THE
PRINCIPLES
OF
GEOLOGY
FACTS AND 
C 
OR THE
FACTS AND PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY
THEOtRf'S
BY
DAVID N"LR
NEW YORK
FRANKLIN KNIGHT
138 NASSAU STREET
1 8 5 5
a
GEOGNOSY
AGAINST
L OR
LORD 
ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1.55, by
DAVID N. LORD.
In the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the United States for the Southern
District of New York.
W. H. TINSON, Printer & Stereotyper.
~1  -
,..-.-) 
7I')  A -f
I,l -1at,
Is,;,,      t 
Ili — I 3 -1 "I 31
PREFACE.
Hiow is it that, at a period when unusual efforts
have been made for the religious instruction of the
young and the general diffusion of sacred knowledge,
a distrust of the inspiration of the IIoly Scriptures
and doubt of their authenticity has sprung up and
gained a wide diffusion among the classes who have
enjoyed, in a large degree, the means of an enlightened and religious education?  Of the fact there is
no room for doubt. It is so conspicuous as to attract
the notice of observers in every direction, and excite
surprise and alarm. It cannot be regarded as resulting from the exertions that are made by the avowedly
infidel to propagate their sentiments; as their influence is chiefly expended on those of a different
circle. It springs undoubtedly from doctrines that are
taught them by persons of their own sphere, and that
enter as elements into the system of popular educa
4-0 
PREFACE.
tion, and doctrines that, instead of being openly
hostile to revelation, are masked under the form of
facts or truths of natural science, metaphysics, or
some other branch of knowledge that is not directly
connected with religion. It were easy to verify this
by a multitude of proofs, but it cannot be necessary.
It is known to all familiar with the subject that
speculations respecting the structure of the universe,
the nature of the mind, the causes of perception, the
laws of life, the principles of language, and other
kindred subjects, are often made the medium of
promulgating sceptical views; and that doctrines are
advanced by physiologists, chemists, professors of the
several branches of natural philosophy, anrid writers
on the higher metaphysics, that contravene the teachings of revelation, and naturally lead those who adopt
them to doubt its divine origin. This fact renders it
peculiarly important that the false principle by which
they thus become the instruments of undermining the
authority of the Scriptures should be pointed out,
and the means indicated by which they may be
counteracted.  It is to such a purpose  that the
present work is to be devoted.
vi 
CONTENTS.
PAGE
5
PREFACE
CHAPTER I.
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY OF THE AGE OF THE EARTH-THE CRI     TERIA BY WHICH IT IS TO BE TESTED.....
CHAPTER II.
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY CONTRADICTS THE SACRED HISTORY OF
THE CREATION.............. 28
CHAPTER Ill.
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY-IT IS NOT A SCIENCE-IT HAS NO
LAWS-GEOLOGISTS HAVE NOT AN EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO
TREAT OF THE SUBJECT.......
CHAPTER IV.
THE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGISTS-THEIR THEORY TRIED BY THEIR
OWN CRITERIA IRRECONCILABLE WITIH THE HISTORY OF THE
CREATION IN GENESIS...........75
CHAPTER V.
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS IN RESPECT TO THE EXTINCTION OF
LIGHT, AND THE CRIEATION OF THE ATMOSPHERE.. 94
CHAPTER VI.
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS IN RESPECT TO THE ELEVATION OF TH
LAND FROM THE OCEAN ON THE THIRD, AND THE ADJUST
MENT OF THE HEAVENLY BODIES ON THE FOURTH DAY O0
THE CREATION........
4-0
49
. 123 
viji                      CONTENTS.
CHAPTER VII.
PAGE
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS RESPECTING THE CREATION OF BEASTS
AND OF MAN..............142
CHAPTER VIII.
THE FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS RESPECTING THE SOURCES
OF THE MATERIALS OF WHICH THE STRATA WERE FORMED. 177
CHAPTER IX.
THE FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS RESPECTING THE SOURCES
OF THE MATERIALS OF WHICH THE STRATA WERE FORMED. 199
CHAPTER X.
THE FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS RESPECTING THE SOURCES
OF TEE MATERIALS OF WHICH TEHE STRATA WERE FORMED. 225
CHAPTER XI.
THE FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS RESPECTING THE FORMATION
OF THE STRATA..............258
CHAPTER XII.
THE FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS RESPECTING THE FORMATION
OF THE STRATA..............278
CHAPTER XIII.
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA, DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF
TEHE EARTH..............309
CHAPTER XIV.
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA, DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF
THE EARTH.............. 328
CHAPTER XV.
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA, DERIVED FROM TEE INTERIOR OF
THE EARTH..............  347
CHAPTER XVI.
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA, DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF
THE EARTH..............376 
THE STRUCTURE OF TEE EAIRTH.
CHAPTER I.
The Geological Theory of the Age of the Earth-The Criteria by which it is to
be Tested.
AMoNG the various speculations that are adverse to
the teachings of the Bible, and naturally lead those
who accept them, to doubt and reject its inspiration,
the theory of modern geology in respect to the age
of the world, holds, we believe, a conspicuous place;
and from the title and air with which it is invested
of an inductive science, from the great number of
interesting and extraordinary facts that are alleged
as demonstrating it, and from the acquiescence and
sanction it receives from men of learning and worth,
is one of the most imposing and seductive.*  Geolo
* We are aware that this statement will be received by some, not
simply with incredulity, but with offence, as though it carried with
it an implication that geologists are intentionally the authors of the
1* 
THIE GEOLOGICAL'THEORY.
gists have not confined themselves to the discovery
and description of the great facts of the science;that the crust generally of the continents and islands
scepticism which their theory is the means of generating; while a still
greater number-who, indeed, are of little consideration either on
the score of religion or learning-will denounce it as the mere ebullition of ignorance and bigotry, which the least tincture of science
would have been sufficient to suppress. There is no class of the
learned perhaps so intolerant of criticism in this relation as the cultivators of the natural sciences, and none who have the misfortune
to have so large a share of ostentatious vindicators and culogists
among infidels themselves, and that grade of paragraphists and
critics-whose advocacy is almost equally undesirable-who only
forage and skirmish in the suburbs of knowledge, and attempt to
make themselves of consequence by affecting to be the patrons of
learning, dogmatizing on subjects with which they have little
acquaintance, and assailing and aspersing those whom they think
they may safely abuse. The question has been largely debated by
geologists themselves ever since the dawn of the science, and is still
in dispute.   Scarce a volume appears on the subject without a
chapter on this theme. Have they acquired an exclusive right to
treat it? Have all others forfeited their title to receive what God
has revealed respecting the origin of the world, and to vindicate that
revelation from the impeachment which lies couched in the geological
theory? If not, why is it not as legitimate a subject of inquiry and
criticism as any other? The extreme sensitiveness which a certain
class of geologists exhibit on the subject is the result, we apprehend,
of weakness, rather than of strength; it has its origin in the consciousness that they are not able satisfactorily to reconcile their theory
with the teachings of the Scriptures; not in a lofty feeling of injured
innocence-not in a cloudless conviction that their system is not
justly obnoxious to the charge.
We scarcely need say that we shall not confound the distinction
between geologists themselves and the doctrines which they teach.
The question we are to debate respects the import of their theory, not
their personal reception or rejection of Christianity. That many of
them are sincere believers in the inspiration of the Scriptures and of
genuine piety, notwithstanding their geological theory, we do not
10 
THE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTH.
has received its present form since the creation of
plants and animals; that it consists of a series of different rocky and earthy beds, in many places very
numerous and of great depth, which have either been
deposited from the ocean or thrown up from beneath;
that many of them are interspersed with the relics of
other rocks, and of plants, shells, the bones of fish,
and the skeletons of land quadrupeds, a large share
of which are of species and genera that no longer
exist; and that subsequently to their formation, most
of them have been raised into new positions, contorted, dislocated, and broken into fragments; but
they have, on the ground of these facts, framed
theories respecting the causes of which they are the
result, and the sources from which their materials
were derived, that have led them to conclusions that
conflict with the inspired account given in Genesis
of the creation. Proceeding on the assumption that
they are the product of forces like those that are now
giving birth to somewhat similar effects, as on vol
doubt; that on some of them that theory, nevertheless, has a very
unhappy influence, we regard as equally indisputable. But of that
we shall, for the present, leave others to judge, and address ourselves
exclusively to the bearings of the doctrines and implications of their
theory on the inspired history of the creation and deluge, without
deeming it necessary to offer any apology for stating and maintaining what the sacred word teaches on the subject, or pointing out the
elements of their hypothesis, which are, in our judgment, at war alike
with that record and with their own principles. To a candid discussion of the subject, no fair-minded man should object.
11 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
canic mountains, at the mouths of rivers, and on the
shores of seas, they have inferred that their deposition
must have occupied a period immensely larger than
that which is assigned to the earth by the Mosaic
record. If they are the result, they reason, of the
chemical and mechanical forces that are now in
activity, and operating with only their present intensity, instead of being the work of but six thousand
years, they must have required an almost inconceivable duration; they must have been the growth of
an incalculable round of ages.* And thence, unfor
*Thus Dr. Buckland says:
"The truth is, that all observers, however various may be their
speculations respecting the secondary causes by which geological
phenomena have been brought about, are now agreed in admitting
the lapse of very long periods to have been an essential condition to
the production of these phenomena."
"My fire now burns with fuel, and my lamp is shining with the
light of gas, derived from coal that has been buried for countless ages
in the deep and dark recesses of the earth."
"We  shall view them with less contempt when we learn from the
records of geological history that there was a time when reptiles not
only constituted the chief tenants and most powerful possessors of the
earth, but extended their dominion also over the waters of the seas;
and that the annals of their history may be traced back through
thousands of years, antecedent to that latest point in the progressive
stages of animal creation, when thefirst pair of the human race were
called into existence."-Bridg. Treat. pp. 13, 66, 167.
Professor Sedgwick, of Cambridge, England, holds the same theory:
"We see, from the form and structure of the solid masses on the
surface of the earth, that many parts of it have been elaborated during successive periods of time; and if we cannot point out the first
traces of organic life, we can find at least an indication of its beginning. During the evolution of countless succeeding ages, mechani
12 
THIE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTH.
tunately, mistaking that conclusion fiom a mere
hypothesis for a scientific induction from those facts,
and elevating it to the rank of a demonstrated truth,
they have exhibited geology as contradicting the
Scriptural history of the creation, and prepared the
way for the inference that that history is not true,
and cannot therefore have proceeded from God.
cal and chemical laws seem to have undergone no change; but tribes
of sentient beings were created and lived their time upon earth..t
succeeding epochs new tribes of beings were called into existence,
not merely as the progeny of those that had appeared before them,
but as new and living proofs of creative interference; and, though
formed on the same plan, and bearing the same marks of wise contrivance, oftentimes as unlike those creatures which preceded them as
if they had been matured in a different portion of the universe, and
cast upon the earth by the collision of another planet. At length,
within a few thousand years of the days in which we live (a period
short indeed if measured by the physical monuments of the past) man
and his fellow beings are placed upon the earth." —Discourse on the
Studies of the University of Cambridge, 1833.
"By the geometer were measured the regions of space and the relative distance of the heavenly bodies; by the geologist myriads of
ages were reckoned, not by arithmetical computation, but by a train
of physical events-a succession of phenomena in the animate and
inanimate worlds-signs which convey to our minds more definite
ideas than figures can do of the immensity of time."-Lyell's
Principles of Geology, p. 63.
"We cannot but believe that every impartial mind, which fairly
examines this subject, will be forced to the conclusion that the facts
of geology do teach, as conclusively as any science not founded on
mathematics can teach, that the globe must have existed during a
period indefinitely long anterior to the creation of man. We are not
aware that any practical and thorough geologist doubts this, whatever are his views in respect to revelation."-Hitchcock's Geology
and Revelation, p. 22.
13 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
For that conclusion is the logical consequence of
their theory. It is incredible, they themselves admit,
that the truths of science should be at war with the
teachings of a divine revelation. It is impossible
that God should make a communication to us through
one medium, which he contradicts and confutes in
another. But we know, they assert, that the great
volume of nature, the vast monuments of the material
world, proceeded from his hand; and on those indestructible tablets he has inscribed a record, which
announces in the most unequivocal and emphatic
terms that the earth and its organized and living races,
with the exception of man, instead of having been
summoned into being, as Moses relates, only some six
thousand years ago, had at that epoch existed through
myriads and millions of ages. And contemplated
thus, the inference is inevitable that the contradictory testimony of Moses is false, and canmot be from
God. That Hebrew writer, it is said, may have been
ignorant of the date of the creation; God cannot.
Moses may have deliberately framed a fiction; it is
impossible that God should not have spoken the
truth.
The question then, whether the conclusion geologists thus draw in respect to the age of the world,
is legitimate, or not, is of the greatest moment.  If
founded on just grounds, it disproves the inspiration
not only of the record in Genesis of the creation,
it 
THE CRrrERIA OF ITS TRUTH.
but of the whole of the writings of Moses, and
thence, as we shall show, of the whole of the Old
and New Testament, and divests Christianity itself
of its title to be received as a divine institution.
The whole Revelation is changed at once firom
a heaven-descended reality, into a fable; from the
most glorious of God's works, into a device of man.
This geological doctrine deserves therefore to be care fully and effectively tested, that if mistaken, and
unscientific, the false principle on which it proceeds
may be pointed out, and the Scriptures vindicated
from the objections of which it is the source: and
that if, on the other hand, it be found to be just,
the friends of Christianity may be apprised of the
blow with which it strikes away the object of their
faith. And its merits are to be determined manifestly, not by specious appearances merely, plausible
conjecturer, showy hypotheses, or vague and shadowy speculations: it is to be tried by the laws of
nature, the great facts of the strata, and the forces
that are now and have been at work ill modifying
the earth's surface. If supported by these, in a clear
and demonstrative manner, it must stand, so far as
its truth is to be decided within the sphere of nature;
if not supported by them, if irreconcilable both
with the facts of the strata and the laws of nature, it
must fall, and the objection against Christianity fall
with it, of which its doctrine of the great age of
15 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
the world is the source. That question we propose
to try.
The theory on which geologists found their inference of the great age of the earth is, that the materials of which the strata consist, were derived from
mountains and continents of granite and other rocks;
that those rocks were gradually disintegrated by the
action of the air, water, and heat; that they were
borne down from those mountains and continents by
rains, currents, and rivers to the ocean, and distributed over its bed in successive layers; and that they
were at length elevated from the bottom of the ocean
to their present position: that the agents by which
these vast effects were wrought, were those by which
the somewhat similar changes that are now taking
place, are produced; and that the number and thickness of the strata, the vast multitudes of vegetable
and animal remains that lie buried in them, and the
slowness with which similar processes of erosion and
deposition now advance, prove that an immense
series of ages must have been required for their
formation. This inference of the age of the world,
is thus founded on a theory of the sources from
which the materials of the strata were derived, the
agents by which they were transferred to the bottom
of the ocean, and the forces by which they were
raised to their present position;-not irrespective of
that on the strata themselves.
16 
THE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTII.
On the other hand, we reject their hypothesis
respecting the derivation of the materials of the
strata, and the mode in which they were distributed
over the bed of the ocean, as a mere assumption,
inconsistent with the laws of nature, and the facts of
the strata, and subversive of itself: and thereby
confute the inference they found on it of the great
age of the world, as unproved and unscientific.
The question then we are to debate is, not whether
the strata that have been formed since the earth was
created, are such in nature and number as geologists
represent; nor whether such vegetable and animal
relics lie entombed in them. These facts are indisputable, and are admitted as freely in our reasonings
as in theirs. But the question between us is, whether their hypothesis respecting the formation of the
strata is legitimate; and thence whether the conclusion which they found on that hypothesis respecting
the age of the world, is just and authoritative.
In order that the hypotheses and reasonings on
which geologists build their inference of the age of
the world, may be legitimate and fill the office which
they assign them, they must possess, it will be
admitted on all hands, certain characteristics, and be
free from certain faults.
1. They must be consistent with-not contravenethe laws of nature. Geologists must not assume, for
example, as a preparative for their hypothesis
17 
T TIE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
respecting the formation of the strata, that the world
originally existed in a state that is incompatible with
its present nature. Such as that it was created a gas
or an assemblage of gases; as that implies that there
was an immensely greater amount of caloric in it
originally than now belongs to it; which is wholly
unauthorized and unscientific. Geologists have no
more right to assume that it was imbued originally
with thousands and millions of times its present sum
of heat, than they have to assume that it had thousands and millions of times its present bulk of water,
air, quartz, lime, or any other ingredient that enters
into its composition. It is against the great principle
also, on which they proceed in their attempts to
account for the changes which the surface of the
earth has undergone: namely, that the effects that
have been wrought in it, were the work of identically
the agents-air, water, and heat,-that are now producing changes on the earth's surface, and acting on
their present scale both of extent and of intensity.
It is to contradict the laws of matter likewise, to
assume that the world was created in the form of gas.
Matter with the exception of a few species-such as
the elements of air and water-is raised to a gaseous
form only by intense heat. But heat is naturally
latent. It is developed or made perceptible only by
chemical action.  To suppose the world to have been
created in a gaseous form, is therefore to suppose it
18 
THE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTH.
to have beencreated in a condition in which it could
not-according to the present laws of matter-have
existed, except as a secondary state; or as a consequence of the action of its elements on each other
after they were created. That supposition therefore
contradicts the laws of heat and the formation of
gaseous bodies. It is as unphilosophical and absurd
to suppose the matter of the globe to have been
created in the form of a gas, as it is to suppose that
it was created in the form of vegetables and animals;
organic structures which matter never assumes until
after it has existed in another form. An inference of
the great age of the world, founded on an assumption,
on the one hand, of the creation of its matter in a
state in which by its laws it could not exist, until
after it had existed in another form; and on the other,
of its originally containing a far larger share of one
of its elements than now belongs to it, can have no
claim to be regarded as legitimate and authoritative.
2. They must not assume as a basis of their inferenlce of the age of the world, that it once existed in a
form of which they have no proof; such as that it was
in a state of fusion; and that a granite crust was formed
over its molten ocean, by the cooling of its surface.
Such a supposition is forbidden, indeed, by the consideration to which we have already referred; that it implies that the earth originally had a far greater proportion of combustible matter than now belongs to
19 
THE GEOLOGICAL TIEORY.
it; as at present there is not-so far as can be judged,
-a hundredth, and probably not a millionth part of
the combustible matter in the globe, that would be
requisite, if ignited, to reduce its whole mass to a
state of fusion. On the assumption, however, that
there is no lack of combustible matter in the earth
for the fusion of all its substances; there yet, is no
proof nor probability that it ever was in a state of
universal fusion. It is as impossible to prove that it
ever was in such a state, as it is to prove that it once
existed in a gaseous form. To build an inference of
the age of the world on such an assumption; is therefore to build it on an hypothesis, of what cannot be
shown to have been a fact; and that is to build it on
nothing, and render it wholly unscientific and worthless.
3. They must not found their inference of the age
of the world, on the assumption of a condition of the
globe, which if it is supposed to have existed, instead
of contributing to the formation of the strata, would
have made their construction impossible: such as the
supposition that the materials of the strata, were
drawn from mountains of granite, that were ten or
fifteen miles above the level of the ocean. The strata
of the earth are held by geologists, to be on an
average, about ten miles in depth.   To maintain
therefore, that their materials were derived from
continents and mountains of granite, and were
20 
THE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUT.
borne from them by torrents and rivers to the ocean,
is to imply that those granite continents and mountains,-even if they covered as large an area as the
strata now occupy-were at least ten miles above the
level of the ocean; and if the mountains from which
it is represented the matter of the strata was chiefly
drawn, were of but half, or two-thirds the extent of
the strata that are supposed to have been formed
from them, then they must have been elevated at
least fourteen or fifteen miles above the level of the
ocean. But mountains elevated to such an enormous
height and extending over vast areas, could never
have been disintegrated by the action of the air,
water, and heat. There would have been no air,
except of the most attenuated kind, and no water at
all probably at that elevation. On the supposition
that vapors could have ascended to such a height,
and fallen in the form of snow, they would for ever
have remained congealed. No heat could have been
developed there, sufficient to dissolve them.   No
rivers therefore could have flown from them, and
consequently no detritus could have been borne from
them to the sea, to be distributed over its bottom,
and form layers, like our present strata. The supposition of such mountains, as the source of the materials of the strata, defeats itself, and renders the
inference from it of the great age of the earth, unscientific and absurd.
21 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
4. They must not assume that the effects for which
they attempt to account, are the work of agents, that
are wholly inadequate to produce them: such as that
the torrents and great rivers which they represent as
having borne the materials of the strata from mountains and continents, entered the ocean with such a
rush, as to diffuse the gravel, mud, and vegetable
matter, with which they were loaded, through all its
waters, and cause their deposition in layers co-extensive with its bed.  None of the present rivers of the
globe enter the ocean with such an impulse. So far
from it, the currents of all the principal rivers are
greatly checked as they approach the sea, divided
into numerous channels, and brought to a dead pause,
at the distance usually of fifty to one hundred miles
from the shore; and consequently the detritus with
which they are charged, falls to the bottom within a
narrow space. The great mass of the ocean is no
more affected by them, than the continents are, that
lie opposite to the points where the rivers enter it.
To assign to the rivers therefore, or the tides and
currents of the sea, the distribution of the materials
of the strata, throughout their whole domain, is to
ascribe to them an effect, that wholly transcends their
power.
5. They must not found their inference of the age
of the world on an hypothesis, respecting the mode
in which the strata were formed, instead of the strata
22 
THIE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTIH.
themselves. To found their inference of the age of
the world on the hypothesis, for example, that the
strata were formed by the agency of heat, air, and
water, acting only on the scale, and with the intensity,
with wlich they are now disintegrating rocks, and
bearing their detritus to the sea-is to beg at the
outset, the very point which they affect to prove.
For if the strata were formed by no other agents, than
those which are now acting on the land, and the sea,
and their deposition proceeded at no more rapid rate,
than similar strata are now forming at the bottom of
the ocean, then of course, a vast series of ages must
have passed before their construction could have
been completed; not to say that it could never have
taken place. But such a method of establishing the
antiquity of the globe, has no title to be regarded as
demonstrative or logical. Geologists must first prove
by irrefragable evidence, that the strata were formed
by the slow process, which the hypothesis represents,
before they can make that mode of their formation,
the ground of an inference of the vast age of the
world. To assume that hundreds or thousands of
years were necessary for the structure of any one
of the layers, of which the strata consist; and that
therefore, as many hundreds or thousands of years
were consumed in the construction of the whole, as
there are layers in the whole of the strata-is to take
23 
TIHE GEOLOGICAL TEORY.
for granted-not to prove the vast antiquity of the
earth.
