Lava is one thing, granite, gneiss, the primary rocks,
and the storehouse rocks are another - yes, quite ananother. Thunder, the shock from lightning, that-may
cause a house to tremble, is not an earthquake, which
can do more; nor is there any rational analogy which
can be drawn from such data, when they have not
been known to produce the result in exactness which is
attributed to them. Volcanoes have been known to
throw up limited amounts of lava, and thus accomplished a hill, or mountain, if you please, but its bulk
was made of lava, and not of the rocks which we have
named.
So earthquakes have been known to throw up limited amounts of earth and rock, but never a mountainrange, or even a respectable hillock.  So that the
supporter of the geologic faith must admit, that there
were better volcanoes, and more powerful earthquakes
in the pre-Adamite world than we have in this; hence




272            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
we bring him to the point under this head, that the
laws of Nature have been changed regarding volcanoes
and earthquakes, if he assumes this; position, of which
he can give no proof. But more than this is done, we
show thereby that he has no existing analogis or inferences from which to reason.
But as the upheaval is the result obtained, let us see
the mechanical operation which the advocates of the
geologic faith presents, as the means by which mountain ranges, with their storehouses of food, originated
in the pre-Adamite geologic world.
Mountain ranges are made up of cone-shaped eminences, emulating each other in height, on a given
plane, which -may be assumed as their base. So far
as our experience goes, few, comparatively, bear evidences of volcanic relationship, while all are claimed
by the supporters of the geologic faith, as having been
ejected upward by a central force, or keeled up from
below by some damaging process, to what they denominate the crust of the earth. And when the reader
shall know, that at least ten miles of rock would require to be moved to display the granite, he will
appreciate the remark. Suppose, for an instant, we
are so far anti-biblical as to admit the sedimentary
processes to have formed, that the granite lies deep




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.            273
down below all rocks, and stands, as it truly is, the
foundation; of the earth  over this is the gneissover this the other primary rocks, and then them food
storehouses, in their order respectively, and lastly, the
soils.
Now we must beg to stretch the imagination of the
reader a little, in a familiar parallel, but if we reasoned
geologically, we might claim it as having been, because
something else was so.
Suppose we had a mill-pond as big as an ocean, and
we had it filled with water within ten or twelve miles
of the top. Just level with the water: were knobs of
granite mountains in great variety,;and in number
relatively equal to the heads of stumps seen: in ant
ordinary new-country milldam, where the standing
trees have been razed level with the ice.. —'We noW
desire to- make an experiment, and hence we wait till
the chills of' winter have crystallized over our mill:
dam, and the various knobs: were just visible above
its glassiness.  To accomplish our end (having the
means), we let into our millpond, and atop of our ice,
sufficient water to make five miles of solid ice all'over
the top of the knobs. When this is solidly congealed,
we let on, in succession, what will correspond in depth
to each of the so-called sedimentary rocks, till the
18




274           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
whole range is completed in ice representations, and,
finally, a light snow falls, which answers in analogy to
the soils.
We have thus spread over a sufficiently large basis,
so as not to be charged with unfairness on account of
its size, and hence, as not being an analogy. Now the
mountain knobs, under the ten or fifteen miles of ice,
may be supposed a hundred miles apart. With this
paraphanalia we wish to illustrate the geologic mode
of making a mountain, and hence, we either shall be
compelled to shove the knob up through the ice high
enough to accomplish the object, or the mountain
miust be made of the ice. For it matters not to us
what the mountain is made of, when we show the,
assumed manner of its making to be unmechanical
and impossible.
To explain how the knob could be shoved up would
be the argument of the geologist, while to show how,
by any internal I:ower known to us, it could not be
shoved up is the dead-lock of their argument. But we
can show how the crust can be broken, and hence the
knob can be made to appear, resulting in relative
altitudes to the general level of mountains, not, however, of the composition of existing mountains, made
of the food storehouses of which we have spoken.




CONCLUDING ARGUMEMT.          275
Ordinary things appear large when shown on a geologic scale. We now proceed with the experiment, by
drawing off the water from this extensive pond, and
letting the ice down upon the sides of the knobs. By
this process we gain the same result as though the
knobs were urged up by the geologic supposition of a
central force -and if the result be the samne, the geologist may as well take our plan of mountain-making
as theirs, for we think it superior in many respects.
In theirs of a central outward force they assume what
is impossible, while in ours we simply use the existing
force of gravity!
Observe the stair-like cracks threading their'way
outward as the water recedes, and the weight of the
superincumbent mass bears upon the summits of those
geologic mountains struggling for birth. Those cracks
open wider and wider, and the sister surface angle
points, gradually lean away from each other, like the
members of a distracted and broken family once bound
together around a common fireside. The waters still
recede, and the members of that united family lean
farther and farther from each other, till they rest stationary at reserved distances, looking steadily but
sternly on their former home.
The metaphor is past, the ice rests in an inclined




276            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
position upon the sides of the knobs, but where are the
mountains as claimed geologically. The knob which
should be the mountain (the granite proper), stands
ten miles below his geological. position, and around
him stand, ten miles above in a circle, mountain peaks
resembling wedges, and each resting on the knob or
mountain.
Has ever a phenomenon like this been seen in any of
the geologic range of forms? Yet every one conversant with the operation of forces, sees that if the sedi,
mental rocks, so-called, were ever impressed by an
under and upward force sufficient to break through
ten or even less number of miles of their solidity,
these wedge-like mountains would be the result. No
horizontal or slightly-inclined order of food storehouses
would occur as they are found.  But if we should
help the geologist out by a horizontal cut, just a little
below the summit of the knobs, after the ice had as.
sumed its place, and remove the upper portion of ice,
we should have the layers of the ice visible, just as we
now have the layers of rocks, as they appear upon the
existing granite mountains.  It is the great failure,
and the prominent trouble in this branch of the subject, that the advocates of the geologic faith can not
explain this cutting process, and casting away of these




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           277
upper peaks. Nor can we devise any relief for them.
Hence we are compelled to say, that the;whole line of
argument founded on upheavals, is- wholly unwarrantable under the action of existing natural laws.
How, then, stands our argument in favor of the
biblical Christian faith, as superior to, and as in deadlock conflict with the geologic, as to the origin of the
pre-Adamite fossils —whether they were made by a
creative fiat, or whether they were preceded by vegetable and animal life?
For the purpose, then, of making the geologic faith
good on this point, geologists are compelled to violate
all analogies as to the creation of heads of lines of
existences by a creative fiat.
First. Because those geologists whom we wish to
answer, admit and make necessary, creative fiats, not
only to heads of lines of existences, but to entire operative creations.
Second. They admit creative fiats to analogous and
homologous existences with the fossil mineral.
7Third. They admit creative fiats to elements, while
they deny that origin to the completed forms which
are composed of them.
Fourth. They admit creative fiats to the existing
creation, except the pre-Adamite fossils and their de



278             CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
pendencies, the latter, only, being excluded from the
rule by the former supposition.
PFifth. In summing up the number of lines of existences admitted as of fiat origin, they are counted by
thousands, while the fossil, which govern its dependencies, may be counted as one. For, if the creative fiat
be admitted to one fossil, all pre-Adamite fossils, by
analogy, take rank with it.
Sixth. As reasoning from inference respecting the
origin of the pre-Adamite fossils, they utterly fail as
logic, from want of the foregoing analogies. And as
reasoning by analogy, their reasons fail by virtue of
the terrific odds in analogies against them.
Seventh. The inferences and analogies are unsound,
when argued from, because they do not furnish exact
parallels.
EYghth. As a deduction in science, that pre-Adamite
fossils were preceded by vegetable and animal life, or
that any given fossil was pre-Adamite, are both mistakes, and are untrue as scientific deductions. For,
from the nature of things, no proof can be made upon
either point.
Ninth. Hence, whatever grounds a geologist may
imagine he sees in the rocks to show either supposition, they are simply the foundation of a FAITH.




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          279
To satisfy this ONE exception to creative fiats, this
geologic faith requires:1. An impossible condition of matter in an igneous
fluidity, a state without precedent.
2. A violation of known natural laws, as to the
ability of matter to exist together in an igneous fluid
mass.
3. The waste of creative energy in evolving a useless amount of heat, to destroy rather than make.
4. Two contradictory modes of making mountains,
the one by the corrogated wrinkling process, brought
about by cooling the igneous mass, and the other by
upheavals.
5. The impossible mechanical theory of detrital and
water-wear.
6. The abrogation, in accounting for such supposed
results (the sedimentary rocks), of a well-established
law, that like causes produce like results.
7. The unexplained placement of the jewels in the
so-called sedimentary rocks.
8. The unexplained placement therein of the metallic kingdom and their compounds.
9. The impossibility of the upshooting of fluid masses from an igneous central mass, because it contradicts
the well-known principle of the hydraulic press.