6. They must not assume any condition of the
world, the existence of any agents, or the occurrence
of any events, the reality of which they cannot
demonstrate; and all their assumptions and reasonings must be consistent with all the facts, and all the
laws of nature, which the question affects.
To these, axioms geologists themselves will undoubtedly assent; and it results from them, that if the
strata demonstrate that the world has subsisted
through a vast series of ages, it must be by what they
themselves are, in composition, bulk, and number-not
by any theory of an antecedent state of the earth,
or the processes by which they were formed. If
they do not prove the great age of the world, by
what they themselves are, irrespective of any speculations, in regard to the agents by which they were
formed, they cannot prove it at all; precisely as, if
the nature and number of the elements of which the
great pyramid of Egypt consists, and the fact that it
was erected by human hands —do not prove that
millions of ages were occupied in its erection; no
theory, respecting the agents by whom it was built,
and the method of their procedure, can demonstrate,
that such a period was occupied in its construction.
24 
THlE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTE.
QUESTIONS
RESPECTING THE POINTS DISCUSSED IN THIS CHAPTER.
What is the doctrine of modern geology respecting the age
of the world?  What great truth does that doctrine contradict?
What is the mischievous influence which it exerts? Is what it asserts,
a geological fact that is discovered by the eye, as the natures and
numbers of the strata are; or is it a mere inference from an hypo thesis respecting the mode in which the strata were formed? Is the
question, whether it is true or not, one of great moment? What is
the conclusion to which, if true, it must lead, in respect to the
record in Genesis of the creation, and the inspiration of the
Scriptures? By what criterion is the question, whether it is true
or not, to be tried?   State the theory of geologists respecting
the formation of the present crust of the globe-in reference,
1st, To the sources from which the materials of the strata were
derived; 2d, To the agents by which they were conveyed to
the places of their deposition; 3d, To the scale of intensity on
which those agents acted.   Is their inference of the age of the
earth founded on that theory; or is it drawn from the facts of
geology which the theory respects? State the langtiage in which
geologists express their estimate of the age of the world.
What part of their system is it that we reject? What axe the
grounds on which we reject it? State then the question we are to
debate. Does it respect the reality of the great facts of. geology?
Or does it simply concern the truth of the hypothesis by which
geologists attempt to account for those facts, and ascribe a vast age
to the world?
There are certain axioms from which geologists must not depart;
there are certain errors into which they must not fall, in order that
their conclusion respecting the age of the world may be legitimate.
What is the first error from which they must keep free? Specify
one of their assumptions that is chargeable with that error. In what
2
25 
THIE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
respect does the supposition that the earth was created in a gaseous
form, contradict nature?   Has the geologist any more right to
assume that there was once ten thousand times as much combustible matter, or ten thousand times as much latent heat in the globe,
as there now is; any more than he has to suppose there was once ten
thousand times as much quartz, feldspar, or lime? Is it against a great
principle on which they themselves proceed in their speculations, as
well as inconsistent with the condition of nature? What is that
principle? Is it inconsistent also with the laws of matter, to assume
that the material parts of the earth were created in the form of
gas?  What law of heat does that theory contradict?
What is the next error which they must avoid?  State an assumption that is chargeable with that error. What is the first objection to
that assumption? What is the second?
What is the third mistake from which they must keep free? Give
an instance of a supposition in which an error of that kind lurks.
Why would it have been impossible that the materials of the
strata should ever have been drawn from lands of such an elevation,
as that supposition ascribes to the continents and mountains of the
earth?
What is the fourth error which they must avoid in their speculations? Specify one of their assumptions which is chargeable with
that error. Prove that the torrents and rivers that convey sand,
mud, and vegetable matter to the ocean, are inadequate to distribute them over its bed.
Point out a fifth ground which they must not make the basis of
their inference of the great age of the earth.  What is the objection
to their deducing the antiquity of the earth from such ar hypothesis? Prove that they assume in their premise what they infer in
their conclusion.  What must they demonstrate to be a fact-before
their inference can be legitimate?
What is the last thing which they must not gratuitously assume,
if they would make their inference of the age of the world conclusive?
26 
TIHE CRITERIA OF ITS TRUTII.
Will geologists themselves assent to these axioms? What then
results from them in respect to the nature of the proof by which the
great age of the world is to be established, if established at all?
If there is nothing in the strata themselves, that proves that a vast
period was occupied in their formation, is it not clear that no
hypothesis respecting the rate at which their formation was accomplished, can demonstrate it? May it not be as conclusively proved
by their mode of reasoning, that innumerable ages were employed
in the erection of the pyramids of Egypt, as that such a series
of ages were requisite to the construction of the strata of the
earth?
27 
THE GEOLOGICAL TIIEORY
CH APTER II.
The Geological Theory contradicts the Sacred History of the Creation.
TEAT the theory of the creation which geologists
entertain and hold is graven on the strata, contravenes the sacred history, is fully admitted and
asserted, not merely by those of them who are avowedly sceptical, but by many who receive the Scriptures as a revelation. Thus a writer in a foreign
journal, in vindicating their theory, says:
"Geology is accused of inculcating views with respect to
the formation of the planet we inhabit, irreconcilable with
those statements which may be gathered from the book of
Genesis.
"We have always thought the wisest and most consistent
course for divines to pursue with reg,ard to this delicate
question, would be that of maintaining, to the full extent,
the inspiration of the sacred volume on all facts involving
the history, prospects, and  moral condition of  man; but
allowing a greater latitude in regard to those portions which
relate to ilattral phenonmena, with which these facts are in no
wise concerned. It seems reasonable to expect that a book,
28 
CONTRADICTORY TO THIE SACRED HISTORY.    29
intended for our moral guidance, should be exempt from
error wherever we are to look into it for the regulation of
our conduct  but that the deity, who does not interfere
unnecessarily, should have withheld any extraordinary
assistance from such portions as relate to natural phenomena,
in which man has no vital concern.  Indeed, any revelation
on such points as those would have been not only superfluous, but subversive of some of the great ends for which
the book of nature has been unfolded, which appears to
have been. intended to awaken our appetite for inquiry, to
afford a fit and healthy exercise for our reasoning faculties,
and to impart glimpses of the great designs of the Creator
in the system of the universe.  Granting this to be the case,
there seems an a priori improbability that the writings of
Moses should contain any precise information on such subjects as these; for the condition of the globe before the
creation of man is clearly as irrelevant to the objects for
which revelation was specially intended, as the question
whether the moon has inhabitants or is endowed with an
atmosphere."-Literary Gazette, 1834, p. 770.
The irreconcilableness of the history of the creation
in Genesis with the views of geologists, is thus exhibited as so clear and indisputable that no safe course
is left to divines but to admit that those portions of
" the sacred volume which relate to natural Shenomena" are not inspired, nor free from error, and that
there is an intrinsic improbability, from the nature
of the subject, that " the writings of Moses should 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY
contain any precise information" respecting such
events. As "natural phenomena" include not only
the effects produced by the omniponent flat in the six
days of the creation, but all that were observable by
the senses, and the theophanies, therefore, miraculous
works and historical events recorded in the Scriptures; this sweeping doctrine, which surrenders all
that the most eager infidel could ask, would not have
been advanced had not its author felt the most unhesitating conviction that the narrative of the creation
in Genesis cannot be conciliated with his views of the
facts of geology.*
* That such is the result to which that supposition leads, is indicated by another British journalist, in animadverting on it.
"If the Bible speaks at all, it speaks truly; and it is utterly subversive of its authority to make one degree of inspiration for its moral
declarations, and a lower, which is none at all, for its physical statements. Many geologists think that they can so explain the first chapter of Genesis as, without violence, to reconcile it with the known
facts of geology; in this there is no shadow of scepticism. Others
go further, and confess that they have no hypothesis by which they
can do so; but even this, if this be all, is only a confession of ignorance; but to advance one step beyond this, is to open the floodgates
of infidelity; as even some professed Christians have allowed themselves to do, by treating the Mosaic cosmogony as a tradition or allegory, and not as a correct record of actual facts. Thus we find the
Rev. Baden Powell, the Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford, in
a sermon entitled Revelation and Science, saying:
"' If we look at the actual case of the writings of Moses, it is surely
in every way the most probable supposition that tradition had preserved some legendary memorial of primeval events, and that the
origin of the world had been recorded in a poetical cosmogony. As
introductory to the revelation, Moses then put a religious application
30 
CONTRADICTORY TO THE SACRED HISTORY.   31
Professor Sedgwick, a clergyminan of the establishment and a distinguished geologist, indicates in an
equally emphatic manner his conviction that it is
wholly impracticable to harmonize the sacred record
with the doctrines of the science.  lIe says:
"The only way of escape from all difficulties pressing
upon the question of cosmogony, is to consider the old
strata of the earth as monuments of a date long anterior
to the existence of man and to the times contemplated in
the moral records of his creation. The Bible is then left to
rest upon its own appropriate evidence, and its interpretation is committed to the learning and good sense of the
critic and commentator; while geology is allowed to stand
on its ownl basis, and the philosopher to follow the investigations of physical truth wherever they may lead him,
without any dread of evil consequences."-Discoirse on the
Studies of the.U_iversity of Cambridge, p. 108.
No terms could show more decisively that the
history the Bible gives of the creation, is felt to be
wholly  irreconcilable with  his  geological  theory.
If coincident with each other, if not in the most
palpable collision, wl-y, in order to escape pressing
difficulties, assume, in direct contravention of the
upon such memorials, for the stronger sanction of the enactments of
that law to the Israelites, and adopted them for the illustration of
religious truths, and as the vehicles of moral instruction to the chosen
people.' "-Ch. Obser., June, 1834, pp. 369, 370.
It is thus, according to Professor Powell, in every relation, a mere
fiction. 
THILE GEOLOGICAL TIIEORY
fact, that the Bible utters nothing on the subject of
the earth's creation?
Though the conviction of these writers of the
impossibility of reconciling those two views of the
creation, is, in our judgment, legitimate, anid had
better be acknowledged than disguised, a great
number of geologists recoil from it, and the startling
and self-contradictions methods proposed by them for
evading the abandonment, with which it is felt to
be fraught, of the inspiration of the Scriptures, and
maintain, some on one supposition and some on
another, that the sacred narrative and the geological
theory are consistent with each other.
* It is not easy, however, to see what way this expedient presents
"of escape from all difficulties pressing upon the question." How
is a consideration of "the old strata of the earth as monuments
of a date long anterior to the existence of man, and the times
contemplated in the moral records of his creation," to prevent them
from being regarded as contradicting that record? To admit and
proclaim that they are totally incompatible with each other, is a
singular method of escaping the difficulties of their irreconcilableness, or of suppressing debate respecting it! The fact that geologists may adopt that hypothesis respecting their relations to each
other, cannot exempt the critic and commentator from the necessity
of interpreting the Bible by its proper laws, and defending it from
the imputation of error, Nwhich that hypothesis casts on it.  How,
moreover, is "the Bible to rest upon its own appropriate evidence,"
if that evidence is admitted to be confuted by'- the old strata of
the earth?"   An extraordinary expedient really of avoiding  an
impeachment of the truth and inspiration of the Bible! Professor
S. is here guilty, we apprehend, of what he denounces as a "sinful
indiscretion"  in  those who attempt to evade the difficulty by
extending the periods of time implied in the six days of the
creation.
32 
CONTRADICTORY TO TIHE SACRED HISTORY.   33
The principal hypotheses which have been advanced for the purpose of reconciling them are
stated in the following manner by the Rev. W. D.
Conybeare, England, a clergyman of the establishment, and an eminent geologist:
"We may, perhaps, without real violence to the inspired
writer, regard the period of the creation recorded by
Moses, and expressed under the term of days, not to have
designated ordinary days of twenty-four hours, but periods
of  definite but considerable  length.....    Those
who embrace this opinion will, of course, assign the forma tion of the secondary strata, in great part at least, to
those days of creation, and we have the authority of several
divines for such an interpretation.
But "it does not seem inconsistent with the authority
of the sacred historian to suppose that, after recording in
the first sentence of Genesis the fundamental fact of the
original formation of all things by the will of an intelligent
Creator, he may pass, sub silentio, some intermediate state,
whose ruins formed the chaotic mass he proceeds to
describe, and out of which, according to his further narrative, the present order of our portion of the universe was
educed. Upon this supposition, the former world, whose
remains we explore, may have belonged to this intermediate
oera."-*-Oatlines of the Geology of Eng. and Wales. introd.
pp. lix., lx.
* He adopts the last of these hypotheses, as is seen from the
2* 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY
These expedients, however, have only served to
show in a mnore decisive manner the impracticability of their conciliation. Thus the assumption
that the word day, in the narrative of the successive acts of the creation, instead of signifying the
time of a revolution of the earth on its axis,
denotes a vast indefinite period of cycles, or centuries, is in direct contradiction to the passage itself,
which defines each of the six days as consisting of
an evening and morning; i. e. the period of a complete revolution of the earth on its axis.  "And God
divided the light firom the darkness; and God called
the light Day, and the darkness he called Night;
and the evening and the morning "-which were the
darkness and light of twenty-four hours —" were the
first day."-Chap. i. 4, 5. This is confirmed also by
the announcement at the institution of the law at
Sinai, that "in six days the Lord made heaven and
earth, and the sea, and all that in them is."-Exodus
following passage in an article from him in the Christian Observer,
May, 1834: "Not the mere theoretical views of geologists alone, but the
conclusions which appear by the most cogent logical necessity to
result from the phenomena of the structure of the earth's surface,
and the variety and order of the very numerous series of organic
remains imbedded in the strata, do undoubtedly appear to require
periods of very considerable duration, and to indicate that very
many ages had elapsed before' the diapason closing full in man,' a
new exertion of the creative energy, made in its own image a being
of higher intellectual and moral capacities as the head of its other
terrestrial works," P. 308,
34 
CONTRADICTORY TO THE SACRED HISTORY.
xx. 11. As we have thus the explicit testimony of
the Most Hiigh himself that the days of the creation
were ordinary days, to assign to the word so totally
different and unnatural a meaning, is to contravene
his own definition and use of it. It is, in fact,
nothing less than to impeach the veracity of his
declaration in one passage, in order to save his word
from a charge of falsehood in another.  So self-confuting a device, instead of answering its purpose,
could only serve to impress those who  carefully
scrutinized it with a profounder feeling of the contrariety of the two representations,  and of their
hopeless perplexity who could rely on such an expedient for their conciliation. Accordingly, though
advanced with much confidence, and for a time
accepted by many, it was soon seen to be untenable,
and is now, we believe, generally rejected by
geologists.*
The other expedient t-the assumption that the
* Thus Professor Sedgwick discards it, and pronounces those
guilty "of a sinful indiscretion" "who have endeavored to bring
the natural history of the earth into a literal accordance with the
book of Genesis, first by greatly extending the periods of time
implied by the six days of creation; and secondly, by endeavoring
to show that under this new interpretation of its words, the narrative
of Moses may be supposed to comprehend and describe in order the
successive epochs of geology."-Discourse.
t This view is held by Dr. Buckland: "The Mosaic narrative commences with a declaration that' in the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.' These few words
35 
Tile  GE}O(LOGICAL  TIIEOriY
creation of the heavens and the earth in the beginning, announced in the first verse, was not included
in the first of thie six days' work, bnt took place at
of Genesis may be fairly appealed to by the geologist as containing
a brief statement of the creation of the material elements, at a time
distinctly preceding the operations of the first day; it is nowhere
affirmed that God created the heaven and the earth in the first day,
but in the beginning; this beginning may have been an epoch at an
unmeasured distance, followed by periods of undefined duration,
during which all the physical operations disclosed by geology were
going on."-Bridgewater Treat., p. 20.
It is maintained also by Professor Sedgwick and many others.
"The Bible instructs us that man and other living things have
been placed but a few years upon the earth, and the physical monuments of the world bear witness to the same truth. If the astrono
mer tells us of myriads of worlds not spoken of in the sacred
records, the geologist in like manner proves (not by arguments from
analogy, but by the incontrovertible evidence of physical phenomena) that there were former conditions of our planet, separated
from each other by vast intervals of time, during which man and
the other creatures of his own date had not been called into being.
Periods such as these belong not therefore to the moral history of
our race, and come neither within the letter nor the spirit of revelation.  Between  the first creation of the earth and the day in
which it pleased God to place man upon it, who shall define the
interval? On this question Scripture is silent. But that silence
destroys not the meaning of those physical monuments of his power
that God has put before our eyes; giving us at the same time
faculties whereby we  may interpret them  and comprehend their
meaning. If the Bible be a rule of life and faith, a record of our
moral destinies, it is not, I repeat, nor does it pretend to be, at
revelation of natural science."-Di&course on the Studies of the
University of Cambridge.
A writer in the Christian Observer also advances it in the following form, quoted from a friend:  "I regard Genesis i. 1 as an universal proposition, intended to
contradict all the heathen systems, which supposed the eternity of
36 
CONTRADICTORY TO THIE SACRED IIISTORY.    37
the distance of innumerable ages, and that, in the
interval between that and the creation narrated by
Moses, there was a series of creations and destruc tions of vegetable and animal races-is equally at
variance with the representation in v. 4, 5, that the
darkness, which was divided from the day-which
must have embraced that of the whole space between
the first creative fiat and the production of lightwas called night, and formed part of the first day.
It is also in direct contradiction to the declaration of
the Almighty at Sinai, that " in six days he made
heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them  is;"
in which the creation of the heavens and earth is as
specifically assigned to the six days, as the plants,
fish, fowls, and beasts are, with which the earth and
sea were peopled.- It is, like the former, accordingly
nothing else than an attempt to bring this passage
into harmony with the theory of geology, by
impeaching the veracity of the other; or to clear
the word of God from the charge of falsehood, by
transferring that charge to himself!
Apart from this consideration, also, the supposition
matter, or polytheism, or any notion inconsistent with the infinite
perfections of the one great Creator; and ver. 2 I regard as proceeding to take up our planet in a state of ruin from a former
condition, and describing a succession of phenomena, effected in
part by the lau's of nature (which are no more than our expressions
of God's observed method of working), and in part by the immediate exercise of divine power directing and creating."-Christian
Observer, May, 1834. 
TIrE GEOLOGICAL TIIEORY
of such an omission is unnatural and improbable. If
such a vast interval, and occupied by such a stuLpendous series of creative acts, intervened between the
fiat which called the heavens and earth into existence,
and the six days of the Mosaic &eation, why should
the Most High, in professedly giving a history of his
work, pass them in total silence, and frame the niiarrative so as necessarily to mislead his creatures in
respect to the date and history of the earth?  If, as
geology asserts, the strata form an indubitable record
of those creations, the recital of them in the history
in Genesis, so far from unimportant, was obviously
necessary, both to his vindication, and to the just
instruction of his creatures.   To exclude it, was to
place them uinder an unavoidable necessity either
of misconceiving or distrusting himfi, and prepare the
way for their being betrayed into the most fatal
errors. For as the sole creation in our system which
hlie claims is that of the six days, including the. fiat
by which the heavens and the earth were called into
existence, if there were other previous creations
equally important, what could suggest itself so naturally as the reason that they were not claimed by
him, as that they were not in fact his?  But it is
wholly unlike his procedure, and incompatible with
his perfections, thus to place them under a seeming
logical necessity of doubting that he is the author of
his own works. The supposition of such an omission
38 
CONTRADICTORY TO THE SACRED IIISTORY.   39
in the narrative he has given of the creation, is thus
in every relation wholly improbable.
These considerations, then,-which are hereafter
to be confirmed by others equally decisive and
emphatic,-sufficily show that the expedients by
which it has been supposed that the narrative in
Genesis is brought into harmony with the doctrines
of geology, so far from answering that end, only
serve to demonstrate that their reconciliation is
impossible.
The theory of the existence of the earth and its
races through innumerable ages, is thus in direct
antagonism with that part of the -losaic record which
defines the period of the creation, and if held to be
true, renders the conclusion natural and unavoidable,
that that record is not. And such, it is well known,
is the result to which it carries great numbers of
those to whom it is taught. Wherever advanced by
a popular lecturer, and exhibited as a truth that is
demonstrated by the strata of the earth, there it will
be found it has left the impression very generally on
the hearers that the ][osaic account of the creation
is convicted of error; and thence cannot be regarded
as having been written by inspiration. It has, indeed,
been so boldly and speciously taught for many years
in books, in laboratories, in lyceums, in popular
lectures and sermons, that it has become a very
common impression with the young that the first 
TIIE GEOLOGICAL THIEORY
chapter of Genesis is mistaken and without author
ity.*
But that inference, if adopted, cannot be restricted
* "The circulation of systems of natural history contrary to the
Mosaic revelation has been greatly extent by representing them,"
as the theory held by Dr. Buckland, Profor Sedgwick, and others
does, "as wholly unconnected with Christianity, the certainty of
which. it is said, is independent of that of the Jewish religion, or at
least of the first chapters of Genesis: an assertion which even a
number of Christian ministers have been made to believe. It is thus
that a great number of individuals have allowed themselves to be
carried away by pretended natural science, without being aware of
its tendency; that it has become a kind of fashion; that its general
results, exhibited as demonstrated propositions, have been circulated
through all classes of society; and that, at length, the greater part
of those who pretend to any information, are fearful of incurring the
charge of ignorance, if they do not side with those who consider the
first of our sacred books as a fiction... The consequence is
that men of letters who are not naturalists, putting implicit faith in
what is so positively asserted to be the evidence of nature, have
reproduced some arguments against revelation, which otherwise
would not have had any influence."-De Luc's Letters to Blumnenbach, pp. 46, 47.
A writer in the Christian Observer, for May, 1834, says of the difficulties of the question: "We are come to where four cross-roads meet;
for, first, we must deny the geological facts and inferences' or,
secondly, we must give up the popular interpretation of the first
chapter of Genesis, and reconcile the facts to the sacred text by a
new one; or, thirdly, we must deny that the Bible touches at all
upon the question; or, fourthly, we must give up the inspiration of
the Bible as to its physical statements."