280            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
10. Hence, the unexplained mode in which most of
the traps and basaltic dykes were made, if not by
creative fiats.
11. The unexplained undulated condition of the
soils upon the present rock formation, if from detrital
and sediment.
12. The waste of creative energy to make, destroy,
and re-make and re-destroy, to produce the final result
first aimed at, in order to make one single exception to
the rule of creative fiats, that of the fossil mineral.
13. The failure of all inferential and analogical rema
sonings on exact data.
14. The failure of all analogical reasonings as; to
creative fiats. And,
15. The total destruction of the foundation of the
biblical Christian faith.
Now let us see the ground upon which the power is
delegated to this fossil god of stone. We cast our
eyes abroad upon the three great divisions of matter,
the mineral, the vegetable, and the animal kingdoms,
as they existed at the end of the sixth Mosaic day,
and we denote them by a figure, as represented on
page 107.
By this diagram we represent the starting points of
all the lines of existences in the Mosaic creation, which




CONCLUDING ARGUBENT.          281
are, or have been, reproduced by any law of Nature.
In the mineral kingdom, it is believed, there are many
which are not the subjects of the creative reproductive
will, and hence may well be regarded as the foundations
of the earth, upon which the reproductive functions
are developed.
In the vegetable as well as in the animal kingdom,
it is believed, though it is not proved, that very many
lines of existence have ceased to be reproduced. This
fact seems nearly established, if geologic evidence shall
be taken as:conclusive.
It may be possible, if this be true, that the total
amount of matter at first devoted to the vegetable
and animal kingdoms, may now, in the great equilibrium, be absorbed in a line becoming more abundant, while another has passed out. So far as the
analogy extends, to the mineral kingdom, it may be
equally true in it, but we have no evidence to, show
that- a mineral form, although in the Mosaic creation,
and which may have been sparingly, or not at all,
reproduced, will not, in the course of time, follow its
pattern and produce a post-Adamite form.
Looking then at our figure, and at the various lines
of existences, as they were in the Mosaic sixth day,
we first find a clay slate, and ask ourselves at once,




ec2           CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
can a clay slate be now formed, and by what process?
Geologists, who pretend to be skilled in this science,
say that it can, and hence we assume the thing to be
true, that clay slates can be re-formed, and from
parents, like any other thing. Hence we place it
down as a line of existence which reaches from the
Mosaic account to 1860. Next we ask of the families
of limestones and receive the same answer; of the
varieties of sandstones and receive the same answer;
and of the conglomerates and the same answer still;
and so we go through with each and every line of
existence in the mineral kingdom which is reproduced, and set down all of them as lines of reproduced
existences. Now it matters not whether it be a lump
of limestone as large as a marble, or the size of a
mountain, it belongs and must be ranked under the
appropriate membership of the family of limestones.
We, in like manner, go through with the members of
the vegetable and animal kingdoms, where parentage
is more visible, but not a whit more certain, than
that in the mineral. In the vegetable it is mostly
traced to the seed, but vegetable vitality can gain
matter through other processes, well known to the
botanist. The reproduction in the animal kingdom is
done by quite a differing process. And from these




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          283
remarks, we may venture an assertion, that every line
of existence has a diflTerent set of parents. The vitality
proper, which enables it to gain its share of food, and
some previous condition of matter, to make that vitality
effective, constitute the two parents.
Then let us run our eye through the members of
the mineral kingdom, and what do we see? A crystalline form-it may be of quartz. See the lapidarian
accuracy-alas! greater than that, perfection in its angles and forms. See, too, the five brother-varieties of
the quartz-crystal. Do they look enough like brothers
in form to be such?  No one would suspect them to
be of common parents, nor are they. They may be of
the same composition, as one animal is like another;
but the composition does not govern parentage. There
is a deeper law than that which controls all resultsthe law of form, springing in different parentages.
But the crystal, the limestone, and the sandstone,
can be reproduced by their parents, as well as the
members of the vegetable and animal kingdoms can by
theirs. We have but to find out by experience what
that parent is, on the one side and the other, and their
union will be productive, if food can be obtained; and
the resulting form will be governed by its predecessor
of like parentage.




284             CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
In searching among these masses of crystals, metals,
minerals, and soils, we find a wondrous odd-looking
piece of limestone, or mineral, or quartz formation,
which resembles an animal or a plant, and yet is not
either (the fossil). How came this strange thing here,
and where shall we arrange it in the lines of existence
to which we have referred, in the mineral kingdom?
It is limestone, and yet does not seem to be of the
same origin as the other limestones; or it is quartz,
and in its out-of-the-way place tells no consistent tale;
or it is of metal, and seems still stranger: and we know
not where to put it in the relative position regarding
lines of existences, as we do the others.
Let us examine principles, and see where it will demand a place. Has the thing parents, or is it without
parents?  Will the thing grow, or will it not grow?
Will it perish, or is it measurably imperishable, like
most mineral forms? Is the thing a member of the
mineral kingdom, or is it not?
As to the first question, "Has it parents, or has it
not?" this can be determined by experience. Try the
test: take a plant or an animal, or portions of either,
and when the distinctive parent (vialigy) of either has
abandoned its material to dissolution, place that material where petrifying vitality may seize upon that void




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          285
in Nature to establish a new empire, and let that vitality have proximity to food, and what will be the result?
A new existence —a fossil, as we call it; and, when
completed, its vitality, like all other completed mineral
vitalities, will cease to act, and a form complete as that
of man will repose in its native or passive state, enjoying for aught we know as sweet an existence as any
other fair form of God. Yes, and however much some
vain men may vaunt themselves of knowledge, it: asserts its position and rank in the mineral: kingdom,
with its parents, its quantum of matter set apart by
Almighty Wisdom for its maintenance, its measurably
imperishable form, and its unchangeable relations to
the vegetable and animal kingdoms, with a' force, a
strength, and clearness of undeniable truth, that claims
for it a distinctive rank as a line of existence not to be
overlooked by the heretic, the atheist, or the infidel.
Nor can each line of memberships oT this mysterious
kingdom be crowded out of its legitimate place in the
Mosaic creation sooner than any favorite or more ostentatious and apparently more important existence be
torn from the fiat law of the Creator. Let him who
takes the scalpel and incautiously handles it around the
established laws of God, take good heed. We care not
how great the man; we care not how wide his worldly




286            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
glory; we care not what his scientific reputation-the
greater each may be, the greater should be the heed.
It is time for the Christian pure to know who thus will
take the responsibility of using that scalpel, either on
the Sacred Scriptures or in the laws of Nature. Stay
not behind, if you would willingly join in the coming
conflict between the two faiths. Right or wrong, let
the geologist, who endeavors to reconcile the biblical
Christian faith with his pre-Adamite development, display his ensigns openly and fairly, and his fellow-men
will respect his independence, although they may deplore his errors. But let him not fight with the colors
of his enemy streaming from his fossil standard, or
waving over his long lines of battle array!




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           287
CHAPTER XI.
GENERAL CONFLICTS OF GEOLOGIC AND BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN
FAITH.
As a necessity, we are now brought down to that
concluding part of our argument, which relates to the
vital principle underlying the whole subject. The geologist who claims himself alike to be a reconcilistendeavoring to prove, philologically or by natural theology, that his faith is identical with the biblical Christian faith-assumes a position at once interesting if
not alarming to those who look for truth in the words
of the prophets and the apostles.
Scarcely one of the sacred writers fails, incidentally
or pointedly, to refer to the creation, in some one of
its elements, as bearing directly or indirectly upon the
subject-matter of which they treat. Even the Saviour
refers directly to tile subject of the creation of man,
the most important part of that great event; and the
whole weight of his teachings goes to illustrate his




288            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
mission as based on this Mosaic fact. When the geologist declares to the biblical Christian that the geologic
faith supports Scripture, and at best only requires to
this end the patching up of Genesis, he either does not
know how far the creation is sprinkled into every page
of the Bible, or else he does not understand the difference between contradiction and coincidence. There are
those who, in this connection, claim that the Bible is a
book of spiritual teachings, of allegories, and of parables; and hence that all matters of science should be
excluded from it, and that the Sacred Word is not to
be held responsible for assertions of this kind, because
of these three classes of statements which it is said to
contain.
If our faith and religion be not based upon facts,
this position and these views of the Scripture might
be true. But the reflecting.mind will see that facts,
both natural and revealed, are stated in almost every
line of Scripture; and it would truly be as startling as
any other portion of the geologic faith to assume these
facts to be fictions. It is just this sort of flabby reasoning which has induced many to cast aside the Mosaic account of the creation by fiats, and assume that
of the geologic, by development. And, as we have
seen, the grounds of this rejection and assumption are