"If some plan  of reconciliation be not devised, we are at the
mercy of the infidel, who, in spite of all our protests and reasonings,
will not fail to prejudice the cause of revelation, by appeals to
persons of education and influence, setting before them the physical
facts and conclusions, and telling them that their religious instructors refuse to listen to them, and instead of showing them that the
inspired narrative is not opposed to actual phenomena, would at
once stop investigation as heretical and blasphemous."-Pp. 313, 314.
40 
CONTRADICTORY TO TIIE SACRED IIISTORY.
to that chapter. To pronounce the history there
given a fiction, because of its representation that the
heavens, the earth, and the sea and all that in them
is, were created in six days, is to make it logically
necessary to deny the inspiration of every other part
of the book, and of the law that is associated with it;
as that representation was expressly reaffirmed by the
Most High himself at Sinai, incorporated in the law
of the sabbath, and presented as the reason of the
consecration of that day to rest; and was renewed
again to Moses, on delivering to him the tables on
which it was written.  "Six days shalt thou labor
and do all thy work; but the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor the
stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the
Lord made heaven and earth, the sea and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day, and hallowed
it." Exodus xx. 11. " Wherefore the children of
Israel shall keep the sabbath to observe the sabbath
throughout their generations, a perpetual covenant, a
sign between me and the children of Israel for ever;
for in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and
on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed."
Exodus xxxi. 16, 17. It is incredible that God should
have thus with his own voice repeated that declaration on his revealing himself in glory to the Isra- 
41 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY
elitish people at Sinai, and institution of the law, and
graven it with his own finger on the tables of stone,
if it was not true; if it were such a sheer and enormous  error as modern  geology represents.   It is
impossible firom his rectitude. There would then
have been no conceivable motive for founding the
institution of the sabbath on such a reason. As he
had a perfect right to establish it, independently of
the consideration whether he created the world and
its vegetable and animal races in six days, or any
other period, why should he offer his having accomplished it in six days, and rested the seventh, as the
reason of his consecrating the seventh as a day of
rest, unless he had actually wrought it in those six
days?  It is infinitely impossible that he should have
renewed and ratified that declaration in so solemn a
manner, and made it an element of his legislation that
was for ever to be kept before the eyes of mankind,
if, as geology teaches, it is confuted by his natural
works, that are equally open to their inspection; if
the strata of the earth which they were soon to
explore and read, contain a record which shows that
the date of the creation was innumerable ages earlier.
It would have been to overthrow his authority, instead
of establishing it. If, then, as geology contends, the
record on the table of the law is convicted of falsehood by another record which he has graven in ineffaceable characters on the strata of the earth, it is
42 
CONTRADICTORY TO TIIE SACRED HISTORY.   43
impossible that the law can have proceeded from him,
and the whole system of legislation associated with it
must, like the first chapter of Genesis, be rejected as
a fiction.  To suppose it can be otherwise, is to suppose that he has, in the most momentous act of his
administration, proclaimed a falsehood which was
soon to be detected by his creatures, and place them
under an inevitable necessity of distrusting his truth,
his uprightness, and his wisdom.
Nor does that conclusion terminate at this point.
If that announcement from Sinai, and ratification of
the history of the creation given in Genesis, is held to
be a fiction, it must of necessity lead to the rejection
of the whole Pentateuch as a fabrication. If,; without
any conceivable motive, and against every consideration that would govern a wise and holy being, a misrepresentation so stupendous, and so sure to be
detected and exposed, is incorporated in the decalogue itself, both as it is represented to have been
pronounced by the Almighty Lawgiver, and written
by him on the tables of stone, what certainty can be
felt that any of the other recitals or declarations are
not equally false? If no trust is to be placed in the
awfutl attestations which God is represented to have
given to that part of the law, no other attestations
which he is said to have given the other enactments
and institutions can be entitled to reliance. Neither
visible theophanies, audible voices, miracles, nor pro 
THiE GEOLOGICAL THEORY
phecies, which are declared to have attended the
communication of commands, and to have shown that
they were from him, can yield them any corrobora tion. Indeed, it would be absolutely incredible that
the whole was not in an equal measure a fabrication.
But the rejection of the Pentateuch as false in its
claims to a divine origin and authority, would necessarily draw after it the rejection also of all the other
books of the Old Testament; for they all recognize
the truth of the Pentateuch, and proceed on its hlistories, enactments, and institutions, as verities. They
exhibit the Israelitish nation as sustaining that relation to God which the Pentateuch represents; and
the priesthood, the sacrifices, the covenants, the promnises, and the whole system of laws, as instituted by
God, as that record relates. If they are not his work,
it is impossible that the other should be. ]3ut their
rejection draws after it also as necessarily the rejection of the New Testament; for the latter ratifies,
in the fullest manner, all the great historical statements, enactments, and religious institutions of the
former, and it is on them that the work of redemption
which it reveals is founded. If the Mosaic history of
the creation and fall, the destruction of the ancient
world, the adoption of the Israelites as a peculiar
people, their deliverance from Egypt, the proclamation of the law at Sinai, the institution of the priesthood
sacrifices and rites of worship, and the interpositions,
44 
CONTRADICTORY TO THIE SACRED mISTORY.
commands, and revelations that are recorded by the
prophets that followed, are not from God, it is iminpossible that the New Testament can be, which everywhere recognizes them as realities, and is dependent
on them for its truth and propriety.
The whole Bible, as a revelation, thus stands or
falls with the first chapter of Genesis.   This intimate connexion with other parts of the word of God,
is, in a great degree, peculiar to that record of the
creation. The histories, narratives, and even the
enactments of many other chapters might be supposed to be supposititious, without necessarily destroying the credibility of the inspiration of the remainder.
But the subversion of this, from its incorporation in
the law of Sinai, necessarily carries with it the subversion of all that follows.
These considerations sufficiently show, that the contradiction which the modern theory of geology presents to the record of the creation by Moscs, naturally
leads those who assent to it, to regard that record as
erroneous, and prepares the way for a distrust and
rejection of the whole Bible. The scepticism which
it is known to excite and foster, is not gratuitous
and causeless, but the logical result of such an impeachment of that part of the word of God, which
is the foundation of all the rest. The question, therefore, between the Bible and that theory) is one of the
utmost interest.  It is the question whether  Chlris
45 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY
tianity is credible and true, or whether it is contradicted and convicted of falsehood by the material
works of the Creator. If it cannot be vindicated
from the impeachment offered by the geological
theory, it cannot be vindicated at all; but scepticism is unavoidable, and nothing is left for those
who would be consistent, but to adopt and propagate it.  The subject is entitled, therefore, to the
most serious consideration of all believers in revelation, and especially of the ministers of the gospel,
whose office it is to teach and enforce the doctrines,
laws, promises, and predictions of the Scriptures as
communications from God. They cannot, rationally,
satisfy themselves with mere presumptions, vague
hopes, or undefined impressions, that the Bible is
God's word, although it may be contradicted by his
works. They cannot consistently act as his ministers,
unless they can defend it from this imputation, and
show that it is entitled to be received as a divine revelation. They cannot fulfill their duty to those of their
people who have been betrayed into scepticism, or
are in danger of becoming its victims, unless able to
point out the fallacies and errors of the system which
impeaches it, and show that the works of God, instead
of confuting or contravening it, are both in perfect
harmony with it, and offer it the most clear and
ample corroboration.
46 
CONTRADICTORY TO THE SACRED HISTORY.   47
QUESTIONS.
Is it admitted by many geologists of intelligence and reputation,
that the theory of the great age of the world, is irreconcilable with
the history of the creation in Genesis?  Is that admitted, even by
some who still regard the Scriptures as the word of God? How
does the Literary Gazette account for the admission of what it believes
to be a false history of the creation, into the Pentateuch, while it
still holds the Bible to be in the main, an inspired book? What is
Professor Sedgwick's method of accounting for what he regards as
the errors of Genesis, i. ii, while he receives the Scriptures in the
main, as the word of God? Are there other geologists who maintain,
that though the theory they hold of the great age of the world, is
apparently at variance with the Mosaic history of the creation, it is
not in fact irreconcilable with it? What is.the first hypothesis by
which' they attempt to prove them to be consistent with each other?
What is the other expedient by which they endeavor to bring them
into harmony? How will you prove that the word day in Genesis i.
is not used to denote an indefinitely long period? How will you
show from the narrative, Genesis, i. 1-5, that a vast period cannot,
according to their second hypothesis, have intervened between the
creation announced Genesis, i. 1, and that which is detailed, vs. 3, 4,
and 5? If such a space had intervened between the creation of the
heaven and earth recorded, v. 1, and the creation of light recorded,
v. 3-5, is it credible that it would not have been mentioned by the
sacred writer? Do these attempts then, fail to reconcile the sacred
text with the geological theory, and leave the conclusion unavoidable, that if the theory is correct, the narrative of the sacred writer is
not? But if geology proves that narrative to be false, does it not
make it impossible to believe that the remainder of the book is
inspired?  Show how the truth of the narrative, of the six days
creation, is recognized and ratified in the institution of the sabbath?
But if the inspiration of Genesis is given up, must not that of the
whole Pentateuch be likewise rejected?  Show how the disbelief of 
THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY.
the one must necessarily lead to the disbelief of the other?  But if
the Pentateuch is proved to be uninspired, must not the -claim of
every other part of the sacred volume to a divine origin be rejected?
Does the geological theory then naturally lead those who assent to
it, to doubt the inspiration of the Bible? Is the question whether
the theory is true, equivalent to the question, whether the Bible is
not a fiction?  Il not the inquiry then one of the greatest moment?
48 
GEOLOGY IS NOT A SCIENCE.
CHAPT-ER III.
False Notions of Geology-It is not a Science-It has no Laws-Geologists have
not an Exclusive Right to treat of the subject.
UNDER the conviction that the geological theory
which thus conflicts with the word of God, is wholly
mistaken, and may be easily refuted, and that its
refutation and abandonment are demanded both by
the interests of religion and the credit of geology, we
shall proceed to point out the fallacy on which it
rests; indicate proofs both from the record of M1oses
and from the earth, hitherto overlooked by geologists,
which demonstrate it to be erroneous; and finally
suggest the view of the subject, which seems to us
to be required alike by the word of God and the
facts of the science.
To prepare the way for the discussion, it is important to correct several misapprehensions and prejudices that extensively prevail, and are obstacles to a
candid consideration of the question.
In the first place, the language which geological
lecturers and writers are accustomed to use, has produced the impression that geology is a demonstrative
3
49 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
science, having laws peculiar to itself, that are
verified by the facts discovered in the strata of the
earth; and thence, that the conclusions which they
deduce from the strata, and embody in their systems,
are the legitimate results of those laws, and as incontrovertible as the truths that are derived from the
axioms or principles of other sciences. No misapprehension could be greater. Geology has no laws that
are peculiar to itself.  It professedly treats of the
nature of the substances that constitute those parts
of the crust of the globe that are accessible to our
observation, and of the causes or forces to which they
owe their present combinations and positions; and
those forces are expressly defined as either chemical
or mechanical; or those of attraction, by which particles that have an affinity are united in crystals and
other solid forms; and those of fire and water, by
which they are fused or disintegrated, and transported
from one place to another.
This is seen from the following quotations:
"The history of the earth forms a large and complex
subject of inquiry, divisible at its outset into two distinct
branches, the first comprehending the history of the unorganized mineral matter, and of the various changes through
which it has advanced from the creation of its component
elements to its actual condition; the second embracing the
past history of the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and the
50 
IT IS -NOT A SCIEiNCE.
successive modifications which these two great departments
of nature have undergone, during the chemical and mechanical
operations that have affected the surface of our planet.
"In tracing the history of these natural phenomena, we
enter at once into the consideration of geological dynamics,
including the nature and mode of operation of all kinds of
physical agents, that have at any time and in any manner
affected the surface and interior of the earth.   In the foremost rank of these agents we find fire and water-those
two universal and mighty disorganizing forces which have
most materially influenced the condition of the globe.
"The state of the ingredients of crystalline rocks has, in
a great degree, been influenced by chemical and electro-magnetic forces, whilst that of stratified sedimentary deposits
has resulted chiefly from the miec/hanical action of moving
water, and has occasionally been modified by large admixtures of animal and vegetable remains."-Buclland's Bridgewater T., pp. 34-37.
It is the province of geology to investigate the ancient natural history of the earth. To this purpose geologists
must observe the effects of terrestrial agencies, both organic
and inorganic, which are now in progress, in order to understand those which have been performed in earlier periods
they must inquire what changes now take place upon the
land and in the sea; and whether these be due to mechanical,
chemical, or vital agency; and compare these effects with the
monuments of more ancient revolationqts, and thus endeavor to
trace the physical conditions of the globe from the earlies
51 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
period to the present date, so as to present a correct history
of the successive steps by which it has been brought to its
actual state, and made fit for the purposes which it now
fulfills.
"In the modern system of nature we recognize two great
agencies employed in producing changes on the face of the
globe. WATER, which wastes away grain by grain the
elevated portions of the land, and deposits its spoils in
lower situations, thus ever tending to equalize the levels of
the surface. FIRE, which raises matter in masses from the
interior of the earth, and thus tends to increase the inequalities of its surface. Both of these agents are chemical;
water dissolves, heat fuses; both act mechanically. The
mechanical effects of water depend on the general force of
gravitation, and ever tend downwards; but the mechanical
force of heat is independent of gravitation, and ever struggles to overcome it." —Phillips's Guide, pp, 3, 25.
"Geology was defined to be the science which investigates the former changes that have taken place in the
organic, as well as in the inorganic kingdoms of nature.
As vicissitudes in the inorganic world are most apparent, and
as on them all the fluctuations in the animate creation must
in a great measure depend, they may claim our first consideration. The great agents of change in the inorganic
world may be divided into two principal classes, the aqueous
and the igneous. To the aqueous belong rain, rivers, torrents, springs, currents, and tides; to the igneous, volcanoes
and earthquakes. Both these classes are instruments of
52 
IT IS NOT A SCIENCE.
decay as well as of reproduction; but they may also be
regarded as antagonist forces. For the aqueous agents are
incessantly labouring to reduce the inequalities of the earth's
surface to a level; while the igneous are equally active in
restoring the unevenness of the external crust, partly by
heaping up new matter in certain localities, and partly by
depressing one portion and forcing out another of the earth's
envelope."-Lyell's Pr'inciples, p. 191.
Sir Charles Lyell holds not only that all the facts
which it is the province of the science to explain, are
to be referred to these causes, but that they are to be
regarded as having been produced by an agency of
essentially the same energy as that by which these
causes are now giving birth to similar effects; as the
result "of one uniform system of change in the
animate and inanimate world," that has been in
progress " from the remotest periods," and is to
continue through all future time.-P. 188.
The following is from Mr. Macculloch:
"The materials of this inquiry are objects and actions;
the result constitutes inferences; and these are retrospective, as well as present and future. The retrospect is
the material for a theory of the earth.
OBJECTS.
"The objects are the materials of the earth; the materials
are rocks and fragments.  Rocks and the larger fragments
53 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
are composed of earths or of minerals, and of animal and
vegetable matters compacted.   They  are compacted by
mnechanical apyroximation, or by chemical action, or by both
united. 
ACTIONS.
"Actions are the results of animal and vegetable life and
destruction, of water and the force of gravity, or of fire.  By
organic production and destruction its objects become portions of the fragments, or form strata, or parts of these.
By water and gravity the solid rocks are broken into fragments, and deposited on the land or beneath the water.
By water animal remains are mineralized, and vegetable
ones bituminized.  Fire acts in volcanoes which are visible
or invisible. It elevates the superincumbent materials of
the earth, whether solid or otherwise.
RETROSPECT.
"The inferences from objects and actions connect the present with the past. The fragments and solution of former
rocks and earths in former water, produced the present
stratified rocks. The effects of former fire produced the
unstratified rocks with the consequences attributed to them.
Former races of living animals and vegetables in different
waters and on different lands, produced the objects of this
nature now found in rocks and fragments. The successive
connexions of distinct parallelisms among the stratified
rocks infer as many distinct conditions of the globe. The
time requisite for the production of stratified rocks, and for
54 
IT IS NOT  A SCIENCE.
the reproduction of animals and vegetables, implies long
intervals between each condition.
"With respect to the future, it is inferred that the
present actions are tending to produce a new condition
analogous to that which is just past. "-J. Macculloch's Geol.
vol. i. pp. 11-15.
"A practical observer... needs no labored argument to
satisfy him that if the stratified rocks were deposited in the
manner the work is now going on, immense periods of time
were requisite. Even if he admit, what we are not disposed
with some geologists to deny, that the causes now in operation did formerly act with greater energy than at present; yet he
will still see the necessity of allowing periods of time vastly
extended to form the fossiliferous rocks, unless he admit
without proof that the laws of nature have been changed."
HIitchcock's Geology and Revelation, p. 20.
Some geologists hold the necessity of regarding the
rate at which those causes are now generating their
several effects, as the measure of the rapidity with
which they produced them at all former periods as
so imperative, that to deny it were to strike from our
hands all means of reasoning respecting them.
"All agree that the deposition of thick beds of limestone
or clay replete with the exuvioe of successive generations of
marine or terrestrial animals, interrupted too by several
periods of convulsion, during which the existing races were
in many cases destroyed, and new ones afterwards substi
55 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
tuted, could not have been accomplished, consistently with
the present laws of nature, within  a very short space of
time. And if it be said that the processes which produced
them may be imagined to have proceeded at a more rapid
rate, and in a different manner at that period, than they do
at present, we reply, that such a supposition would strike at
the root of very species of evidence; for if the author of
nature should have imparted to the constituents of the
globe those characters and relations which at the present
time would result from the operation of known causes con
tinned during a period of at least a certain duration, and
yet have chosen to employ other agencies, of whose characd
ter and laws we know nothing, or have accomplished the
whole by the immediate fiat of his omnipotence, there then
is an end to all reasoning on the subject."-Literary Gazette,
1834, p. 771.*
They thus unite first in maintaining that geology
treats simply of the materials of which the crust of
the earth consists, and of the forces from which they
received their present form n; -and next, in regarding
the effects which they attempt to explain, as not
only produced by the chemical and mechanical forces
* He thus assumes that the causes to which the strata are to be
referred, cannot have acted on any larger area, nor with any higher
energy, than they now do; and that to suppose "the processes" to
have taken place at a more rapid rate than at present, is to suppose
that they were produced either by agencies of whose character we
know nothing, or by the fiat of omnipotence; a mistake as obvious
and absurd as it were to maintain that there can be no diversity in
the strength and activity of chemical and mechanical forces.
56 
IT IS NOT  A SCIENCE.
that are now giving birth to somewhat similar changes
on the earth's surface, but by agencies of essentially
the same energy as those which they are now exerting.
Geology, it is thus seen from these statements of
its objects, is not a demonstrative science. It is not
a system of principles or laws by which a share of
the great processes of nature are explained, and can,
like the movements of the bodies of the solar system,
be made the subject of exact calculation, and traced
back through the past, or forward to the future.  Instead, it is a mere statement or description of the
stratified and other rocks which compose the crust of
the globe, with a reference of them to the agents by
which they are supposed to have been produced. It
has no axioms or principles that are peculiar to itself,
as the laws of optics are to light, and of gravity and
motion to the phenomena of the solar system. In
chemistry, experiments are made by which it is
ascertained what substances have such an affinity for
each other as to enter into combination; what the
circumstances are in which their ttractive powers
act, what the proportions are in which they unite,
and what the forms are which they assume. In like
manner experiments have been made with bodies
dropped from a height, and projected into the atmosphere, by which it has been ascertained what the
motions are of bodies in space acted on by gravity,
3*
57 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
and by gravity and a projectile force; and the laws
of those motions taken as indicating the laws of all
material bodies moving in space, have been generalized and employed in the solution of the movements
of the bodies of the solar system. But no analogous
experiments are made in geology, by which it is ascertained from what quarter materials must be drawn to
form such strata as those of which the transition, carboniferous, and tertiary systems consist, or what the
periods are which are required for their formation.
No laws, consequently, can be deduced from the
strata themselves by which it can be demonstrated,
that vast periods have been employed in their deposition. They present no data from which that conclusion can be scientifically deduced. If drawn at
all as a logical conclusion from a premise, it must be
from an assumption or hypothesis, not from an ascertained fact or demonstrated law of such formations.
Geology, indeed, has no axioms, or generalized
facts whatever, except those, first, which respect the
materials of which the different strata of the earth
consist; secondly, the relations which they sustain to
each other, or the order in which they are superimposed; and, thirdly, the agents or media through
which they were formed and placed in their present
positions; and they furnish no means of a scientific
demonstration of a different and higher class of
truths, such as the existence of the world througlh an
58 
IT IS NOT  A  SCIENCE.
immeasurable round of ages. The facts, for example,
that the strata are often very numerous and of great
thickness, that they consist of certain substances,
and are arranged in a specific or uniform order, is no
basis for the logical deduction of such a conclusion,
just as the fact that the great pyramid of Egypt con sists of a certain series of stones of certain specific
characters, and arranged in a certain order, is no
logical ground for the inference that a vast series of
ages was occupied in its erection-inasmuch as the
time required for its formation did not depend on the
magnitude of the effect, but on the measure of the
forces by which it was accomplished.
It is not, therefore, a demonstrative science, in the
usual sense of the term. Its facts do not furnish the
media of deducing a set of general laws peculiar to
itself, by which all the phenomena of which it treats
can be explained.  And consequently, it cannot, by
possibility, furnish a scientific confutation of the
Mosaic account of the creation.  The fancy of such
a demonstration is a mere fallacy, veiled under the
forms of a philosophical induction; and stated arithmetically, is simply equivalent to the following
problem in the rule of three:-As  the depth of the
primary strata or any one of them is to the period
wvhich was employed in its formation, so is the
depth of the whole series to the periods which their
deposition occupied-in which, as the second term,
59 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
on which the problem turns, must be arbitrarily
assumed, or guessed on only probable grounds, the
result, instead of being scientifically demonstrated,
is necessarily a mere deduction from a conjecture,
and without value.