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.         289
not based in the proof of facts, but in the rejection of
facts and the assumption of a fallacy.
We must, then, assume the scriptural statement as
true, that God made all entities in six natural days;
and that the object of such making was, the establishment of man as the delegated divinity to exercise the
subordinate control over all. This is the golden thread
which is woven through all Scripture, and is manifested threadbare in the New Testament, the second foundation-stone in the biblical Christian faith.
Divine wisdom is human wisdom infinitely amplified; and when we apply human wisdom to constructions on earth, it is the unit by which Divine wisdom in
like things can be measured. Though the subject be
infinite, it has still its finite unit of measure.
A familiar example can be drawn from every-day
life. If you had an edifice to build, and possessed
Divine power, how would you proceed? —or, rather,
with your knowledge of things and the operation of
natural laws, what would you do first? Would it be
worldly wisdom to make the whole instanter, in one
continuous, unbroken, and jointless and seamless mass,
when each part was to perform an independent action,
and where of necessity you must have doors, windows,
and other shifting and moving agents? Would it be
19




290            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
worldly wisdom to construct the roof first, or to make
the foundation first?
Would it not be worldly wisdom to make the parts
of the building first? Then examine them, and see
that they were good for the purposes intended; set up
the framework, and cover, and finish to completion?
This is a plain proposition, and can be only varied on
the supposition that man, possessed the power of Divinity to fiat it into existence.
But, as man does not possess the fiat power, and his
abilities are limited to combinations of elements already
made, he is compelled to accumulate power by time, in
order to accomplish that which he would do in less
time if he possessed omniscience.
Would any geologist, if he had this same edifice to
build, labor at it through years of toil and anxiety, if
he possessed the power to do in a day, what many laboring men would require years to accomplish? Further than this, would he make his beams, rafters, braces,
and posts, put them together imperfectly, and then destroy them, in order to build up a new and a better
structure, even before the first was worn? Still further, would he do this again and again, as the child
overturns his cobhouse for amusement, till at last a
structure should arise fitting his first design, and ac



CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          291
complishing only what he might have done at first
and at once?
If wisdom be an attribute of the Creator, it is difficult to understand how wise men can call the geologic
course of creation anything but folly. Endless years
of Divine effort, exerted to add, fraction by fraction, to
the vast rock-formations of the earth, to accomplish
that which his omniscience could and did accomplish
in a day! It may be wisdom, and it may be that kind
of human wisdom which guides the geologic mind to
call such a wild, fanciful, law-violating, creation-destructive, granite-mothering course, that which guided Creative Wisdom in the making of this earth. If that be
wisdom, human folly may soon be at a premium, and
be sought for as the pure coin of truth.
Hence, to deny God's fiat creations upon this principle, is laying a grave and serious charge at his wisdom; and that wisdom being an element of the Christian faith, such a charge strikes at the very foundation
of the biblical declaration on this point contained in
Genesis, and repeated in the fourth commandment, and
substantially reiterated throughout the Scriptures.
That intellect must be obtuse indeed which seriously avers that the course of creation, elaborated by
the geologic faith through chiliads of years, is equiva



992            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
lent to, or is not in dead-lock antagonism to the scriptural fact, as stated to have been done in six days. It
is no less than a burlesque upon language and common sense for any one to assert the shadow of a coincidence between the two. We have seen wherein
they conflict in all the elements which make up each;
and, as a summary and review, we will restate them
here:First. The overshadowing conflict between the geologic and biblical Christian faith as to the time consumed by Creative Wisdom in making this earth; the
one asserting that the time was greater than six days,
while the other asserts that it was performed in six
days.
Second. As an element of a creation, the supporters
of the geologic faith contend that, in its course, matter
assumed the igneous fluid condition, and that this was
necessary to consummate creation. No such assertion
or reference is made in the biblical record. Was this
condition fiated?
Third. They claim a heating and cooling process as
the creator of certain mountainous and other forms,
while the Scriptures attribute their making to our God.
Fourth. They claim that earth (dry land), water, air,
and light, were made, and in action, myriads of years




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.          293
before the sixth Mosaic day, while the Scriptures declare that they were made within the six Mosaic days.
_ Fifth. They claim that animal life preceded the introduction of the existing vegetable kingdom, while
the Scriptures assert, that animal life was introduced
after the existing vegetable kingdom.
Sixth. They claim that the existing entities, in a
large portion of the mineral kingdom, came from the
granite rock, through myriads of years, while the
Scriptures state they came from God in one day.
Sevelth. They claim that many vegetable kingdoms
had been created before the Mosaic, and been destroyed, while the Scriptures claim only one vegetable
kingdom has been made, and neither it or any other
has been destroyed.
Eighth. They claim that God has created kingdoms
of animals at various times, in geologic ages, and destroyed them, while the Scriptures assert, that animals
were made in two days.
Ninlth. They claim the combined action of various
vegetable and animal kingdoms, at distant and different
geologic periods from each other, while the Scriptures
assert but the existing two.
Tenth. They claim diurnal motion, for establishing
days, years, and seasons, began chiliads of ages before




294             CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
the time so stated to be in the fourth day of the
Mosaic account.
Eleventh. They claim there have been an indefinite
number of lights, or days, consumed in the making of
the earth as it is, at best, more than six days, while
the Scriptures positively assert the work to have been
performed in six days.
Twelfth. They claim, as the controlling element in
the geologic creation, that the sun, moon, and stars
were made, and in action, myriads of years before the
Mosaic date, while it states that they were first put in
action on the fourth Mosaic day.
Thirteenth. They claim and state, that rain fell upon
the earth before the date of the first Mosaic day,
while the Scriptures declare that it had not then
rained upon the earth.
It is useless to prolong the list of conflicts further.
A mind that can not see them through this transparency must return to its letters.
It will be urged by nmany, that the destruction of
the Mosaic account of creation and the fourth commandinent does not effect the Christian faith, nor will
it be affected whether the pre-Adamite fossils, be bound
to the law of fiat origin, or whether they be attributed
to development.




CONCLUDING.ARGUMEMT.          295
The Christian faith is a myth, unless the biblical history, which records its origin, rise, and the duties it
incurs, is true. The record commences in ADAM, and
runs in a connected revelation to CHRIST.... Every
word and line through the book illustrates co-ordinate
truths, bearing directly upon this line, and the whole
of the New Testament is the illustration of the worldly
history of the Saviour and his teachings, whose life was
the summing-up of biblical character, gathered from
the first line of Genesis to the last of Revelation.
If the geologist shall satisfy himself that the preAdamite world was developed, instead of fiated, into
existence, he wipes out the Mosaic account, and the
fourth commandment, and most of the Scriptures.
Suppose, then, to-morrow another ism or ology starts
up and wipes out the Pentateuch, and, as a consequence, the remaining commandments. And next
year still another, and wipes out the balance of the
Old Testament; while in a year or so more another
shows itself, and aims to prove the New Testament a
huge folly! What is to be done or said? Has not
the latter as good right to assume his theory as the
geologist, who commences at the other end of the
Bible?
The Mussulman looks to his Koran as the ground




296            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
of. his faith, and a material change in it would readily
be admitted as the destruction of the most cherished
feature of his religion. If the geologist be permitted
to eliminate portions of the Bible, because his faith is
strong in the origin of the fossil, may we not reasonably expect other changes soon?
No, we urge the intact condition of the Bible as a
whole, and its support, from two considerations, those
of duty and policy. From duty, because there is
Christian instruction from the beginning to the end of
it, and the Christian faith bears with equal pressure,
and has an equal support on the whole. If we consent to the principle of change, it will be admitted by
any geologist, that neither he or the strict-constructionist can draw the line at which that inovation shall
cease.
As a matter of policy, the structure and maintenance of governments depend mainly on the' force of
Christianity, and the Bible is the great prop which
directly supports the political welfare of communities.
It should, then, be the duty, as well  as the policy, of
every good wisher of the human race, to urge the
truth of the Bible in all matters of faith. The geologist, who founds his opposition to it in the points
referred to, being based alone in FAITH, should, as a




CQNCLUDING ARGUMENT.          297
Christian and good citizen, who wishes the greatest
benefit to the masses, urge the maintenance of the
Bible instead of its destruction.
And now it is not for VIs to teach those whose duty
it is to teach us. But there are mutual dependencies
in life; none are quite independent of the remainder;
nor is knowledge concentrated, as of right, in any one
corner of the earth, or in any one class of individuals.
The wise bee can gather honey where the sluggard can
not see it; and however humble the flower appears, it
may, on -being nursed, give forth some fragrance.
It would truly be a Quixotic undertaking for the
upholders of the Christian faith, to sally forth and
contend with every ism which floats upon the idiosyncracies of the human mind. It requires as much judgment to know what to attack, as how to combat any.
But it seems to us a plain case, and hence, a plain
duty, to accept the challenge presented by the promulgation of the geologic faith as the rival of the Christian faith, and boldly and fearlessly speak for the
maintenance of the one and the rejection of the other.
There could be no worlse book put into the hand of
a child, who was to be educated to believe in the Bible
generally, or particularly in the fourth commandment
and our cited, than that one which would bend his