Geology, accordingly, in place of a systematic
body of truths deduced firom a few primary axioms
or laws, that are demonstrated by experiment, and
furnish a scientific solution of all the phenomena
presented by the strata of the earth, consists only of
facts or truths that are ascertained by observation.
It is no more a demonstrative science than any other
branch of knowledge that is acquired solely by that
method, such as the topography of countries. The
investigation of the fallen capitals of Assyria, by
Botta, Layard,  and  others, and  their statements
respecting  their  date  and  destruction, present  a
very exact parallel to it.  Instead of an affair of
axioms or laws, it is simply a question of substances
and their relations and conditions, that is determined
by inspection. It is entitled, therefore, to the name
of a science in no higher sense than that it presents
a mninute and accurate description of the elements
of which the crust of the earth is composed, the
order in which the strata are arranged, their depth
and extent, and the vegetable and animal relics that
are imbedded in them, and in some instances gives a
probable hypothesis of the sources whence their
60 
IT IS NOT  A  SCIENCE.
materials were drawn, the means by which they
were originally arranged horizontally, and the forces
by which they have since been modified in structure,
and thrown into their present conditions. To accomplish anything beyond this, to demonstrate that the
date of the creation was infinite ages ago, is wholly
without its sphere.   It might almost as well be
assigned the task of determining any other date in
chronology, or resolving any other question with
which it has no logical connexion.
Another impression that needs to be corrected, to
which the language and representations of writers
on the subject have given birth, is, that no person
can be competent to offer objections to the theories
that are formed respecting it, except professed geologists themselves. An attempt by men of other
pursuits to controvert their deductions, and especially by expositors and theologians, is treated as an
ill-judged and absurd intrusion into a sphere for
which they can have no qualifications-as nothing
else indeed than an attempt to solve the problems of
one branch of knowledge by the principles of
another with which it has no affinity. It is, accordingly, often met  by mere appeals to prejudice,
repelled with sneers as unworthy of consideration,
or denounced in terms of discourtesy and passion
quite inconsistent with the calmness and impartiality
of philosophers who regard themselves as able to
61 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
verify their doctrines by scientific processes, that
have the force of unanswerable demonstration. That
the works that are usually quoted as specimens of
the ill-judged attempts of " the divine and man of
letters" to treat of the subject, such as those of
Penn, Nolon, and Cole, betray a very unfortunate
inacqaintance with many of the topics which they
discuss, and indulge in unjustifiable imputations on
those whom they assail, we shall not deny. That
they undertook a task for which they were inadequately qulalified, is no ground, however, for the
conclusion that no others who are not professors of
the science can be warranted in discussing it. Great
as their errors are, they are not greater than those
into which some of the geologists of their period
fell; nor do the asperities in which they indulged,
transcend those that have disfigured'the controversies which geologists have waged with each
other.   The objection  is absurd  indeed,  in the
absolute form in which it is often presented, iniasmuch as the question whether an argument against
the geological theory is entitled to consideration or
not, must depend on its character, not on the class
from which it proceeds.
In the first place, this opposition to the criticism
of their theory by any except of their own profession,
is chargeable with much the same inconsideration
and injustice which they impute to the divines who
62 
IT IS NOT A SCIENCE.
venture to arraign their doctrines at the bar of the
Bible, and show that they contradict the history God
has there given of the work of the creation. For it
certainly lies within the proper province of the sacred
interpreter and  theologian to ascertain what  the
import is of the record in Genesis, and of other parts
of the sacred volume which treat of the creation, and
to determine whether the dogmas of geology contravene it or not. They do not step out of their sphere
in that part of their labors. It is their proper and
peculiar province.  They are equally in their sphere
also when, on finding that the teachings of the sacred
word are contradicted by the speculations of geologists, they point out the error, and defend the Bible
from the inferences which might otherwise be drawn
against its inspiration. It is a task to which their
profession directly calls them, and which they cannot
refuse to fulfill, without a gross Dereliction of their
office.  When, therefore, these objectors charge thenm
in doing this with transcending their proper profession, they are themselves guilty of the unfairness
which they unjustly impute to them.  It is the mere
geologist, plainly, who quits his proper sphere, when
he attempts to decide that the record of the creation
in Genesis is not inconsistent with his theory of the
age of the world-not the philologist and theologian
who venture to decide that it is. fHow is it that geolog,ists have any higher right to determine what the
63 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
meaning of the first chapter of Genesis is, than divines
have to pronounce on the true theory of geology?
How, indeed, is it that they have an exclusive title to
treat of the subject, while divines are guilty of transcending their province, when they venture to interpret and maintain what God has revealed respecting
the creation?  This important question seems not to
have occurred to these objectors; buu while in effect
denying to divines the right not only to treat of geology, but even to interpret and teach the word of
God, which is the peculiar business of their Qffice,
they themselves not only claim it as their special
function to treat authoritatively of geology, but usurp
the right also of determining the philological meaning of the inspired history of the creation, which lies
out of their peculiar sphere.
This objection, then, to the interference of divines
and philologists with the subject, so far as the interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, and a protest
against the theories of geology which contradict the
testimony God has there given, are concerned, should
be withdrawn.   It is not only unauthorized  and
unjust, but it is more obnoxious to the charge of
illiberality and intolerance, than the most intemperate denunciations in which " the divine and man of
letters" have indulged, whom they spurn with so
much contemptuousness and resentment.
In the next place, the objection indicates an unfor
64 
IT  IS  NOT  A  SCIENCE.
tunate misapprehension of the premise fiom which
geologists deduce the vast age they ascribe to the
world. They proceed in it as though there were a
class of direct and specific evidences of the existence of the earth through vast periods, graven, as it
were, on the strata themselves, that can be learned
only by inspection, in the same mnanner as the number, position, depth, and contents of the strata themselves are.  But that is altogether mistaken.   The
age of the strata is not to be ascertained by the hammer or pickaxe, by chemical analysis, by touch, or by
inspection. The chronology which they represent as
inscribed on the rocks, instead of being wrought by
the finger of the Almighty, is the work in a great
measure of metaphor and fancy. The strata themselves are not, in fact, the premise from which they
deduce the age they ascribe to the earth.  They furnish no direct data for such a conclusion, as may be
seen from the form the argument from them assumes,
as in the following premise and conclusion.
The strata which have been deposited since the
creation of the earth are numerous, and in many
places of great depth, and are interspersed with
vegetable and animal fossils, which indicate that
much time was occupied in their formnation. Therefore the creation itself must have taken place innumerable ages ago.
But this inference is plainly irrelevant to the
65 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
premise. There is nothing in the facts stated in the
proposition that can generate such a conclusion.
Inasmuch as the period occupied in the deposition of
the strata is not determinable from their number,
depth, and contents, but depends on the species and
energy of the agents by which they were formed;
to treat the inference from such an irrelative premise
as a truth established by scientific deduction, is an
extraordinary inaccuracy. Instead of being graven
in legible characters on the strata themselves, or
directly deduced from the facts of geology, their
alleged chronology of the world is in reality drawn
from a  7nere hypothesis  respecting the forces or
processes by which the strata were constituted, as is
seen  from  their argument when  expressed in a
syllogistic form.
Each of the several strata deposited since  the
creation of vegetables and animals, having been
formed by essentially the same forces as are now in
activity, and thence by a very slow process, must
have occupied a long period.
But in many localities the series of separate beds
amounts to several hundreds and even thousands.
Therefore the period which the deposition of the
whole series has occupied, must be immense beyond
computation-a round of innumerable  years-myriads and millions of ages.*
* Thus Mr. Macculloch: "We have every reason to know, from
66 
IT  IS  NOT   A   SCIENCE.
This, or an equivalent proposition is the only one
from which that conclusion can be logically deduced.
It is not possible to frame a major excluding the
element of time, that shall be a logical ground for
the induction of such an age of the earth.  But here
the inference is drawn plainly, not from the number,
dimensions, and contents of the strata, but from anl
hypothesis respecting the nature of the forces and
processes by which they were formed. Take away
that hypothesis, and the inference becomes, like the
other, a non sequitur.  But that hypothesis is not
found graven on the rocks, nor is it legitimately
deduced firom them; as there is nothing, as we shall
hereafter show, in the strata themselves that compels
or authorizes the assumption that they were formed
by a slow process, but instead, their structure indicates that they were deposited very rapidly, and
under the agency of for:ces immensely more energetic
than those of thie fire, water, and chemistry that are
now in activity.
what is now taking place on our own earth, that the accumulation
of materials at the bottom of the ocean is a work infinitely slow:
we are sure that such an accumulation as should produce the
primary strata as we now see them, must have occupied a space,
from the contemnplation of which the mind shrinks. Whatever that
may be, the geological depth of the consecutive series of any one
stage of the surface is THE MEASURE OF THE TIMIE through which it
was deposited: it is the measure of the duration of that world
which immediately preceded the one of which it forms the latest
stratified portion."-Geol. vol. i. p. 473.
67 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
As the inference of the age of the world which
geologists dignify with the name of a scientific
induction, is thus drawn from a premise that lies out
of the facts of geology, and is a fallacy, it is plain,
that philologists, and "the divine, and man of
letters," if logicians, are as competent to detect its
deceptive character and criticise and confute it, as
though they were practical geologists.  It is entirely
within their sphere as reasoners. A minute inspection of the strata of the earth is not requisite to it.
Though an intimate acquaintance from observation
with all the great facts of the science must naturally
give a more vivid apprehension and realization of
them, yet it is not necessary in order to avoid the
error into which geologists themselves have fallen,
of confounding them with an hypothesis respecting
the processes of their formation. It is not the great
facts themselves of geology, let it be considered, that
are in question. It is not a direct and logical deduction from those facts even. It is only a deduction
from an assumption respecting the causes to which
they owe their origin, which men  "of letters" and
theologians capable of distinguishing a fallacy from
a legitimate induction, are as adequate to confute as
those of any other profession. That this consideration, which, of itself, overturns their theory respecting the age of the world, should have been
overlooked by geologists, and an objection thus
C-1
68 
IT IS NOT A SCIENCE.
confidently urged which indicates such a misapprehension of the point at issue, is truly singular, and
shows that however eminent they may be in their
peculiar sphere, it is not the part of prudence to
acquiesce in their deductions and hypotheses, without an examination of the grounds on which they
rest.
But in the third place, the objection, if legitimate,
is applicable in a large degree to geologists themselves, and invalidates their speculations as effectually as it can the views and reasonings respecting
them, of those who are not of their profession. For
what share of the facts on which geologists professedly found their theories, have they severally themselves observed? Not one probably in fifty, perhaps
not in five hundred. It is physically impossible that
such a writer, for example, as Sir Charles Lyell,
should have personally inspected all the localities of
which he treats, all the processes hlie describes, and
all the facts which he alleges in support of his theories. Of the localities, those of South America, the
islands of the Pacific and Indian Oceans, the seas,
rivers, lakes, mountains, and plains of Eastern Asia,
to say nothing of many others, he has never seen.
Of the processes, mnany have extended through centuries, and could not have been inspected through their
whole period by a single individual; and many of
the facts had their dates ages ago, and are not now
A&
69 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
within the sphere of observation. And so of other
writers. Instead of relying exclusively on their own
personal investigation, they avail themselves of the
observations and discoveries of others, and build their
speculations with as much confidence on the facts of
which they thus gain a knowledge, as on those which
they derive directly from their own examination.
And this is as legitimate, as safe, and as indispensable as it is ill mineralogy, chemistry, geography, historv, or any other branch of knowledge. It were to
impeach geologists themselves of inaccuracy, and
invalidate their reasonings, to suppose that the descriptions they give of the facts they have severally
observed, are not intelligible and entitled to reliance.
What claims can their systems have to be regarded
as scientific deductions, if the facts on which they
professedly found them are of a doubtful nature, or
questionable reality? They are not, however, generally obnoxious in any measure to douibt. The number of practical geologists during the last thirty years
has been very large; many of the most important
localities have been explored by the most competent
observers, and their descriptions are distinguished in a
high degree, by minuteness, intelligibleness, and accuracy, and fully justify the use that is made of them
by such authors as Lyell, La Bechlie, Murchison, Buckland, Conybeare, Sedgwick, Phillips, Macculloch; and
together with theirs, and the works of other eminent
t0 
IT IS NOT  A  SCIENCE.
writers, furnish the most ample means to such as are
not professed geologists, of an accurate knowledge of
all the great facts of the science, and just judgment
of the validity of the inductions that are founded on
them. Were it otherwise; were a practical acquaintance with all the facts that are made the basis of
theoretical geology necessary, there is not a solitary
treatise on the subject, that would not be in a large
measure obnoxious to the objection, and as unworthy
of consideration as the counter speculations are of
the mere "divine and man of letters.'"  This objection is thus in every relation ill-considered and unfortunate.*
* This is verified by the mode which is usually pursued by geological professors, in teaching the science to their classes.   It is by
verbal descriptions, specimens, and pictorial representations, such as
are given in books, that they present the great facts of the system to
their pupils, not by conducting them to the scenes where those facts
can be ascertained by inspection. Thus Professor Phillips, of King's
College, London, and one of the distinguished geologists of England,
says:
"Geolog'r founded upon observations of the effects of terrestrial
agencies upon a grand scale, admits of being taught, first, by actual
demonstration of the phenomena as they are laid open by nature in
mountains and valleys, cliffs and ravines; secondly, by the aid of
specimens of natural products and representations and descriptions
of the manner of their occurrence. As we cannot transport a pupil
to the summit of the Alps, the glens of the Grampians, or the
caverns of the Peak; as we cannot at pleasure show him the bold
cliffs of Hastings, Whitby, or Charmouth, the wasting shores of Norfolk, or the extension of new land along the margin of the Adriatic,
he must be taught to reason upon these characteristic ph,enouena
by the aid of pictorial or verbal representation. With this view we
171 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
QUESTIONS.
What is the first false notion that has been extensively spread
respecting the nature of geology? Has geology any laws by which
it can be demonstrated that the strata of the earth were formed in a
particular way, and that a vast series of ages was occupied in their
structure? What is it of which geology professedly treats, according to Dr. Buckland? What is the definition which Professor Phillips
gives of its object? What is Sir C. Lyell's? What is Mr. Maccul
found museums of specimens, publish sections and maps and models,
and endeavor by lectures on these examples and imitations of geological occurrences, to lead the student to the contemplation of the
magnificent objects themselves.  Could we dispense with these artificial aids, were it possible to compress into a short geological tour an
actual inspection of the most important facts, much of the technical
language which is now found so convenient might be dispensed with;
many explanations might be spared; the monuments yet remaining
of the changes which the earth has undergone, would tell their own
history, and never require the little aid of words. But the writer
and the lecturer must have recourse to other methods, and by a
studied arrangement of representations and reasoning, strive to
impress the same truths, with equal force of conviction, which are
directly gathered from the more vivid, though less regular lessons in
the glorious theatre of nature."- Guide to Geology, pp. 1, 2.
And this, we may add, is the method also in which the professors
of the science prepare themselves to give instruction respecting it.
The usual course is to attend the lectures of some distinguished
geologist, and study books and specimens. The information derived
from the direct inspection of the strata, is slight, generally, compared with that which is drawn from these sources. And this method
is not only as justifiable, but as indispensable to success in this
branch of knowledge as any other. It were as absurd in a geologist,
as it were in a chemist or astronomer, to neglect the discoveries
others have made, and attempt to build up a system exclusively on
his own observations. The objection often put forth with a very
imposing air, thus shrinks, when properly considered, into very
moderate dimensions.
72 
IT IS NOT A SCIEONCE.
loch's? Has it then, according to the definitions of these writers, any
laws peculiar to itself, by which it can be proved that the strata
were formed by the slow processes, and that the earth is of the great
age, which their theory asserts? If geology, then, has no laws, and
deals only with mere facts, what are the great facts of which it takes
cognizance?  Do those facts furnish any means of demonstrating
the immense age of the world? Is it a mistake then to regard it as
a demonstrative science? Exemplify the fallacy of attempting to
prove the vast age of the world by it. What sort of a science then
is it, if it is not a demonstrative one? Name some other subject,
the knowledge of which is of the same kind as that of geology.
What is the second false impression respecting it that needs to be
corrected? Are geologists accustomed to sneer at criticisms on their
theory by persons of other professions, and denounce them as unwor thy of notice?  What is the first objection to that course?  Is not
the interpretation of the sacred text, Genesis i. and ii., within the
proper sphere of the theologian? Has not the theologian quite as
good a right to maintain the truth of the inspired narrative against
the speculations of the geologist, as the geologist has to endeavor to
sustain his theory against the testimony of the sacred text?
What is the second objection to the claims of geologists that none
but persons of their profession are competent to criticise their theory?
What is the error in the reasoning by which geologists attempt to
prove the great antiquity of the world, which shows that they themselves are not masters of their own logic? State the first premise from
wh ich   they infer t     he great age of the world.   Point out its fallacy.
What then is it, in fact, on which their inference of the age of the
world   from this premise rests? Is it on the facts of the strata themselves, or a mere hypothesis respecting the forces by which they were
formed?                State t heir argument in a syllogistic form.   What is it
now, in that syllogism, from which the inference of the ag,e of the
world is drawn-from the strata themselves, or from an hypothesis
respecting the processes by which they were constructed? Is that
hypothesis, however, found graven on the strata? Is not the infe
4
'73 
FALSE NOTIONS OF GEOLOGY.
rence of the age of the world drawn from a premise then that lies
out of the facts of geology? Is it not, therefore, a fallacy, instead
of a legitimate scientific conclusion?
What is the third objection to their claim of an exclusive competence to criticise their own theory?
74 
THE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGISTS.
CHAPTER IV.
The Principles of Geologists-Their Theory tried by their own Criteria, irreconcila           ble with the History of the Creation in Genesis.
WE will nlow proceed to try the question between
the Scriptures and the theory of the geologists, by
showing first what the facts are that aire indicated by
the Mosaic account of the six days' creation; and
next by pointing out the contradictions both to that
record and to the principles of geology itself, presented by the postulates and implications of that
theory.
By the principles of geology are meant the principles on which the authors of that theory found their
systems; or, in other words, the axioms on which
they proceed in their explanations of the facts of the
science; first, that the processes wlich have taken
place since the creation of the world, such as the formation of strata, and their subsequent modifications,
are to be referred entirely to such forces as are now
in activity, and producing similar changes on the
carth's surface, namely: gravity, chemical affinity,
and the mechanical forces of water and fi:re.
75 
TiE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGISTS.
Secondly, That those forces are to be regarded as
having acted on essentially the same scale, both as to
extent and intensity, as that on which they have given
birth to similar effects since the date of authentic history, and are now producing them.
It is on this postulate, unsupported by evidence,
and inconsistent, as we shall hereafter show, with
many of the great facts of the science, that they found
nearly the whole of their reasonings.
As it follows from this definition, that nothing falls
within the sphere of the science, except effects that
are the products of those forces, acting as far as the
formation of strata is concerned, with much their present energy, it results,
Thirdly, that no geological events can be assumed
by them to have taken place, except such as may
have been produced by those forces. As they are
held to be the only causes of geological effects, and
the scale on which they are now acting is taken
as the exponent of their capacity to produce their
several classes of effects-as well as the measure of
the rapidity with which the processes that are referred to them have been accomplished-no geological
changes can be assumed and made a basis of induction, except such as may have resulted from those
causes.
And finally, it results also, that no geological events
can be assumed to have been wrought by those
76 
THIE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGISTS.
causes, and made the basis of induction, except such
as can be proved from the present condition of the
strata, to have actually taken place.*
* It results also from these positions, not only that all effects, if
there are such, that cannot be referred to those agents, are excluded
from the sphere of the science, but that all those of the species pro duced by them are also, that happen to transcend the effects of the
same class which they are now generating. If the effects that are at
present resulting from those causes, are the measure of their power
to produce such effects, then none of the effects of the same species
that required causes of higher energy, can have been the product of
their agency. They must lie out of the sphere of the science, there fore, as absolutely as though they were the product of a supernatural
power. This, which is the necessary result of their postulate, is
indeed a solecism, and overturns the whole theoretical fabric which
they have employed themselves in rearing. It contradicts the first
great principle of inductive science, which requires that all effects of
the same species, no matter what their dimensions are, should be
referred to the same cause or causes of the same class. As it is
plainly necessary that all effects that are from their nature referable
to the force of gravity, such as the deposition of earthy and mineral
substances that have been held in solution or suspension by water,
which cannot be assigned to any other known power, should be
ascribed to that force; so it is equally that all effects of the classes
that are produced by chemical agencies, such as crystallization and
the union of crystallized and other solidified matter in masses, should,
without any consideration of the scale on which they exist, be referred to those agents; and in like manner that all of the several species
which fire and water mechanically produce, should be regarded as
the result of their agency. The great axiom on which they build their
speculative system is thus in contradiction to a first great law of philosophy. Unscientific and solecistical as it is, however, they are compelled to adhere toit in order to give a color of validity to the conclusion they deduce from it of the vast age of the world; as the moment they admit a sliding scale of those forces, and assume that they
rose or sank in energy, and acted on a larger or smaller area, proportional to the magnitude of the effects that are referable to them,
that moment they quit the postulate on which they found their deduc
77 
78         THE  PR.INCIPLES OF GEOLOGISTS.
Such being the great postulates or axioms which
they acknowledge as the criteria of the truth or error
of their inductions, let us now  look at the facts
which are presented by the Mosaic history of the
creation, and see how they consist with the views of
these writers.
"In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth," v. 1. By the heaven is meant, not all
other worlds besides the earth, i. e. the universe; as
it is implied in the temptation of the first pair by
Satan that tihere were worlds and creatures before
this creative fiat; and it is expressly indicated (Job
xxxviii. 4-7), in which all the sons of God-implying that there were several orders of them-are
represented as having shouted for joy when the
tion of the immense age of the world. If it is admitted that, at the
period when the strata were formed, those forces acted on a scale as
much greater in extent and energy than they now do, as those effects
are greater than the corresponding classes that are now in progress,
the whole ground is abandoned of the assumption, that they were the
work of a slow process, and required a vast series of ages for their
completion.
They do not, in fact, however, adhere to that postulate, which
would exclude the deposition of strata and most other important processes from the sphere of geology, and circumscribe it to a few of
late date that are of comparatively little moment; but, instead,
attempt to account for all formations of the classes to which those
forces give birth, whatever their magnitude may be, and however
vast the energies were that called them into existence. Some of
them, indeed, candidly admit the impossibility of accounting by such
slight forces for many of the most important of the phenomena they
are required to explain, and others swerve from the conditions they
prescribe to themselves, whenever an exigency requires it. 
THE PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGISTS.
foundations of the earth were laid. Nor does it
denote simply the orbs of our solar system; as it is
stated in a subsequent verse that the stars-by which
are meant those that are visible to the unaided eyewere placed in the firmament at the same time as
the  sun  and  moon.   Heaven denotes, therefore,
doubtless, the vast cloud of worlds to which our
system and the glittering arch that spans our evening sky belong, that till within a few years comprised all that were known to the inhabitants of our
world.
"And  the earth was waste and desolate," or
unfurnished with organic bodies, "and darkness was
upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God
moved upon the face of the waters," v. 2. That
which is here the subject of predication is the earth,
the same identical earth that now exists, and in
essentially its present shape and solidity; niot as
some maintain, the mere materials of which it
consists in the form of gases, or in solution in a vast
ocean. Thiis is seen from a variety of considerations.
As gravity is a property or law of all matter, the
earth must have been subject to it from the moment
of the creative fiat, and not only to that share of it
which was inherent in itself, and drew its particles to
its own centre, but that also which is exerted on its
mass by the sun, moon, and other orbs of our system.
It is seen, also, from its rotation on its axis. That it
79 
TIIEIR  TIIEORY
was created with that motion is shown by the fact
that a whole night and day had passed, that is a
complete revolution on its axis, at the close of the
first day. It must, therefore, have been under the
full force of the gravitating power, or its rapid whirl
would have thrown off not only the ocean from its
bosom into the surrounding space, but a large share,
if not the whole, of its earthy and rocky mass, and
left them, if the other bodies of the system were
exerting their attractive force, to be drawn away to
them.
That it was then as solid as it now is, and of essentially the same dimensions and shape, is shown also
by the fact that the ocean enveloped and formed a
deep around it. It appears from the narrative of the
third day that there was no dry land until the waters
were gathered into the seas.  The waters of the
original deep were those that were then collected
into seas, and constitute the present waters of the
globe.   The  earth  cannot, therefore, have  been
larger than it now is, or they would not have been
adequate to cover its whole surface, and to such a
depth as to form an abyss. Hiad it been three or
four times its present diameter, they would have
formed only a thin stratum around it. It must also
have been in a spheroidal form, or of greater
diameter at the equator than at the poles, or they
would not have retained their position on every part
80 
IRRECONCIL ABLE  WITHII GENIESIS.
of its surface; as a perfect sphere enveloped by an
ocean of only such a depth, and revolving on its
axis, would immediately throw its water towards the
equator in such a manner as to uncover the poles.
It was thus created essentially what it now is, in
shape, dimensions, and solidity, and its waters were
what water now are, and were those of our present
seas.
These truths lie on the face of the narrative, and
cannot be set aside by any legitimate process. It
has been supposed, indeed, by somne, that the language of the narrative is metaphorical, and denotes
a different event from the creation of the material
earth.  But that has arisen from a misconception or
ignorance of the nature of the metaphor.   That
figure, in the first place, always lies exclusively in
the predicate of a proposition. The subject or nominative to which it is applied, or of which the
affirmation is made, is always used in its literal sense,
as in the expressions: God is a shield; all flesh is
grass; the winds sigh; the fields smile.  But the
nominative of the affirmation in the first verse is
God, and in the second the earth. Whatever the
meanings of the affirmations are, therefore, of which
they are the nominatives, they, and nothing else, are
the subjects of those affirmations; or in other words,
God was literally the agent of that which is
ascribed to him; and the earth was really the
4A
81 
THEIR THEORY
subject of that which is asserted of it.  And next,
the figure consists in the ascription to the agent or
subject to which it is applied, of a nature, act, or
condition, that is not proper to it, but that is peculiar
to a being or thing of a different species; and the
ol)j ect of its use is, to indicate in an emphatic
manner, that the agent or object to which it is
applied, presents a strong resemblance to that which
the terms used by the figure literally signify; as
when a hero is called a lion, to indicate his courage;
and a statesman a pillar of the republic, to express
the support lhe yields to its institutions. But there
is no such transference here of the words create,
waste, desolate, deep, waters, which are the terms of
the predicates, from their natural sphere, to one that
is proper only to another class of words.   It is
proper to God, and his peculiar and exclusive prerogative, to create, and to create worlds like heaven
and the earth. It is equally consonant to the nature
of the earth to be created, and created a waste, that
is without vegetables or animals, enveloped at every
point by an ocean, and shrouded in darkness.  There
is no other body of which those affirmations could
be more truly and appropriately made.  Tile fancy,
therefore, that they are used metaphorically, can
only be entertained by persons who are altogether
unaware of these laws of the figure. The only term
in the passage that is employed metaphorically is
82 
IRRECONCIL.ABLE WITH GENESIS.
face, which properly denotes the human countenance,
but is here used instead of surface, as is shown by
the noun that follows, and does not vary the general
sense of the passage.
The narrative is demonstrably, therefore, literal,
and teaches that the earth, as called into existence by
the creative fiat, was essentially what it now is in
shape, dimensions, solidity, and motion on its axis.
What a crowd of absurd speculations which divines
as well as geologists have indulged, are dispersed by
this inspired announcement!
"And God said, Let there be light: and there was
light. And God saw the light, that it was good; and
God divided the light from the darkness. And God
called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night: and the evening and the morning were the
first day," v. 3-5.
This act was not the creation of the sun and other
light-giving bodies, as they are not the subject of the
fiat, "'let there be light," and their creation had
already been announced in the first verse; but the
light itself of the sun, and probably of all the other
similar orbs which to us are fixed stars, and constitute
the vast circuit of worlds clustered most numerously
in the line of the milky-way, to which our solar group
belongs; and included not only the creation of the
light-giving atmosphere of the sun, and all the other
bodies of that class, but of the medium also, or
83 
THIIEIR  TT-IEORY
element throughout the realms occupied by the system-if, as philosophers suppose, such an element
exists-by acting on which it is that the light becomes
perceptible.  That it was the light of the sun that
was then created, is seen from the fact that it is
called day, in contradistinction from night. No illumination of the earth by other celestial bodies, or by
other causes, ever bears that name. If an element,
such as some hold is the instrument of illumination,
had been diffused through space, it would not have
been perceptible, unless acted on by the sun, or some
similar agent. That it was the light of the sun is
shown, moreover, from the fact that its commencement formed a morning, and that the period of its
shining, together with the night, constituted the first
day. Morning is never caused by any other light
than that of the sun. In order to a morning, evening,
and day, the earth must, as already stated, have
revolved on its axis; and the space which elapsed
from the first creative fiat to the close of the first day,
must have been twenty-four hours, or the period of
one complete revolution. The expression-evening
and morning were the first day-is equivalent to the
expression: the period of darkness and sunshine were
the first day. It would have been to use the term in
a double sense, to have said, night and day were the
first day.
These facts plainly preclude the supposition of a
84 
IRRECONCILABLE WITH GENESIS.
prior existence of the earth and its vegetable and
animal races. The geological theory which ascribes
to the globe a previous existence, is as directly and
irreconcilably in contradiction to them, as it is to the
inspired representation that the whole work of crea tion was accomplished in six days. The testimony
of the text is that the earth was created on the first
day. The theory asserts that its creation took place
innumerable ages earlier, and that in the interspace
it had been the theatre of vegetable and animal life,
and passed through a series of destructive revolutions.
The text declares that the heavenly orbs and light
were created on the first day. The theory asserts
that they had then existed through a duration whose
length we cannot estimate.
This contradiction cannot be evaded by the supposition which some have made, that the language is
metaphorical. Nothing but a total ignorance of the
law of the metaphor cotuld have betrayed any one
into so absurd a notion.  In ordcr to prove that the
words light, evening, morning, and day, are used
metaphorically, it must be shown that they are
applied to something wholly unlike that which they
literally denote. Light, accordingly, on that supposition, does not mean light that is perceptible by the
eye, but something analogous, and knowledge, therefore, or the means of intellectual illumination; as
that is the only instrument that produces an effect
85 
THEIR THIEOiY
that simply resembles that of light on the eye.  On
the same principle, evening and morning must mean,
not the dark and light portions of twenty-four hours
of the earth's revolution, but analogous parts of a
period in the existence of some other agent or object,
such as the late and early parts of a person's life, or
old age and yonth.*  The meaning of the expression,
And the evening and the morning were the first day,
must accordingly be:-And the old age and youth
of the earth were the first day. The corresponding
statement in  the following verses must, in like
manner, mean: —And the old age and youth of the
earth were the second day, the third day, and so to the
sixth!   And finally, to complete the climax of
absurdity, the word day must, to be consistent, be
taken to mean the whole period of the earth's existence; for what period can it be supposed to have
after its youth and old age? The expression, accordingly translated so as to give the terms a metaphorical meaning, becomes: and the old age and youth
of the earth were its first whole existence; and the
old age and youth of the earth were its second whole
* This construction is indeed formally advanced by De Luc and
others. "As morning and evening are expressions used to denote
likewise the beginning and end either of a life, or of a certain
period, there can be no doubt that it is necessary, without reference
to anything but the immediate sense contemplated by the inspired
writer, to take the days in question for indefinite periods."-Letters
to Prof. Bluinmenbaelc, p. 91.
86 
IRRECONCILABLE WITII GENESIS.
existence; and so of the remaining four days! Such
is the absurd perversion of the passage to which this
contrivance to reconcile it with the demands of the
geological theory leads. It indicates a very crude
state of the art of interpretation that writers of reputation should have sanctioned so extraordinary a construction.
But the supposition that the passage is metaphorical is set aside by the further consideration, that
terms, when metaphorically used, are always applied
to agents or objects of which that which they literally
mean, cannot be properly predicated; as when God
is called a sun; knowledge is called light; youth, the
morning of life; old age, its evening; and death, its
night. But in applying the terms light, evening,
morning, and day, to the earth, no such transferrence
of them is made from a different set of objects of
which they alone can be literally predicated. They
are as applicable in their literal sense to the earth, as
they are to anything else.  The fancy that they are
here used by that figure is thus, in every relation,
mistaken and absurd. The contradiction, therefore,
of the theory to the passage is direct and absolute.
This however, is but one of the objections to which
their construction of it is obnoxious. It is as contradictory to the principles of geology as it is to the
sacred text.   As light is necessary to plants and
animals, and dry land also to many of the species
87 
TIJEIR TIlEORY
that are found imbedded in the earth, geologists, in
assuming that the earth was the theatre of vegetable
and animal life through vast ages anterior to the
creation here narrated, assume that light and dry
land also existed through those immeasurable periods.
Consequently, as at the epoch of this narrative there
was no light in being, until created on the first day,
and no dry land till the waters were drawn into seas
on the third, they assume or imply that the light they
suppose to have existed previously, had been annihilated, and the dry land submerged under the ocean.
But those suppositions are not merely unauthorized,
but forbidden by their principles. The axioms on
which they professedly found their system prohibit,
in the first place, their assuming as a ground of induction, the occurrence of any event since the creation
of the earth, that is not directly indicated by the
strata themselves in their present condition.   But
they do not pretend to find any traces in the strata
of which they treat, that an annihilation of light and
submergence of the continents and islands of an
inhabited earth had taken place anterior to the
Mosaic epoch. They find indubitable proofs in the
depths of the earth, that light and dry land were
contemporaneous with those races; but none that at
a later epoch they were struck from existence. The
supposition, indeed, of the existence of such proofs,
in the condition of the rocks, earths, and fossils, is
88 
IRRECONCILABLE WITH GENESIS.
preposterous.   What conceivable effect could the
annihilation of light have produced on the strata at a
distance below the surface, to which not a ray ever
penetrated after the superposition of the rocks and
earths that intervene between them and the atmosphere?
In the next place, they are prohibited by their prin
ciples from assuming that any geological events have
taken place, except such as have resulted from the
chemical and mechanical forces to which they refer
the formation of the strata.  But they cannot account
for the annihilation of light by those forces. Whether
it is held to be an emanation from the sun, or an
effect produced by that orb on an ether diffused
through space, its annihilation would involve the
annihilation either of the light-giving atmosphere of
the sun, and all the similar orbs of our star system, or
else of that ether, or both. But such a stupendous
effect could not be wrought by chemistry, fire, or
water, raised to any energy of which they can be
thought to be capable, much less in acting only on
the scale on which they are now producing effects.
Light itself is a chemical agent, and can no more be
annihilated by others than it can annihilate them.
Water acts only on bodies with which it comes in
contact, and fire only on such as are either in contact
with it, or within the reach of the heat which it imparts. The sphere of chemical forces is equally limi
89 
TIIEIR  THIIEORY
ted. They are exerted only between particles of matter that are in absolute contact, or separated from
each other by a very slight space. No greater contradiction, therefore, can be offered to their nature,
than the supposition that the imagined annihilation
of light was the work of their agency. It is to suppose that they extended their influence not only
through the space that immediately surrounds the
earth, but through the immeasurable realms which
our star system occupies, and robbed the sun, and all
other light-giving orbs, of their luminiferous atmospheres! A beautiful postulate, truly, of a theory which
announces the conclusions it advances in contradiction to the Mosaic record, as the result of a " scientific induction."
The supposition of the obliteration of continents
and islands by those agents, acting with their present
energy, or a thousand times higher force, is equally
absurd. It would involve the erosion or depression
of every mountain and hill, and reduction of the surface universally to a geological level, by agents, as
inadequate to the production of such an effect, as
they are to annihilate the light of the countless suins
and constellations that glitter in our heavens.  Do
these writers find any traces in the condition of the
earth of such a catastrophe anterior to the Mosaic
creation?  Did philosophers, arrogating, as many of
them do, an exclusive right and competence to treat
90 
IRRECONCILABLE WITH GENESIS.
of the subject,* ever before present such an extravagance to the faith of men?
Such are the extraordinary contradictions to their
principles which they offer in these assumptions; such
the stupendous postulates, wholly unproved, wholly
incapable of proof, and irreconcilable with the genius
of geology itself, which, by their own concessions,
are requisite to a conciliation of their theory with the
3losaic record, and which, instead of reconciling
them, only place them in a more complicated antagonism.                            m
QUESTIONS.
What is the question now to be tried? What do geologists mean
by the principles of their science? What is the first of those princi
ples?  What is the second?  What is or ought to be a third axiom
of their system?   What is or ought to be a fourth?  Are they
forbidden by their principles from assuming or inferring any facts
that are not consistent with these axioms?   What is the first statement of Genesis i. which is to be compared with their theory? What
is there meant by the heaven? Give the reason for assigning that
* It is scarcely necessary to say that this fault does not appear in
the higher class of writers.  Notwithstanding what we deem their
errors, the volumes of Bakewell, Buckland, Lyell, Sedgwick, Do la
Beche, Murchison, Daubeny, Conybeare, Mantell, Phillips, and many
others, instead of an affectation of knowledge, and intolerance of all
opinions that differ from theirs, are, like the works of the great
chemists, zoologists, and astronomers, distinguished for good sense,
modesty, and candor.   If Macculloch is sometimes splenetic and
reproachful, he generally has the justice to vent his sarcasms on those
of his own profession. The pretence to learning and contempt of criticism, are generally in the inverse ratio of talents and attainments.
91 
THEIR THEORY
sense to the word.   What is the next declaration of the sacred narrative? What is meant by the earth? What is the first consideration which proves that the same earth is meant that now exists, and
essentially in its present shape and solidity?  What is the second?
What is the third? Can these proofs be set aside by the pretext that
the language is metaphorical? State the first law of the metaphor.
Show by it that God, the name of him who is declared to have created the heaven and earth, is used literally.  State the second law of
the metaphor.   Show that the words create, earth, waste, waters,
and others, are used also in their literal sense. What is the only term
in the passage that is used by a metaphor? Does the use of that
term to denote the surface of the waters indicate that the other terms
of the passage are not used in their literal sense? What is the next
declaration of the sacred text, v. 3, 4?   What is it that is there said
to have been called into existence? Is the light of the sun and stars
clearly distinguishable from the sun itself and the stars?  Is the fact
that light was created after the sun itself and the stars from which it
emanates, were called into existence, credible and consistent with the
nature of those bodies? What is the first reason which proves that
it was the light of the sun that was then created, not the sun itself?
What other considerations prove it? Do these facts preclude the
supposition of a prior existence of the earth, and its vegetable and
animal races? Are the text and the geological theory here in direct
contradiction to each other? Designate the points of their opposition. Can this antagonism be set aside by the pretext that the language of the sacred writer is metaphorical? Show why the word light
cannot be used metaphorically. Show why evening and morning cannot.   Show why day cannot.   What further consideration proves
that those words are not used by a metaphor?   Is the construction
put by geologists on the passage inconsistent also with the principle on which they professedly proceed, as well as with the sacred
text? What do they assume or imply had been annihilated? How
does this contradict their principles? How does their third axiom
prove that their assumption of such an annihilation of light is unau
92 
IRRECONCILABLE  WITII GENESIS.
thorized? How does it show that their assumption of the obliteration of continents and islands, and reduction of the globe to a geological level, so that the whole was immersed in the ocean, is
absurd?
93 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
CHAPTER V.
Difficulties of Geologists in respect to an Extinction of Light, and the Creation of
the Atmosphere.
Hiow now do geologists extricate themselves from
the difficulty in which they are thus involved by the
supposition of an extinction of light, and an obliteration of continents and islands?  WVe might justly
expect that it would engage their profoundest attention, and a satisfactory solution be felt to be indispensable before those supposed catastrophes would
be assumed to be facts, and incorporated as fundamental elements in the inductive processes by which
they rear the vast fabric of their system. No such
justification, however, of the great postulates on
which they proceed, have they thought necessary.
Not a syllable of proof has been alleged; not a
pretence has been uttered, that any evidence exists
that those events in fact occurred. Not the faintest
attempt has been made to reconcile them with the
principles of geology. By most they are assumed
without any intimation of the causes by which they
can have been produced; and the few who have
94 
RESPECTING THE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.
offered any suggestions in respect to the mode of the
suppression of light, have only contradicted the laws
of matter, and shown the inextricable embarrassment
in which their postulate involves them.  The existence of light, contemporaneously with the plants
and animals, which they refer to ages anterior to the
creation recorded in Genesis, is fully admitted and
asserted by them.  Dr. Buckland says:
"The first evening may be considered as the termination
of the indefinite time which followed the primeval creation
announced in the first verse, and is the commencement of the
first of the six succeeding days, in which the earth was to
be fitted up and prepared in a manner fit for the reception
of mankind. We have in the second verse a distinct
mention of earth and waters as already existing, involved in
darkness. Their condition also is described as a state of
confusion and emptiness-tohku bohm, words which are
usually interpreted by the vague and indefinite Greek term
'chaos,' and which may be geologically considered as designating TIE WRECK AND RUINS OF A FORMER WORLD.   At this
intermediate point of time, the preceding undefined geological periods had terminated, a new series of events
commenced, and the work of the first morning of this new
creation was the calling forth of light from  a temporary
darkness, which had overspread the rziins of the ancient
earth.
"We have evidence of the presence of light during long
and distant periods of time, in which the many extinct
95 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
fossil forms of animal life succeeded one another upon the
early surface of the globe; this evidence consists in the
petrified remains of eyes of animals found in geological
formations of various ages. In a future chapter I shall
show that the eyes of Trilobites, which are preserved in
strata of the transition formation, were constructed in a
manner so closely resembling those of existing crustacea,
and that the eyes of Ichthyosauri in the lias contained an
apparatus so like one in the eyes of many birds, as to leave
no doubt that these fossil eyes were optical instruments,
calculated to receive in the same manner impressions of
the same light which conveys the perception of sight to
living animals. This conclusion is further confirmed by the
fact that the heads of all fossil fishes and fossil reptiles, in
every geological formation, are furnished with cavities for
the reception of eyes, and with perforations for the passage
of optic nerves, altwtough the cases are rare in which any
part of the eye itself has been preserved.  The influence of
light is also so necessary to the growth of existing vegetables, that we cannot but infer that it was equally essential
to the development of the numerous fossil species of the
vegetable kingdom, which are coextensive and coeval with
the remains of fossil animals."-Bridgewater Treati.se, i.
pp. 26, 31.
Hie thus assumes as geological facts the wreck of
the former world, and the extinction or disappearance of  light after the burial of the plants and
animals that are found fossilized, and makes them
96 
RESPECTING THIE EXTINCTION  OF LIGHT.
the basis of his whole system, without attempting to
offer either the slightest evidence of their occurrence,
or explanation of the causes by which they were
produced. This is truly extraordinary. Can it be
that it did not occur to him to inquire whether such
an assumption is authorized either by the laws of
interpretation, or the axioms of geology?  Is it possible that he can have beenil wholly unconscious that the
towering structure lhe was rearing had but a mere
groundless hypothesis for its foundation, and must at
the first shock of criticism give way and fall to ruins?
A reconciliation of the geological theory with the
Mosaic record, accomplished by an assumption that
not only is not proved, and does not admit of proof,
but that both directly contradicts that record and the
principles of geology itself! Was there ever a more
singular mistake! Hie can no more assume the wreck
of the earth and the extinction of light betwixt the
creative fiats of the first and the third verses, than
lie can assume that originally those events were
recorded in the text, and were subsequently erased
by some extraordinary catastrophe. It is truly surprising that so obvious a consideration should have
escaped his notice, and the notice of the writers who
preceded and followed him in this ascription to the
earth of a long existence prior to the epoch of the
Mosaic creation. The vast chasm which hlie thought
to bridge over so easily, thus instead of supporting,
5
97
I 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
ingulfs his whole theory. No deductions can hold
that are detached from their premise by such an
impassable  abyss.   By  his failure to verify this
assumption on which he proceeds, his argument from
the fossil plants and animals becomes an argument
against him, and overthrows his system. As light
indisputably existed during the life of those plants
and animals-and there is not only no geological
proof that it was subsequently annihilated, but the
principles of the science forbid the supposition-those
vegetables and animals must be taken as evidences
that the light that was contemporaneous with them,
was that which was created on the first of the six
days, and thence that their period of existence was
subsequent to that date.