298            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
mind to the belief, that all these points of faith were
untrue. Still more when the child, from necessity, must
be educated in the science, and yet must reject the
faith of geology. If no one will teach him the difference, it is plain to see he will accept both upon the
same footing.
To illustrate, too, the effect of teaching on this point.
We were once endeavoring to show (to a very tender
intellect, and yet a most devout Christian) the conflicts
of the two faiths, and the pernicious influences which
resulted, particularly to the young, as candidates for
the acceptance of the true biblical Christian faith,
by adopting the geologic manner and time of making
the earth, and to prove how essential it was for every
Christian to understand the principles of fiat law, when
said she in return: "Why do you oppose geology
with such amazing strength and determination? My
minister has never said ought to us about its iniquitous
bearings; and I am sure, if he had found, in his studies,
that it was anti-Christian, as you say it is, he would
have denounced it in unmeasured terms."
This answer is a volume in itself, and was enough
for us, and the conversation ended abruptly. In that
answer, although simple, is a sermon from the untaught
to the teacher, which may measurably explain the




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           299
cause of the sudden rise into very general acceptance
of those wide-spread infidel principles: because -
First. The lady referred to had never heard from
her spiritual teacher, that there was any difference
between Geology, as a collection of natural facts, and
the faith as to the origin of those facts in the hand of
the Creator.
Second. She had assumed the silence of her minister
as his approval of the geologic faith.
It must be apparent to all, that the unaided efforts
of at few straggling writers, even though they: spend
their lives, and devote their money and energies to
this one object, will fall like a raindrop upon the waste
and hungry sands of the desert.  Nor will a scout
here and there sent out against the heavy entrenchments of the geologists prove more effective, or will
discomfort them less in their present security.
We, then, reject the geologic faith, as to the manner
and time of creation.
First. Because that manner and time is widely different from that which is stated in the biblical account
of the same event. The one is claimed as having been
accomplished in an indefinitely great number of years
before the date of the Mosaic creation, and by development, instead of by fiat law.




300            CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.
Second. The advocates of the geologic faith can not
prove that any particular fossil was pre-Adamite.
Third. They can not prove, even admitting any one
fossil to have been pre-Adamite, that it was preceded
by life, either vegetable or animal.
Fourth. They can not show that the fossil kingdom is
an exception to fiat law in its archetypes.
Fifth. They can not show that every geologic period
does not contain the entire range of forms in the fossil kingdom.
Sixth. They can not show that every plant and animal
represented by a fossil, either fragmentary or otherwise, has not lived in, and since the Mosaic creation.
Seventh. They can not show that such plant or animal
does not now live in some portions of the earth.
Let us ask those, then, who feel an interest in the
maintenance of the true Biblical Christian faith, to
look well to their means of defence. There is a conflict in the future, or the signs of the times deceive us
widely, which will be waged on the one side by infidelity, with weapons made by the Almighty himself
These weapons are of no mean order, nor are they
difficult to be handled by raw recruits. While those
which are reserved for the Christian are of a character
at once naturally repulsive to the soldier, and only




CONCLUDING ARGUMENT.           301
effective in the hands of long-trained, long-tried, and
skilful veterans.
The man who holds to the doctrine, or the supposition, that the Biblical Christian faith, in its purity and
unity, has not been actually surrendered by - we dare
not say how many of the world — and is yielding in
every avenue of life, daily, to the geologic faith, knows
little of the undercurrent which sways the public mind.
This comes, in our view, from a want of education
upon the points at issue, wrongly certified as science.
And while these certificates are issued by infidel teachers, apparently equally ignorant, that ignorance, in the
main, is only to be eradicated by other teachings —
"Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little
and there a little."
This ignorance has been, and is still, a towering avalanche of infidelity upon the Scriptures, but we entertain the hope that a little light, well concentrated, will
melt those triumphantly-dancing white feathers into
bitter tears of remorse.
Then, ipstead of deprecating, let all Christians extol
the geologist's infidel fossil god. Throw light about
his birth, his life, and his way in Nature. Do not shun
him, but cling to him as man clings to life. Set him up
in the high-ways and by-ways, and insist that he is




CONCLUDING ARGUMEMT.          302
equal to his fellows. Drag him from the dirt, dust,
and dark places of the earth, where he and his family
have slumbered concealed, and show him through the
world as among the brightest jewels which shine in
the diadem of the King of glory!
And when the voices of the Christian world shall
be heard on this point, as one man speaking, we may
also hear the welcome sound, from the sentinels on
the watch-towers of our Christian faith, proclaim"What of the night? - All's well!"
THE END.