Several authors attempt to justify the supposition
that betwixt the epochs of the first and the third
verses a vast period of vegetable and animal lile
intervened that was followed by a wreck of the earth
and annihilation of light, by instances of the omission
in other narratives of occurrences that are known to
have taken place in an interval between the events
that are narrated; and they allege Exodus ii. 1, 2, as
an example.
"So far from its being contrary to the usage of Scripture,
in its succinct and even in its detailed narratives, to pass
over much intervening matter without notice in an appa
98 
RESPECTING THE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.
rently consecutive history, it is one of its most remarkable
features.  We might bring numerous proofs, especially from
the early books.  Take for example the following, which we
select because it happens to occur near the opening of the
very next book of Holy Writ, and is from the pen of the
same inspired writer; so that as far as we may safely speak
of individual style in a volume all the facts of which were
indited by one omniscient mind, it points out the character istic style of Moses, the inspired historian both of the
creation and of Exodus. We read thus, Exodus ii. 1, 2:'And there went a man of thile house of Levi, and took to
wife a daughter of Levi.  And the woman conceived and
bare a son (Moses), and when she saw that he was a goodly
child, she hid him three months.' Now suppose this were
all that is related respecting Moses and his family, but that
Professor Sedgwick, following the steps of Belzoni or the
researches of Champollion, had discovered, by digging up
certain antique Egyptian monuments, that Moses must have
had an elder brother, and also a sister nearly ten years
older than himself, and had set out from Cambridge some
fine June morning to relate his discovery to Mr. Cole in
London. With what a burst of indignation would he have
been met!'What! interpose two  children where  the
sacred text indubitably consecutive passes over all mention
of such an event, and clearly speaks of Moses as the first
born, and apparently as having been born within a short
time after the marriage of his parents! Who in his senses
would dare to put such a construction on the passage?'
Why no person, certainly, if it stood alone and bore upon 
nothing else.  But if the supposed monuments were as cleat   -
99 
DIFFICULTIES OF  GEOLOGISTS
in their indications as Professor Sedgwick considers are
those of geology, the reply would be that though this is not
the obvious prima facie construction, yet there is nothing
in it absolutely opposed to the text; and that if we do not
admit it, the veracity of the narrative may seem to come
into question; but since that is indubitable, and the monumental discoveries are irresistible, this appears to be a fair
and consistent mode of reconciling the alleged but not real
discrepancy."- Christian Observer, 1834, p. 387.
It seems to us to indicate a condition of extreme
difficulty to resort to such an expedient to justify the
imagined omission in Genesis.   In the first place
there is not an omission, as this writer indeed admits,
in the narrative of Exodus of the fact that Moses had
a sister older than himself. The verses he quotes are
immediately followed by the statement that when
Moses was placed in the ark of rushes, among the
flags at the river's bank, his sister was stationed near
by to see what befell him, and that on his being taken
by Pharaoh's daughlter, she ran and called her
mother to become his nurse.
Next: But apart from this error, the supposed
omission presents no parallel with that which it is
employed to exemplify. We have specific evidence
from Moses himself, Ex. ii. 4, 7, 8, iv. 1-14, Num.
xxxvi. 59, that he had an elder brother and sister,
Aaron and Miriam.  But we have no such testimony
from him, or vny other writer in the Scriptures, that
100 
RESPECTING THEE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.    101
a vast series of ages intervened betwixt the epoch of
the creation of the heavens and earth recorded in the
first verse, and the creation of light narrated in the
third; that the plants and animals that are entombed
in the strata of the earth had their life in that remote
period; and that at its close the earth was reduced to
a "wreck," and light annihilated.   To make the
cases parallel, proofs of those events must be produced
from the Scriptures, as direct and positive as they
are which they present that Aaron and Miriam were
children of the same family, and of an earlier birth
than M[oses. To assume, because an event mentioned
in one passage is omitted in another that relates to
the same family, that therefore events of the most
momentous nature that are not mentioned at all, and
of the occurrence of which no evidence exists, may
be hleldc to have actually taken place, though omitted
from the narrative of the creation, and then make
that assumption the basis of a train of such stupendous deductions, is truly an extraordinary procedure
in men who claim, in a measure, a monopoly of
knowledge on the subject, and announce-H-~tccock's
Geology and R?evelation, p. 30-that " geology is no
longer a bundle of crude speculations and airy hypotheses, but a collection of most striking facts, with
inferences legitimately drawn according to the strictest
rules of the Baconianphilosophy."
Thirdly. But there is a still more formidable objec 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
tion to this imagined illustration. The event omitted
in the narrative (Exodus ii. 1-8), presents no contradiction either to the fact, that Aaron was an older son
of the parents of Moses, or to the statements made of
that fact in other passages; nor does it involve any
inconsistency with his or their nature, or any of the
events of their history. But the supposition of such an
interval betwixt the creation of the heavens and earth
narrated in the first verse, and the creation of light
recorded in the third, is in direct contradiction to the
declaration, that the darkness which preceded that
creation of light, and the season of light that followed
till evening, were the first day, or first period of a
complete revolution of the earth on its axis; and to
the declaration by God himself in the institution of
the law, that in "six days he made heaven and earth,
the sea and all that in them is," Exodus xx. 11;
while the supposition of a wreck of the world and
extinction of light after the existence of vegetables
and animals, is in flagrant antagonism not only with
the sacred narrative, but with the principles of geology, and in every respect infinitely incredible. These
instances, therefore, instead of a parallel, are of such
extreme dissimilarity, that no one except by the most
unfortunate inconsideration, could possibly confound
them. What a splendid exemplification of the exclusive competence which some of these writers claim
to discuss the subject!
102 
RESPECTING TIIE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.   103
The suggestions they present of the modes in which
the extinction of light may have taken place, are
equally inconsistent with the sacred narrative, and
with the principles of geology.  Thus Dr. Buckland
advances the swpposition that it was occasioned by
an accumulation of dense vapors
If we suppose all the heavenly bodies and the earth to
have been created at the indefinitely distant time designated
by the word beginning, and that the darkness described on the
evening, of the first day ulas a temporary darkness, prodi,ced by
an accumulation of dense vapors'upon the face of the deep,'
an incipient dispersion of these vapors may have readmitted
light to the earth upon  the first day whilst the exciting
cause of light was still obscured."-Bridgewvater Treatise,
pp. 29, 30.
But this supposition is in contravention of the narrative which exhibits the light as called into existence
by a creative act. Though the word translated crea
ted is not used in the third verse, but a word equivalent to our verb let be, the sense is shown to be the
same by the whole narrative, and by the express
exhibition (Gen. ii 4, 5) of the whole work of the six
days, as a creation. " These are the generations of
the hleavens and the earth in their creation, in the day
tI-.le Lord God made the earth and the heavens and
every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew."  Here the 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
creation is represented as extending to the formation
of the herbs of the field, though the verb created is
not used in the fiat by which they were called into
existence, but an expression equivalent to that employed in the creation of light.  "Let the earth bring
forth grass, the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree
yielding fruit after his kind," chap. i. 11. Accordingly, in the description of the formation of man, both
the verbs answering to create and to smake are used as
equivalent in meaning to signify his creation. It is
inconsistent, also, with the representation that God
then divided the light from the darkness, and called
the one day and the other night, which implies that
light had not before existed.  It were an infinite misrepresentation to exhibit that separation as constituting them, if they had been distinguished firom each
other, and followed in a regular alternation eyery
twenty-four hours through a round of countless ages.
To assume that light was not then created, but
merely readmitted to the earth by a dispersion of
dense vapors, that occasioned a temporary darkness,
is to assume that the day had, in fact, returned at its
regular period during that temporariy darkness; as
no vapors are ever known to envelop the earth so
completely as to exclude the light.  The diminution
of light occasioned by the densest mists or clouds is
very far short of an absolute extinction of it. Besides,
if the sun shone in his full splendor on the exterior
104 
RESPECTING THE EXTINCTION  OF LIGHT.   105
of the imagined body of vapors, there must not only
have been perfect day there, but his rays must have
penetrated the body of the clouds to a great depth,
and rendered them luminous. What a perversion of
the passage to hold that the darkness that wrapped
the deep extended only a few feet or rods from the
surface, while at a short distance above the vapors
were basking in a dazzling effulgence!  What a
degradation of the sublime act of the Almighty, by
which he called into existence the light not only of
our sun, but probably of all the countless stars and
constellations that sparkle in our firmament, to represent it as nothing more than a dispersion of dense
vapors that had temporarily intercepted his beams
from the face of the waters!  It is a sad exemplification of the perverting influence of this false theory,
that men of the fine powers and just taste Dr. Buckland usually displays, are betrayed by it into such
misconceptions.
It is to divest the work of the six days of the character of a creation, to exhibit the production of light
as nothing more than a re-admission of it to the earth
by a dispersion of clouds. If that assumption may
be made in respect to light, it may be equally in
respect to the atmosphere, the seas, the dry land,
plants, animals, and even man. No reason can be
given to justify it in respect to the one that will not
be an equal justification of it in respect to the others.
5* 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
A scheme must be embarrassed with fatal difficulties
that needs the aid of such an expedient for its support.
But not less unfortunately for his suppositionthere was then no atmosphere in existence to support
vapors above the waters, and render such an accumulation of clouds possible as to intercept the rays of
the sun! It was not until the following day that God
made the firmament, and "divided the waters which
were under the firmament from the waters which
were above the firmament," in the form of vapors
and clouds. As, then, on the first day, there were
no waters except those that were under the firmament, that is, the waters of the abyss, there cannot
have been any vapors in the space above them to
occasion the darkness in which the deep was enveloped. The supposition is as contradictory, therefore,
to the laws of vapor as it is to the sacred narrative.
And, finally, it is in contravention of the principles
of geology, which forbid the supposition of any physical event as a condition or basis of its theories, that
cannot be proved by geological evidence to have
taken place, and to have resulted from the chemical
or mechanical agencies to which geologists refer the
facts of the science. But what geological proofs can
Dr. Buckland produce that, on the first day of the
creation, a mass of vapors enveloped the abyss so
dense as to wrap it in absolute darkness, though the
106 
RESPECTING THE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.   107
sun was shining above in unclouded effulgence?  Or
what evidence can he allege that, in the total absence
of an atmosphere, the forces of chemistry, fire, and
water, acting with only their present energy, could
fill the void above the ocean to a vast height with a
cloud of vapor so dense, as wholly to intercept the
rays of the sun. Can a greater self-contradiction, a
more extraordinary absurdity be imagined? Such is
the inextricable embarrassment in which he involves
himself by this attempt to bring the sacred word into
harmony with his theory.
Dr. Hitchcock intimates that the darkness was
occasioned by the absorption by matter of the light
that previously existed.
"From the facts which modern science has developed as
to the existence of light and heat in all bodies, we can
hardly imagine that these were not created in the beginning
along with matter.  But these facts show us that they might
have existed without being visible, or that, after having been
visible during ages, they mright hare been ABSORBED into matter,
and that it required the power of Almighty God to develop
them to such an extent as was necessary to the new state
of the earth; that is to say, it was rather a recreation than
an original production of light that is described in the third
verse."-Geology and Re,elation, p. 91.
This group of errors is a fit associate of Dr. Buck]and's. In the first place, not a syllable is uttered by 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
Moses to indicate that such anl absorption of light
actually took place, and caused the darkness which
Dr. IH. attempts to explain by it. It is deemed by
him enough to determine the question at issue, to
assert that it Knight have occurred. A very satisfactory verification truly of the assurance hle gives oil an
earlier page, that geology, instead of "a bundle of
crude speculations and airy hypotheses," is "a collection of strikingfacts, with inferences legitimately
drawn according to the strictest rules of the Baconian
Philosophy." With what disdain would an attempt
by a " theologian" to controvert one of his facts or
inferences by such an expedient be received! But
in a geologist, " according to the strictest rules of
the Baconian philosophy," it seems to be thought
enough to invalidate the plainest testimony of the
Bible, and invest it with a meaning that is at war
alike with the laws of language and of nature.
But in the next place, as invisible light and imperceptible heat would not have exerted the influences
that are necessary to plants and animals, we are not
able to see how their existence " without being visible"-we were not before aware that heat is visiblecan furnish any explanation of the life of vegetables
and animals during the ages in which it is supposed
they may have been in that latent state.
Thirdly. We are equally unable to understand
what is meant by the declaration, that " after having
108 
RESPECTING TlHE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT. 109
been visible during ages, they might  have  been
absorbed into matter." If the light of those ages
was visible, it must have been the light of the sun, as
it is sunlight alone, either direct or reflected, that is
visible to animals, and ministers to the life of plants.
WVho ever heard that animals see light that is latent?
Who ever held that it is latent light, not the light of
the sun, that is requisite to the growth of vegetables?
The light which "modern science" has shown, exists
"in all bodies," is invisible and latent, not radiated
into the atmosphere, so as to be the medium of a
sight of other objects.   But if the light which was
visible during those imagined ages was the light of
the sun illuminating an atmosphere with its effulgence, as his supposition must imply, what are we to
understand by the extraordinary representation that
it "might have been absorbed into matter?"  Does
he imagine that matter became inbued with a susceptibility of absorbing light, so vast as to detach the
luminiferous atmosphere from the sun, and attract it
into itself? If not, if the sun continued to shed forth
its light with undiminished radiance, as its rays must
have passed through the atmosphere-if it is held
that one then existed-in order to reach the matter
that was to absorb it, how is it that it would not have
continued to illuminate that atmosphere, and been as
visible therefore as it is now?  Does Dr. H. deem
himself entitled, in disregard of the laws of light, to 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
assume that it might have lost its susceptibility of
reflection fiom the surfaces on which it fell, or that
"matter" might, in defiance of its established laws,
have lost its power of reflecting it? WVhat a splendid
hypothesis for the reconciliation of his theory of an
anterior existence of the world with the testimony of
the Creator which it contradicts!  But Dr. IX. cannot,
on the principles of geology, assume the existence of
any physical fact that is not referable either to the
chemical or mechanical forces that are now in activity, and acting with their present degree of energy.
Is he aware, then, of any instances in which those
forces have actually absorbed the light of the sun, so
as to involve the world in absolute darkness?  Are
they now daily producing that stupendous effect?
If not, his assertion that light, "after having been
visible during ages, might have been absorbed into
matter," is as inconsistent with the axioms of geology
as it is contradictory to the laws of optics. Was ever
before such a "bundle" of astounding errors couched
in so narrow a compass, and dignified with the title
of facts and inferences drawn according to the strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy?
But we are not yet at the end of the series. It is
raised to a towering climnax in the representation that
the light which was created after that absorption, and
denominated by the Most high day, was the identical
light which had become latent in matter, and was
110 
RESPECTING THIE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.   111I
developed by him out of the bodies by which it had
been absorbed. "These facts show" that light and
heat "might have been absorbed into matter, and
that it required the power of Almighty God to develop them to such an extent as was necessary to the
new state of the earth." It were in vain to attempt
to lash such a blunder with the thong of ridicule. It
transcends the power of satire. Optics, chemistry,
physics, geology, are alike disregarded.  Who ever
before heard of a day, commencing with an evening
and ending with a morning, being produced by a
development of latent light from the matter of the
earth's surface?  As latent light is only developed
from the matter in which it is absorbed by a chemical process by which that'matter is resolved into its
elements, or united in new combinations, that process
must have extended over the whole surface of the
globe. Will Dr. HI. be good enough to inform us
how either the waters of the ocean, or the rocks and
earths that then formed, as he assumes, the crust of
the mountains, hills, plains, and valleys, throughout
the earth, were put into that chemical activity?
Whence were the exciting forces drawn?  If they
existed at every point before, why is it that they
remained inactive till that great crisis?  It will not
meet the difficulty simply to say, that they were developed by an act of Almighty power, or that "it was
rather a re-creation than an original production of 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
light." That is precisely the process of which we wish
an explanation on the principles of chemistry. What
is a development of latent light from matter in which
it has been absorbed, that is rather a re-creation than
an original production of it-while, in fact, by the
terms, it can be neither-and on such a scale as to
produce day at every point, like that of a brilliant
sunshine? Is he aware of the existence in the immediate vicinity of each of the substances in the crust
of the earth of elements that are capable of acting on
themin in such a manner? Was the globe dropped into
a vast alembic, filled with powerful chemical agents
that at once dissolved all the solids and fluids with
which it came in contact, released their latent light,
and radiated it into surrounding space?  That would
have made a "wreck" of the world undoubtedly, and
rendered a new construction and a repopulation of it
necessary.   It is only by some process of that kind
that such a result could have been produced. What
an ingenious and philosophic conception to account
for that illumination of the earth which God called
Day!  What a profound insight it indicates into the
mysteries of nature! At what an infinite distance it
is removed firom "the crude speculations and airy
hypotheses" in which theologians have indulged!
And what glory it reflects upon the power of the
Almighty! For what a delicate affair it must have
been to form and adjust those forces in such a man
112 
RESPECTING THiE EXTINCTION OF LIGHT.   113
ner that they naturally, through three successive
revolutions of the earth on its axis, intermitted their
activity at every line of longitude at the proper moment for the commencement of evening, and resumed
it again at the proper moment for the dawn of morning!
Such are the singular fancies by which these and
other writers attempt to reconcile their theory of the
world with the history which God has given us of its
creation;-such the strange absurdities, the infinite
contradictions to the principles of their own science
and the universal laws of matter, assent to which is,
by their own showing, a necessary condition of faith
in their system! Was such a farce ever before passed
off under the dignified and imposing names of " inductive science" and "Baconian philosophy?"  Did
men of talent and learning ever before confound in so
extraordinary a manner the principles of their own profession?'? How is it to be accounted for, except that,
misled by an excessive enthusiasm, they have misconceived the proper sphere of geology and the import of its facts, and assuming it to be a veritable
science of ascertained and infallible laws peculiar to
itself, have mistaken their unauthorized inferences
for demonstrated truths; and thence, losing in a measure their sense of the sanctity of the divine declarations, and persuaded that their natural cannot be their
real meaning, have presumed that they may be legi 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
timately construed on any hypothesis that seems to
make it possible to suppose them not at war with
the dogmas of geology.
So much for the relation of their theory to the
inspired narrative of the first day's creation. Instead
of bringing them into harmony, they have only
shown that they are in the most palpable and irremediable antagonism.
We proceed to the history of the second day.
"And God said, Let there be a firmamnent in the
midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from
the waters.  And God made  the firmament, and
divided the waters which were under the firmament,
from the waters which were above the firmament;
and it was so.  And God called the firmament  heaven: and the evening and the morning were the
second day," v. 6-8.
This great act was the creation of the atmosphere.
The firmament or expanse of the sky is the air.  The
event is described as it would have appeared to a
spectator near the surface of the earth. As there was
no atmosphere before, there was no general illumination of the space around the ocean, such as now takes
place when the sun shines; but only such ratys would
have entered the eye of a spectator, as descended
directly from the sun, or were reflected from the
water, and no points of the surface of the ocean could
have been visible, except those from which rays were
114 
RESPECTING THE ATMOSPHERE.
directly reflected to the eye. To one looking on in
any direction above the water, except immediately
towards the sun, or a planet or star, the space would
have appeared dark. The creation of the atmosphere,
therefore, must have seemed, to a beholder, like the
extension of a luminous expanse or arch overhead
which instantly rendered the whole face of the deep,
within the sphere of the eye, visible.   A division of
the waters followed as a natural consequence. The
heat of the sun occasioning evaporation in a form
lighter than the atmosphere, the vapor ascended in an
invisible shape, probably, till it reached a height at
which it was condensed, and assumed the form of
clouds.  That it was the atmosphere that was created,
not a mere elevation of water in the form of mists or
clouds, is seen also from the fact that God called the
firmament heaven, which is the name of the upper
regions of the air in which the clouds float, not of the
clouds themselves; that it was the expanse in which
the sun, moon, and stars seem to be, which is immediately above the clouds (v. 14, 15), and in which the
fowls fly, which is below them (v. 20); and from the
fact that it remained there permanently, not like the
vapors and clouds that drift away, or fall in rain, and
often wholly disappear.  The supposition that it was
auytlhing less than the creation of the atmosphere;
that it was a mere conversion of water into mist, and
elevation of it into space at a distance from the abyss
115 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
beneath, divests it of its character as a creative act,
and reduces it to the level of an ordinary operation
of nature.  Besides, if the atmosphere had been crea ted along with the earth and ocean, it would be inexplicable that some evaporation had not immediately
taken place, and mists and clouds become in a measure diffused through the sky.
This great work was thus one of the most important in the series of creations, and was essential as a
condition of those that followed. Air is necessary to
vegetable and animal life, not only on the land, but
beneath the ocean, which it pervades, and forms, it is
estimated, one-fortieth part of its bulk. As it is the
means of the illumination that is diffused by the sunlight over the surface of the earth, it is the instrument
by which objects become visible, and display their
forms and colors.  Without it, even on the supposition that it were not necessary to our life, we could
gain no idea by the eye of the shapes of things, and
the beautiful lihues by which they are adorned.
Hiow, now, is this creation of the atmosphere on
the second day to be reconciled with the geological
theory, which asserts that the earth had existed
through innumerable ages before, and been thie scene
of animal and vegetable life, and assumes, thereby,
that it had been invested with an atmosphere?  If
that theory be true, that atmosphere, like the light
which illuminated it, must have been annihilated:
116 
RESPECTING THE ATMOSPHERE.
and geologists, therefore, in order to verify their theory, must, on their own principles, produce proofs of
that annihilation, and by the chemical and mechanical forces which they regard as the only agents that
produce geological effects.   What, then,  are the
explanations which they present of this stupendous
catastrophe? Not a syllable is uttered by them on
the subject! Not the slightest indication appears in
their pages that they are aware that such an obstacle
exists in the way of their theories! The supposition
of a vast interval between the creation of heaven and
earth announced in the first verse, and the wreck and
submergence of the world, which they hold to be
announced in the second, they regard as all that is
necessary to the conciliation of their theory with the
remaining narrative of the creation.*  But that is a
* "There are two methods of conciliation, each of which will obviously remove every appearance of discrepaoice between the record of
Genesis and our assumed geological periods. We may either, with
Faber, consider the days as themselves, by a common figure of language, indicating such periods, or we may suppose an interval between the first and second verses of that record.'-Christian Observer, May, 1834.
"A very unhappy conflict has been sometimes occasion(d by comparing those results of geology which relate to periods left wholly
undefined in the Scriptural narrative, with the successive works of
creation which are in that narrative distinctly marked.  If we take
the first verse of Genesis as affirming the eternal superintendence of
God over all the prior conditions of the world, from the epoch of its
original creation until he saw fit to give it its present character, and
to call into being its present races of man, animals, and plants, and
117 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
total mistake. They can no more assume the annihilation of an atmosphere at that imagined wreck of the
world, without demnonstratiiig its occurrence from the
present condition of the earth, and by the forces of
chemistry, fire, and water, than they can assume that
wreck, and the extinction of light, which they treat
as contemporaneous with it, without proof, and in
contravention of the principles of their science. Here
then is another stupendous postulate on which they
tacitly proceed, that presents an insuperable obstacle to the reconciliation of their system with the
3losaic record. For how are they to demonstrate that
such an annihilation of the air, as their scheme implies, took place, and tlrougl  the agency of those
compare this with geological inferences relating to periods anterior
to man, we shall find two conclusions inevitable: first, that there is
no word in the Scriptural narrative which limyits in any way the
infcrences, or even the speculations of geology, with reference to
these periods; secondly, that nothing can ever be learned about these
periods by human labor, except in the way of geological induction.
This is sufficient for the purpose of the present inquiry, which relates
to races of animals and plants, not only anterior to man, but even to
the elevation of most parts of our continents from beneath the waters
of the ocean."-Phillips's Guide to Geol, p. 63.
This alleged disagreement is chiefly chronological.  Moses represents the work of creation as completed in the space of six days,
whereas the geologist asserts that the formation of the crust of the
globe. with its numerous groups of extinct animals and plants, after
the original production of the matter of the globe, must have occupied immense periods of time, whose duration we cannot estimate.
Other minor discrepances between the two records are supposed to
exist."-Hitchcock's Geology and Revelation, p. 17.
118 
RESPECTING THIE ATMOSPHERE.
geological forces at the epoch to which they must
refer it? The attempt were preposterous. If it had
taken place, it is not conceivable that any traces of it
would be found on the strata of the earth. But it is
demonstrably impossible that it could have been pro duced by the chemical and mechanical agents to
which they refer the formation of strata.  The forces
of chemistry, fire, and water, have not the slightest
tendency to absorb, or annihilate the atmosphere.
Though oxygen and nitrogen are continually absorbed
by bodies, and disengaged from them in the processes
that are going forward in the mineral, vegetable, and
animal worlds, yet there is not the slightest reason to
suppose that the volume of the atmosphere has undergone the least diminution since the moment of its
creation. Such is the embarrassing position in which
they have placed themselves. If they deny that
there was an atmosphere during, the innumerable
ages which they affirm preceded the A]osaic creation,
then they virtually deny the existence of plants and
animrnals during that period, and overturn their theory. if they admit that an atmosphere then existed,
and deny its annihilation anterior to the date of the
creative act recorded in this passage, they then contradict the inspired record, and establish the antagonism-which they wish to escape-of their theory
with the word of God. And if they admit its annihilation, then they equally contradict and confute them
119 
DIFFICULTIE$ OF GEOLOGISTS
selves, because of the impossibility of their either proving or accounting for it on the principles of geology,
or compatibly with the laws of matter. Their system
is thus at as open war with the powers of nature as
it is with the teachings of inspiration. No skill can
ever bring it into harmony with either. No learning
or philosophy can ever demonstrate it, or save it from
the discredit of the grossest absurdity. Is it not singular that these men of science who display such
admirable powers in the practical branches of their
profession, should not have extended their inquiries
far enough into this department to discover this fatal
difficulty?
QUESTIONS.
How do geologists meet the contradiction to their own principles, and to the sacred text in which they are involved by supposing
an annihilation of the light and the lands of a former world? Do
they admit that light must on their theory have existed before the
creation announced in the text? Did it not become Dr. Buckland,
who makes that supposition, to offer, if in his power, some proof of
its reality, and some intimation of the mode in which it is to be
reconciled with the principles of geology?   Is not his assumption
wholly unscientific? Is it not absurd to attempt to reconcile the
theory with the text, by an assumption that not only cannot be
proved-but that directly contradicts both the sacred record and his
own principles? Moreover, not having proved an annihilation of
light, does not his admission that it existed during the life of the
plants and animals that are buried in the strata, forbid the supposition that they existed anterior to the light, the creation of which is
announced in the text, and thereby overturn the theory that they
120 
RESPECTING THE ATMOSPHERE.
had their being in a prior age? By what method have other writers
attempted to justify the supposition that a vast period intervened
between the epochs of the first and the third verses?  What is the
first objection to that expedient? What is the second? What is the
third?  What does Dr. Buckland suppose was the mode of the extinc tion of light? Hot does that contradict the statement of the text,
that light was then created; not caused by the dispersion of vapors,
to shine on the earth? How does it contradict the text in respect to
the day, which is said to have followed the creation of light? How
does it affect the meaning of the other acts of creation? If the
alleged creation of light was no creation, may not the creation of
vegetables, animals, and man be with equal propriety held to be no
creations?   But how does Dr. Buckland's supposition consist with
the fact that there was then no atmosphere by which vapor could
have been diffused through the space above the earth, so as to intercept the light?   And how does his supposition consist with the
fourth geological axiom, which forbids the assumption of any geological events, that cannot be proved to have taken place, and to have
been produced by the causes to which he refers all geological effects?
What is Dr. Hitchcock's suggestion respecting the mode in which the
light may have disappeared? What is the first objection to that
hypothesis? What is the next objection to it? What is the third
objection to it? Is it inconsistent with the laws of light, and of
matter? Is it inconsistent with the third axiom of geology? Point
out the absurdities of Dr. Hitchcock's fancy that the light which God
called day, instead of emanating from the sun-was developed out
of the matter of the earth in which it had become absorbed? Was
day ever known to be produced in that manner?  Are there any
known chemical agents capable of developing a day from the matter of the earth? Has Dr. Hitchcock ever got up a day in Massachusetts by that process? Is the pretence of reconciling the theory
with the text by such a supposition, worthy of a man of science, or
only of an ignorant and presumptuous charlatan?
What is the sacred penman's history of the second day's creation?
6
121 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
What is meant by the firmament? Did an ascent of vapor, and a
collection of water in the air in the form of clouds, follow as a
natural consequence of the creation of the atmosphere? Was that
the division of the waters of which the sacred text speaks? Can the
geological theory be reconciled with this creation of the atmosphere
on the second day?  Why not?  Do geologists evade this difficulty?
Are they not bound however, to meet it? Is it not inconsistent with
their own principles, as well as unphilosophical, to assume without
proof, that an atmosphere which they assert had before existed, had
been annihilated? Are not the chemical and mechanical forces to
which they refer all the changes that have taken place on the earth,
wholly inadequate to produce such an annihilation of the atmosphere?  What is the dilemma then in which they place themselves?
122 
RESPECTING THIE DRY LAND.
CHAPTER VI.
Difficulties of geologists in respect to the elevation of Land from the Ocean on the
Third, and the adjustment of the heavenly Bodies on the Fourth Day of the
Creation.
THEIR scheme is equally irreconcilable with the
creative acts of the third day.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven
be gathered together into one place, and let the dry
land appear: and it was so. And God called the
dry land earth: and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was
good. And God said, let the earth bring forth grass,
and herb yielding seed, and the fruit-tree yielding
fiuit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the
earth: and it was so.  And the earth brought forth
grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the
tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his
kind: and God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the third day," v. 9-13.
As the waters were now first collected into seas,
and dry land made to appear, it is apparent that the
ocean had continued up to this time to envelop it at
every point; and thence, that it had as yet no moun
123 
DIFFICULTIES  OF GEOLOGISTS
tains, nor even hills, unless of very moderate elevation. Its surface beneath the waters formed, probably, as even an outline as the ocean itself that reposed
above it. The change that was wrought, accordingly,
must have involved an alteration of the crust of the
earth, either by an elevation of the whole body of the
continents and islands above the level of the seas,
and at such unequal heights as to form mountains,
hills, slopes, anid valleys; or by an elevation of the
mountains and hills of the dry land, and a depression
of the seat of the seas; or both combined. In either
case, the event, as well as the language of the fiat,
shows that it was produced by an act of omnipotence,
and not by second causes. As the dry land immediately appeared and became the theatre of vegetable
life, and in forms, doubtless, adapted to various climates, the waters cannot have been withdrawn by
the mere force of gravity to which they owe their
movement in streams and rivers.   The descent of
waters over slopes of several thousand miles, like
those over which the Missouri, Mississippi, Amazon,
Nile, and Ganges pass, instead of but a small part of
twenty-four hours, would require several weeks, and
perhaps months. In like manner the depression of
the bed of the seas, and elevation of the continents
and islands, and upheaving of their mountains and
hills, must have been the work of omnipotence, not
of mechanical force.   Such  a stupendous effect,
124 
REISPECTING THE DRY LAND.
wrought in an instant, or at most in a few hours, is
infinitely beyond any of the volcanic powers, so far
as we are able to estimate their energy, that have
ever agitated the earth's surface.   To attempt to
explain it by the laws of matter, as far as we have a
knowledge of them, is scarcely less unphilosophic
than it were to ascribe to them the creation of the
world. It was the fiat of the Almighty that wrought
the change. "By the word of the Lord were the
heavens made; and all the host of them by the
breath of his mouth.  Hie gathereth the waters of the
sea together as an heap; he layeth up the depth in
store-houses. Let all the earth fear the Lord; let all
the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him: for
he spake and it was; he commanded, and it stood
fast," Ps. xxxiii. 6-9.
As the earth was immediately fit for the support
of vegetables and trees of all kinds, it is apparent
that it was covered with a soil consisting of silica,
alumine, lime, and other ingredients, which now
enter into the composition of vegetables, and mixed
in different places in the different proportions that
are congenial to the several species of herbs and
trees. What the extent was of the continents and
islands we have no means of determining. They
bore possibly a very different proportion to the seas,
firom that which subsists between the present lands
and the waters of the globe.
125 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
The geological theory, which asserts the existence
of the world through innumerable ages anterior to
this epoch, is thus again in conflict with the sacred
word; for that theory not only refers the upheaving
of the mountains and elevation of the hills, as well as
the formation of the strata in which the fossil relics
of plants and animals are iminbedded, to that distant
age, but exhibits those strata themselves as formed
mainly from the detritus of a preceding system of
mountains and continents.   Thus  Dr.  Macculloch
says:
"It is important to observe the exact resemblance
between the present primary rocks and the still more ancient
ones from the ruins of which they have been partly at least
formed.
"Now, as the compounded rocks now forming are produced by the consolidation of materials carriedfrom thle land
into the sea, it follows that before the formation of the present primary strata, and while they were all buried beneath
the water in their germs, there uas a terraqueomts globe, an
earth containing land and water, mountains, rivers, and seas.
That earth, also, was formed of rocks similar to those of the
present primary strata; and further, it is important to observe, of granite also, proving that this agent had then, as
in later times, been the cause of the elevation of the strata."Geology, vol. i. p. 464.
"The detritus of the first dry lands being drifted into the
sea, and then spread out into extensive beds of mud, and
126 
RESPECTING THE DRY LAND.
sand, and gravel, would have for ever remained beneath the
surface of the water, had not other forces been subsequently
employed to raise them into dry land; these forces appear
to have been the same expansive powers of heat and vapor
which, having caused the elevation of the first raised portions
of f,indamental crystalline rocks, continued their  energies
through all succeeding geological periods, and still exert
them in producing the phenomena of active volcanoes."Buckland's Bridg. Tr., pp. 42, 43.
"One of the most interesting of the results to which the
careful study of the elevation of mountains has conducted
geologists, and at the same time one of the most certain, is
the knowledge that the dry land is not all of the same antiquity; in other words, that some mountain ranges and some
large regions were raised above the sea long before the
occurrence of the convulsions which affected the level of
other countries, and even before the production of the strata
of these countries. For instance, we have no doubt that the
Grampian, Lammermuir, and Cumberland mountains were
dry long before the Alps were raised from the sea, and while
the greater part of Europe was occupied by the ancient
ocean."-Phillips's Guide, p. 46.
As he holds not only that the lower strata of all
countries, but that those which he regards as formed
since the elevation of the Grampian and Cimberland
mountains, were deposited innumerable ages ago; he
holds that those mountains, also, have existed through
an incalculable period. This view is entertained also
by Sir C. Lyell, who regards Etna as having existed
127 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
through an immense series of ages anterior to the historical era; although, compared with the primary
strata, he holds that it is of very modern date.
"There are no records within the historical era, which
lead to the opinion that the altitude of Etna has materially
varied within the last two thousand years. Of the eighty
most conspicuous minor cones which adorn its flanks, only
one of the largest has been produced within the times of
authentic history... The dimensions of these large cones
appear to bear testimony to paroxysms of volcanic activity,
after which we may conclude, from analogy, that the fires
of Etna remained dormant for many years-since nearly a
century of rest has sometimes followed a violent eruption in
the historical era....
" HIow many years, then, must we not suppose to have
been expended in the formation of the eighty cones? It is
difficult to imagine that a fourth part of them have originated during the last thirty centuries. But if we conjecture the
whole of them to have been formed in twelve thousand years,
how inconsiderable an era would this portion of time constitute
in the history of this volcano!  If we could strip off from
Etna all the lateral monticules now visible, together with
the scoriae that have been poured out from them, and from
the highest crater, during thie period of their growth, the
diminution of the mass would be extremely slight; Etna
might lose, perhaps, several miles in diameter at its base,
and some hundreds of feet in elevation; but it would still
be the loftiest of Sicilian mountains....
"On the grounds, therefore, already explained, we must
128 
RESPECTING THE DRY LAND.
infer that a mass so many thousand feet in thickness must
have required an inmmense series of ages anterior to its historical periods for its growth; yet the whole must be regarded as
the product of a modern portion of the tertiary epoch."-Lyell's
Principles, pp. 404, 405.
These writers thus not only assert the existence of
continents and mountains countless years anterior to
the date of the creation recorded in Genesis, but they
refer the present mountains of the earth, both such as
are volcanic and those that consist mainly of granite,
to that distant period. Their theory is, accordingly,
in open antagonism to the inspired history of the third
day's creation; and the contradiction which it offers
to it is not slight, but as vast as the mountains themselves are that rear their rocky masses into the heavens, and the plains and vales that slope from their
sides to the ocean. If their views are correct, the
M1osaic record which exhibits the earth as submerged
beneath the ocean till the morning of the third day,
and its first dry land as then produced by the removal of the waters into seas, cannot be. No more palpable and irreconcilable contradiction between two
statements can be conceived.
Hiow now do the geological and theological writers
who maintain the consistency of their theory with the
account God has here given of the creation of the
world, extricate themselves from this difficulty?  Not
6*
129 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
a solitary allusion is made by them to it, so far as we
are aware! They seem to have assumed, as in respect to the creation of the atmosphere, that if allowed
to intercalate a vast tract of ages between the epoch
of the first and of the second-verses, their harmony
with the narrative that follows is of course established. What a beautiful verification, again, of the
claim which some of them put forth to an exclusive
right and competence to treat of the subject! A
more unfortunate position than that which they
occupy cannot well be imagined. Let them interpose
as many ages as they please betwixt the periods of
the first and second verses, and it can contribute
nothing towards reconciling their theory with the fact
made known to us in this passage, that at the commencement of the third day there were no mountains
or hills on the face of the earth, nor lands of any description above the level of the ocean.  If all the
mountains, hills, and dry lands of the present continents and islands were formed either then or since
that epoch, as the record God has given of their
origin testifies, then indisputably they cannot have
been formed in the remote and indeterminable ages
to which geologists refer them.   It cannot be pretended that, after having existed through the vast
periods ascribed to them, they were at the IIosaic
epoch aepressed beneath the ocean, and raised again
to their former position on the third day. No intel
130 
ITESPECTING TIlE DRY LAND.
ligent geologist will venture on a supposition so
wholly irreconcilable with the nature of the primitive masses of which the mountains consist, and the
condition of the strata that are superposed on them.
Such a movement would have dislocated and broken
to fragments those of the latter, which now, although
bent and contorted in many forms, are continuous,
and conform in their curves to the outline of the primitive rocks on which they repose. The whole condition both of those primitive masses and the strata
which they uphold, forbids the idea that they have
undergone more than one elevation above the lands
by which they are surrounded.
Here, then, we have again the most unanswerable
proofs, and on the vastest scale, of the irreconcilableness of the geological theory and the history in
Genesis of the creation of the world.  No chemistry
or mechanics can save the system from this dilemma.
It were discreditable to attempt to reconcile representations so diametrically the opposites of each other.
The supposition that the mountains of the earth were
formed in the fabulous ages to which geologists refer
them, must be renounced, or the inspiration and truth
of the record God has given us of the origin of the
world must be rejected.
Their theory is irreconcilable, also, with the creative acts of the fourth day.
"And God said, let there be lights in the firma
131 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
ment of the heaven, to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days, and for years. And let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the
earth: and it was so.  And God made two great
lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the
lesser light to rule the night; the stars also. And
God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give
light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and
over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: And God saw that it was good. And the evening and the morning were the fourth day," v. 1419.
Writers on geology differ in their views of the
import of this act.  Some suppose that the light
created on the first day, was either the ether, which is
by many thought to be the medium of its perceptibility, or light that exists or is made perceptible independently of the sun, like that which is sometimes
evolved from bodies by chemical action that pro —
duces combustion; and that the creative act here
recorded was the investiture of the sun with its lightgiving atmosphere. But that is inconsistent with the
characteristics and offices of the light created on the
first day.   As that light constituted morning, and
was followed by evening; as there was a division
instituted between it and the night, that was the same
as now subsists between day and night; and as the
132 
RESPECTING THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS.   133
illumination which it caused was called day, and
with the night that preceded it, occupied the period
of a revolution of the earth on its axis, it is plain that
it must have been the light that now constitutes day,
and the light therefore of the sun.
Others suppose the effect of the divine fiat was
merely the dispersion of vapors or clouds that had
accumulated in the atmosphere, and obscured or hiddenil the sun. But that implies that the office to which
the sun, moon, and stars were assigned, was to be
exercised only in fair weather; as otherwise they must
have filled it as fully before the fiat, as they could
afterwards, when they were hidden by clouds. It is
irreconcilable, also, with the representation that they
were set for signs, and for seasons, and for days and
for years; not for the mere periods in which they
might happen to shine on the earth without obstruction. It was a great and permanent change that was
wrought, not merely a purification of the atmosphere
from exhalations that might have arisen from natural
causes, and been immediately followed by fresh mists
and clouds.
Others regard the fiat of the Creator as merely annunciatory of the office which the heavenly orbs were
to fill towards the earth; not as causing a change of
their relations to one another, or to the earth, or of
the earth's relations to them.
That is equally inconsistent with the passage, which 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
exhibits the act of the Most High as creative, and as
constituting the sun, moon, and stars, what they had
not before been, the determiners to the earth of seasons, and days, and years.   If it were not an omnnipotent act accomplishing an important step in the
completion of the sy stem, then the work of the creation, instead of occupying six days, must have been
confined to five.
The act, then, was almighty and creative; it was
exerted, apparently at least, on the bodies of the solar
system already in existence, and really so, or else on
the earth, and perhaps onil both, and its effect was an
alteration of their relations or motions by which the
sun, moon, and stars became the determiners to the
earth of its seasons, days, and years. The plain sense
of the fiat is, "Let the luminaries in the firmament
of the heaven be to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for
days, and for years."   A  change, therefore, was
wrought in their adjustment and motions, which gave
birth to seasons, and years, and the variations in the
length of days. That may have been simply the
inclination of the earth's axis-and the axes of the
other planets, for the fiat may be considered as affecting them all-to the ecliptic, which is the reason that
there is a diversity and succession of the seasons, that
there is a variation in the length of the days and
nights, and that the circle of changes through which
134 
RESPECTING TIE SUNi MOON, AND) STARS.   135
they pass is completed in the compass of a year, and
repeated in every answering period. If the earth's
axis had previously been perpendicular to the ecliptic,
and had continued so, there could have been no vari ation in the length of the days, no diversity and suc cession of seasons, and no obvious signs of the com pletion of the year. The last is now known, from the
declination of the sun, and the consequent variation
of the length of the days and nights, and succession
of the seasons. It could then have been known only
by observing the relation of the earth to the constellations of the zodiac. Such a change extended to the
whole circle of the planets, all of which are inclined
to the ecliptic-perhaps to the infinite crowd of similar orbs that are supposed to circle round the other
suns of our star-system-and giving rise to such a
train of important events in the economy of life, was
worthy of the omnipotent fiat, and one of the siblimest of the creative acts.
It is possible, however, that it may have been of a
still grander character. It may, besides that change,
have embraced the communication to the earth and
other planets of the projectile motion by which they
are borne round in their orbits. It is conceivable
that at their creation they received no other motion
than that by which they revolve on their axes.
Neither that nor their projectile motion is, like the
force of gravity, inherent, but adventitious, and must 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
be referred to an omnipotent fiat.  As, however, they
were subject to the gravitating power from the moment of their creation, the supposition that the force
which drives them around their orbits was not imparted to them till the fourth day, implies that at
their creation they were at a far greater distance both
from the sun and from each other. The space which
belongs to our system is, however, amply sufficient
for the arrangement that would then have been
required.   Astronomers have  estimated  that the
planet nearest the sun, if divested of its projectile
force, and the centrifugal force also generated by its
revolution on its axis, would not fall to the sun in less
than fifteen days and a half; nor the moon to the
the earth in less than about five days.*
It would be no difficult problem to determine what
their respective distances from the sun must have
been, that, falling under the force of gravity, they
should at the end of 72 hours have reached the distances at which they are now stationed, when they
received the projectile impulse that sends them
around their orbits. The supposition implies, indeed,
* Mercury would fall to the sun in..  15 days 13 hours.