A REMARKABLE VOLU1E.
JUST PUBLISHED,
CO S M O G O N tY;
OF, MER
MYSTERIES OF CREATION.
Being an Analysis of the Natural Facts stated in the Hebraic
account of the Creation, supported by the development
of existing acts of God towards matter.
BY THOMAS A. DAVIES.
Octaveo. Elegantly bound in cloth. With many IllustrationL.
Trice $1 50,
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Nature the Pathway of God.  Fosuil Sand-Beaches & Shells. Fourth Day.
Hebrew and English.     Limestones              Heavenly Bodie.
Language.               Sandstone.              Equilibrium.
The Universal Creation.  Coal.                  Fifth Day.
English Translation.    Inclinations of Rock Forma- ClasificationofMan &Beasl
The First Day.           tions                  Sixth Day.
Light-First Combination.    Boulder Rocks.      Ha-a-dam and A-dam
Second Day.             Metals and Precious Stonea   Color of Men.
Third Day.              Quartz Rock.            Whites and Blacks
Combinations.           Sands Clays and Soil.   Scriptural Evidences.
Granite Rock.           Rock alt andMineral Resins. The Flood.
Theory Considered.      Sulphur.                Scnptural Evidences in Plain
Clay Slate.              eas, Lakes, Rivers, and Wa-   Words.
Mica and Talc Slates     ters.                  Conclusionsfrom the Six Days
Stratification.         Atmospheric Air.          Work.
Miperal Fosrils.        Vegetable Kingdom       Seventh Day.
[From the New York Observer.]
"A remarkable book has recently made its appearance in this city, to
which we desire to call the attention of the public, especially that portion
of the thinking public who are accustomed to read and judge for themselves...... We have said enough of this work to show that it is
a work of great labor, much curious and profound study, and worthy of a
Christian scholar....    lie has accomplished a great work; and if
his argument will stand the searching criticism to which biblical literature
and modern science will subject it, the author will have the proud satisfaction of knowing that he has made one of the most important contributions
of the present day to the wall of defence which is constantly becoming
more and more impregnable about the written word of God."
Sold by all Booksellers throughout the United States and Canadas.
The Publishers will send copies of this book by mail, postage paid, to at 
part of the United States, on receipt of the price in stamps-$1 50.
RUDD & CARLETON,
Publishers and Booksellers,
New York




A GRREAT WOT. R.
Just Publishe d from early Glasgow sheets, by specia.
arrangements,
The Life and Times of
Hugh Miller,
Author of " Testimony of the Rocks," "Old Red Sandstone," "Footprints of the Creator," " Schools and Schoolmasters," &c., &c. Prepared by THOMAS N. BROWN, the
Eminent Scotch divine.  Muslin   New Edition-large
Izmo.  Price $I 25.
The life of so remarkable a man as Hugh Miller cannot fall to excite attention and interest. The mere biographical fats, and the lesson of labor and triumph which
they teach, must appeal strongly to the sympathies of
intelligent and thoughtful readers.  The name of Hugh
Miller is a "household word" wherever the English
language is spoken. Born in the lowest ranks of life, his
indomitable will and wonderful genius raised him among
the master spirits of science. The Stonemason of Cromarty is admitted to be the greatest Geologist of the age.
The volume announced above, presents a genial and
appreciative picture of the Life and Times of this marvellous man. Written by one of his most intimate friends,
a former co-laborer with him on the celebrated "Witness" newspaper, and a resident in the same house with
the subject of his memoir, the author had abundant opportunitie3 for studying his noble heart and manly characteropportunities which have proved invaluable, as his volume
testific3.  It is a genuine labor of love.
8old by all Booksellers throughout the United States and Canadas.
The Publishers will send copies of this book by mail, postage paid, tr
&irv part of the United States, on the receipt of the price in stamps-$- 25.
RUDD & CARLETON,
Publishers and Booksellers,
Nre,, York.