Venus    "     "      "..  39 "  17 "
The Earth"     "      "..  64 "  10
Mars     "     "      ".. 121 "  0 
Jupiter   "    " ".. 290 "   0 "
Saturn   "     "     ".. 798 "   0 
Georgium Sidus  "     ".    5,406 "   0 "
The Moon would fall to the Earth in.   4 "  21 "
136 
RESPECTING THE SUN, AIOONS AD STARS.   137
that the momentum they had acquired was annihi lated at those points, and may be thought to be
improbable. Why should it be deemed more singular, however, than that the sun was created without
the robe by which it fills its office as the luminary of
its circle of revolving orbs? or that the earth was
formed at first without mountains, hills, or dry land?
As it would have given birth to a variation in the
length of the days and nights and a succession of
seasons and years, and meets, therefore, the conditions of the passage in even a more emphatic manner
than the former, it may at least be considered as possibly the act God then exerted; and, if extended to
all the planetary systems that revolve round the
countless stars of our galaxy, was one of the vastest
and most momentous of the whole series of the creative fiats.
Whichever of these is supposed to be the work of
the fourth day-and one or the other undoubtedly
must, as there is no other by which the sun, moon,
and stars could be made to determine as they do, the
length of the days, and the succession of seasons and
years-it is, like the others, wholly irreconcilable with
the geological theory.   If the earth had already
existed through an incalculable round of ages, and
been the scene of vegetable and animal life, it must
have revolved round the sun, and that orb and the
moon and stars filled the office they now do, as deter 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
miners of the length of the days and nights, and the
succession of seasons and years. It will be said, perhaps, that if the axis of the earth be supposed to have
been perpendicular to the ecliptic during those ages,
and to have received its present inclination on the
fourth day of the creation, recorded by Moses, it will
meet all the conditions of the text. That supposition,
however, cannot be made by geologists; as their maxims forbid their assuming the occurrence of any
event which is not demonstrated by the present condition of the earth, and was not caused by the forces
to which they refer the facts of geology. But no
traces exist in the crust of the globe, of such a change
in the relation of the earth's axis to the ecliptic. It
has been supposed, indeed, to have taken place at the
deluge, and to have been the occasion of that catastrophe; but geologists treat it as wholly improbable.
Some of them deny even that there are any evidences
in the condition of the earth of the occurrence of the
deluge itself. While many of them regard the fossil
vegetables, and animals that are found in high latitudes, as decisive proofs that the temperature of those
climes during their life must have been far higher
than at present, they generally ascribe the superior
warmth which is supposed then to have prevailed, to
the influence of internal fires. They cannot, therefore, assume that the earth's axis received at the
Mosaic epoch its present inclination, unless they pre
138 
RESPECTING THE SUN, MOON, AND STARS.  139
viously assume that immediately before the six days'
creation, when, according to them, the world was
made a " wreck," it was raised from its inclination to
a right angle to the ecliptic.  But that were in contravention of their principles, both because there are no
proofs in the present condition of the earth of such a
change; and because, if it took place, it cannot have
been caused by the chemical and mechanical forces
to which alone they can refer such a change in the
position of the globe.   It were supremely absurd to
suppose that chemistry, any volcanic action, or any
movement of the ocean, can have thrown the axis of
the earth from an angle, to a perpendicular to the
ecliptic. In maintaining, therefore, that the earth
had revolved round the sun through all immeasurable
tract of years, with its present inclination to the ecliptic and diversity of days and seasons, they in effect
assume either that at the close of that period it was
made a " wreck," and lost its inclination to the ecliptic, or else that no such change was wrought in its
condition on the fourth day of the Mosaic creation,
as is related in this passage. If the latter, they offer
a direct contradiction to the inspired record; if the
formier, they both contradict the announcement  in
the first four verses, and in Exodus xx. 3, that the
earth itself, and the sun, moon, and stars, were created on the first of the six days; and contravene their
own principles, which forbid them to assume the 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
occurrence of any change of the earth's condition
that was not produced by the chemical and mechanical agents to which they refer all geological effects.
Of this difficulty, as they appear not to have been
aware of its existence, they have not attempted a
solution.
QUESTIONS.
Could there have been any mountains or high hills on the earth's
surface while it continued to be covered by the ocean? What must
have been the process by which the dry land was formed? Must the
change have been rapid, if large continents and islands immediately
became dry?  Must the dry land have been covered with a soil fit
for the support of vegetables? Is this narrative of the formation of
mountains on the third day, reconcilable with the geological theory?
To what epoch do geologists refer the elevation of the mountains?
Do they hold that the soil of the present strata formed the surface of
the earth which was elevated from the waters at this epoch; and that
the materials of these strata were drawn from mountains and lands
that had previously existed?  State the opinions of Macculloch,
Buckland, Phillips, and Lyell. Are not these opinions in the most
open antagonism to the sacred text?  To what expedient do geologists resort to extricate themselves from this difficulty? Is their
omission to notice it adapted to confirm the claim they often put
forth, to an exclusive competence to treat of the subject?   Does the
supposition on which they rely to save themselves from all difficulties-that a vast tract of ages intervened between the epoch of the
first and second verses-relieve them in any measure from this contradiction to the sacred text? If continents and mountains had
existed for ages before the era of the third day's creation, must not
those mountains and continents have been got rid of and the earth
reduced to a geological level, in order that a new set could be pro
140 
RESPECTING THE SUN=  MOON5 AND STARS.   141
duced at the time and in the manner the text narrates? Can a more
irreconcilable contradiction be conceived, than their theory thus
forms to the inspired history?
What was the act of the fourth day's creation? What is the first
of the views geologists entertain of this creative act?  What is the
objection to that view? What is the second construction they place
on this act?  What is the objection to that view of it?   What is the
third notion they entertain of it?  Is that consistent with the language of the passage?  What then was the true import of the creative fiat?  What was the effect wrought by it?  HIow may a change
have been produced in the relations of the earth and other planets
and the sun, that gave birth to seasons and years?   What other
change in their relations to each other may also have taken place?
Is either of these effects reconcilable with the geological theory?
Show how it is irreconcilable with the supposition that a change of
the distances of the planets from each other and from the sun was
wrought by the creative act. Show how it is inconsistent with the
supposition that the effect wrought was the change of the earth's axis
from a perpendicular to its present inclination to the ecliptic. 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
CHAPTER VII.
Difficulties of Geologists respecting the Creation of Animals and Man.
THEIR theory that the plants and animals whose
relics are buried in the earth, had their life during
the ages which they hold preceded the "wreck" and
reconstruction of the globe six thousand years ago, is
in like manner contradictory to the inspired history
of the creative acts of the third, fifth, and sixth days.
"And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl
that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven. And God created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which the waters
brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every
winged fowl after his kind. And God saw that it
was good. And God blessed them, saying: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and
let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and
the morning were the fifth day.
"And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing,
142 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS.  143
and beast of the earth after his kind: And it was so.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind,
and cattle after their kind, and every thing that
creepeth upon the earth after his kind. And God
saw that it was good.
" And God said, Let us make man, in our image,
after our likeness, and let them have dominion over
the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and
over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over
every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
So God created man in his own image; in the image
of God created he him; male and female created he
them. And God blessed them. And God said unto
them: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the
earth, and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish
of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over
every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And
God said: Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth,
and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding
seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every
beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and
to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein
there is life, I have given every green herb for meat:
and it was so.  And God saw every thing that he had
made, and behold, it was very good.   And the evening and the morning were the sixth day."-Chap. i.
20-31. 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
"Tiius the heavens and the earth were fni,shed, and
all the host of them. And on the seventh day God
ended his work which he had made.  And he rested
on the seventh day from all his work which hlie had
made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his
work, which God created and made.
" These are the generations of the heavens and of
the earth when they were created, in the day that the
Lord God made the earth and the heavens, and every
plant and every herb of the field before it grew: for
the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the
earth; and there was not a man to till the ground.
But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered
the whole face of the ground."- Chap. ii. 1-6.
The theory of a previous existence through innumerable ages of the heavens and earth, and the vegetables and animals that are biiied in its strata, is thus
in as marked antagonism with this part of the history
as with the other. WVe are expressly told that these
are the generations; that is, the origins, or modes of
the first existence of the heavens and the earth when
they were created; and that it was t/us, that is in the
manner related, that " the heavens and the earth were
fnished, and all the host of them."  No language
could more specifically declare that they were all
called into being during the six days, or more effectually preclude the supposition of their previous exist
144 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS.  145
enlce. It is as unwarrantable a contradiction of the
narrative to assert that plants and animals, the earth
itself, and heavens, existed through countless ages
before, as it were to assert that man lived through
those ages. But geologists admit that man had no
existence anterior to the date here assigned to his
creation. Why then should they deny that the narrative exhibits the plants and animals also, and the
earth itself as then first created? They unquestionably cannot, if governed in their views by the language of the history; and the fact, therefore, that
they assert their previous existence, shows that the
inspired record of the epoch and method of the creation not only is not the guide of their faith, but is not in
reality of any authority with them in the determination
of their system. It is accordingly admitted by some
among them that this revealed history must be mnodified and forced to a metaphorical, or perhaps a mythical meaning, in order to remove its contradictions to
their theory. It is directly claimed, indeed, that it is
to be construed by that theory instead of its own language, in order to render its inspiration credible.
While it is held to be true, its truth is equally held
to depend on its being susceptible of a construction
that admits the supposition of a previous existence of
the earth and its vegetable and animal races through
an incalculable series of ages. Thus Dr. Buckland:
T 
DI)IFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
"If the suggestions I shall venture to propose, require
some modification of the most commonly received and popular
interpretation of the Mosaic narrative, this admission neither
involves any impeachment of the authenticity of the text,
nor of the judgment of tho.se who have formerly interpreted it
otherwise, in the absence of information as to facts which
have but recently been brought to light; and if in this
respect geology should seem to require some little concession from the literal interpretation of Scripture, it may
fairly be held to afford ample compensation for this demand,
by the large additions it has made to the evidences of
natural religion, in a department where revelation was not
designed to give information."-Bridg. Treat. p. 14.
It is thus unhesitatingly admitted that in order to
exempt it from collision with the theory, the interpretation of the inspired record must be modified,
and a meaning assigned it which, before the geological facts that have recently been brought to light
were known, could not have been deduced by the
laws of philology.*
* That Dr. Buckland penned the passage, however, with but a
very inadequate consideration of its import, is apparent from the
fancy he advances that such a violation of the narrative could be
compensated by an addition to the evidences of natural religion.
That an admission that that part of revelation, on the truth of which
the veracity of all the rest depends, is shown by geology to be so
false, as to make it necessary to put on it a forced and unphilological construction, can be counterbalanced by an addition to the
evidences of theism, is truly a very extraordinary solecism, alike in
hermeneutics and theology.
146 
IN RESPECT TO TiIE CREATION OF ANIMALS. 147
Dr. Hitchcock also asserts the necessity of construing the narrative by the facts of geology, in contravention of the laws of language.
"Moses represents the work of creation as completed in
the space of six days; whereas the geologist asserts that
the formation of the crust of the globe, with its numerous
groups of extinct animals and plants, after the original pro duction of the matter of the globe, must have occupied
immense periods of time, whose duration we cannot estimate.
"We must decide whether geological facts can ever be
permitted, as facts derived from civil history and astronomy
are, to modify our interpretation of the sacred record. The
Scriptures speak of the rising and setting of the sun; but
astronomy shows us that they employ such language in
accordance with optical, not physical truth.   And  the
cases are too common to need particularizing, where the
interpretation is essentially modified by civil history. Why
should there be any question, then, whether geological facts
ought to have the same influence in exposition?  For so
far as it bears on revelation, geology is nothing but a history of the globe anterior, for the most part, to the commencement of civil history. The only reason that has ever
been alleged for refusing to use geological facts in this way,
is that they are too uncertain. But although true half a
century ago, the fundamental facts of this science may now
be regarded as resting on as firm a foundation, and to be as
well understood, as those of any science not strictly demon 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
strative.    The  principles of sound  criticism, therefore,
demand that they should be admitted equally with civil
history and astronomy, as aids in the interpretation of the
Bible."-Geology and Revelation, pp. 17, 23, 24.
The construction of the text, therefore, is not only
to be modified by the facts of geology, but by his own
concession completely reversed. No greater opposites can be conceived, than two representations of
the creation, one of which assigns it to a date so
distant that immense periods followed whose duration
cannot be estimated, and the other fixes its epoch at
about six thousand years ago, and exhibits it as
accomplished in the space of six days. And what a
singular tissue of errors and fallacies are employed to
verify this assumption! In the first place, astronomy
does not create any necessity of altering the interpretation of passages in which the sun is said to rise and
set. No translator of the Bible rejects that form of
representation, and substitutes the language in which
it would be astronomically expressed. Such a change
would be wholly unwarrantable. That description
is as true to the senses, as the other is to the scientific
intellect.  II is not inaccurate, therefore, but expresses
in that relation a genuine fact. There are many
other forms of expression in which events are
described in the samnie way, and with perfect truth.
Thus, to say that one man sees another, expresses an
148 
IN RESPECT TO TIIE CREATION OF ANIMALS.  149
absolute fact to the senses, although in reality he Qnly
sees by an image produced by rays of light at the
bottom of the eye.  In like manner, to say that one
man hears another's voice expresses a fact to the
senses, although, according to acoustics, he only per ceives a vibration of the tympana of his own ears.
Does Dr. IH. consider it an inaccuracy to ascribe to
objects colors, odors, tastes, and other qualities, which
are mere effects, or forms of sensation?  Is it not a
fact to the senses, that snow and wool are white; that
grass and the foliage of trees are green, and that the
rainbow has the hues of the prism?  Is it an inaccuracy to speak of seeing, and smelling, and painting a
flower?  This and all similar language of the senses
is used on precisely the same principle as that which
he quotes respecting the sun, and is employed as
universally in conversation and every species of composition, scientific as well as that which relates to the
ordinary affairs of life, as it is in the sacred writings.
Every oingle fact, indeed, throughout the domain of
geology, and every one of its theoretical doctrines,?,S
expressed in tis  anae.   Is it not, then, to be
interpreted as denoting identically what the facts
which it expresses are to the senses?   To deny it
were at one blow to subvert the whole fabric of the
science! For what are the facts of geology if they
are not what they are to the senses?   They have
never been exhibited as anything else by any of those 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
who have hitherto treated of them.   But if this
language is to be taken as denoting what the things
which it expresses are to the senses, then how is its
use in the instance he alleges to aid him in his argument?  Does he regard the mode in which the Scriptures speak in respect to the sun, as parallel to the
mode in which they exhibit the work of creation?
Does he hold that that representation of the creation
is to the facts of geology, optically considered, what
the language of the Bible in respect to the motions
of the sun is to the facts as they are to the senses?
That were again to demolish his whole theory; for if
the facts of geology are to the eye, in harmony with
the account the Bible gives of the creation, then they
present no visible indications of the earth's existence
through an immeasurable period anterior to the epoch
of that creation, but confirm the sacred narrative.
If, however, there is no parallel between them, why
does he quote that usage in respect to the creation?
But he does not regard them as parallels. Instead,
he holds that the facts of geology, optically considered, are irreconcilable with the representation of
the sacred history, and the aim of the new element
which he wishes to introduce into hermeneutics is, not
to reconcile those facts to the inspired record by
showing that they are what that record representsnot what they optically seem to be; but, instead, to
show that that history does not teach what it literally
150 
IN IRESPECT TO THIE CREATION OF  INMALS.  151
means, but on the contrary, what the facts of geology
optically indicate! The case which he alleges to
illustrate what he wishes to accomplish, in place of
presenting a resemblance, is thus a direct converse
of it.*
He is equally unfortunate in the statement that
"the cases are too common to need particularizing
where the interpretation is essentially modified by
civil histry."  Let him produce an example, if in his
power. He may find instances in which, in one passage, a fact is related that is not mentioned in another
that treats of the same subject; but none in which a
fact is mentioned that renders it necessary to depart
from the laws of philology in interpreting another.
But the great fallacy of his remarks lies in the
representation that the facts of geology contradict the
Mosaic record of the creation, and make it necessary
to modify the interpretation of that record in order to
bring them into harmony with each other. It is his
construction of those facts, or inferences from them,'
not the facts themselves, that contravene the inspired
* The logic of his argument, seems, therefore, to be the following:
-Inasmuch as the language of the Scriptures, of science, and of
common life, used to express facts as they are to the senses, is not in
accordance with the truth, philosophically considered; therefore, the
record inscribed on the strata of the earth, as it appears to the senses
of geologists, is to be considered as in harmony with the philosophical and absolute truth!  This is no "airy hypothesis," it seems,
but a "striking fact," and an "-inference drawn according to the
strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy." 
DIFFICULTIES  OF GEOLOGISTS
account of the creation-things as distinct and as unlike as a false conclusion is from the premise from
which it is drawn; as a creature's error is from the
truth of God.
Geologists themselves, however, instead of adhering
to this rule of interpretation, and applying it to the
record, dismiss it on reaching the narrative of the
creation of man, and assume that hlie was in fact first
called into being at the epoch which that represents;
and they accordingly allege the fact that no human
bones are found fossilized in the lower or intermediate strata, as a proof that he did not exist till ages
after the creation of vegetables and animals.  But
that is to desert their own principles. If they are justified in the construction they put on the history till
they reach the narrative of his creation, they must, to
be consistent, carry it through; and conclude, therefore, that the circumstance that no human skeletons
have hitherto been discovered in the strata in which
vegetables and animals are found, is no proof that they
are not in fact imbedded in them, and will not be discovered in great numbers, when more extensive exaininations are made. And should such discoveries be
made, they will be compelled by their law of interpretation, not to relinquish their theory, but to apply
it, in the light of that new fact of geology, to the history of the creation of man, and assume and assert
his existence as well as that of vegetables and ani
152 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANISIALS.  153
mals, through the immeasurable periods, whose dura tion we cannot estimate, anterior to the six days' crea tion. A single human skeleton, or fragment of one,
found in the depths of the earth, amidst the relics of
plants, fish, and land animals, which they refer to
those fabulous periods, must drive them, by a logical
necessity, to an instant rejection of the truth and in spiration of the whole of the history God has given
us of the creation! Can a more decisive proof be
asked of the total error of that system? According
to them, the credibility of Genesis i. and ii., and
thence of the rest of the Pentateuch, and consequently
of all the other parts of the Old, and the whole of the
New Testament, depends on the mere possibility that
no fossil human bones are buried in the fossiliferous
strata;-a possibility that not only cannot be proved,
but that may be confuted any hour. A blow like
this at the Christian system will hardly be regarded
by prudent men as having an ample compensation
"in the large addition" geology " has made to the
evidences of natural religion."
In the next place, their theory of the existence of
the earth with its fossil plants and animals through
those imagined ages, is forbidden by their own principlw, as well as by the divine word. In order to
reconcile the creation of plants and animals recorded
in Genesis with their theory, they suppose the races
to which those buried in the strata belonged, to have
7* 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
been exterminated at the "wreck"  of the world,
which they regard as having immediately preceded
the six days' creation. According to the axioms,
however, by which they profess to be governed, they
cannot assume such a stupendous occurrence and
make it the basis of their theory, unless it can both
be proved from the strata in which those relics are
imbedded, and shown that it was produced by the
chemical and mechanical forces to which they refer
the geological facts on which they reason.   But
neither of these propositions can they prove. They
do not undertake it. It were preposterous to attempt
a demonstration from their nature, position, numbers,
or any other consideration, that none of them
descended from those that were created on the third,
fifth, and sixth days of the Mosaic epoch.  It were
equally absurd to attempt to produce evidence that
they were destroyed by chemical agents, volcanic
fire, or the mechanical force of water. If it could be
shown that those agents were adequate to their
destruction, if brought in great force in contact with
them, it is not possible to prove the fact of their contact. Hiere is thus anther indispensable condition
to the verification of their theory, that is taken for
granted by them without evidence, and in contravention of their own principles, which prohibit their
assuming the occurrence of any geological events that
are not demonstrable from the earth's strata, and that
154: 
IN RESPECT TO THiE CREATION OF ANIMALS. 155
are not the result of chemical and mechanical
forces.
In the third place, there not only is no geological
evidence that the animals that are fossilized were not
either derived from those that were called into life in
the six days of the Mosaic creation, or at a later
epoch, but belonged to races of an anterior date; but
there is positive and unanswerable proof to the contrary, in the fact that great numbers of those imbedded in the tertiary strata are of identically the species
that now inhabit the seas and the earth. Thus Sir
Charles Lyell says:
"M. Deshayes, of Paris, well known by his conchological
works, at my request, drew up in a tabular form a list of all
the shells known to him to occur both in some tertiary formation and in a living state, for the express purpose of
ascertaining the proportional number of fossil species identical with the recent, which characterized successive groups;
and this table, planned by us in common, was published by
me in 1833. The number of tertiary fossil shells examined
by M. Deshayes was about 3,000; and the recent species
with which they had been compared, about 5,000. The
result then arrived at was, that in the lower tertiary strata,
or those of London and Paris, there were about 3-i per
cent. of species identical with recent; and in the middle
tertiary of the Loire and Gironde, about 17 per cent.; and
in the upper tertiary or sub-alpine beds, from 35 to 50 per
cent. In formations still more modern, some of which I had
particularly studied in Sicily, where they attain a vast
i,A:_..   X;: 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
thickness and elevation above the sea, the number of species
identical with those now living was believed to be from 90
to 95 per cent....
"Since the year 1830, the progress of conchological sci  ence has been most rapid, and the number of living species
obtained from different parts of the globe has been raised
from about 5,000 to more than 10,000. New fossil species
have also been added to our collections in great abundance;
and at the same time a more copious supply of individuals,
both of fossil and recent species, some of which were pre  viously very rare, have been procured, affording more ample
data for determining their specific character....
"I have adopted the term post-pliocene for those strata
which are sometimes called post-tertiary, or modern, and
which are characterized by having all the imbedded fossil
shells identical with species now living, whereas even the
newer-pliocene, or newest of the tertiary deposits above
alluded to, contain always some small proportion of shells of
extinct species.
"These modern formations thus defined, comprehend not
only those strata which can be shown to have originated
since the earth was inhabited by man, but also deposits of
far greater extent and thickness, in which no signs of man
or his works  can be detected.   In some of those of a
date long anterior to the times of history and tradition, the
bones of extinct quadrupeds have been met with of species
which probably never co-existed with the human race, as for
example, the mammoth, mastodon, megatherium, and others,
and yet the shells are the same as those now living.
e  e't
o,
156 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF /IMALS.  157
" In Ischia, near Naples,... Dr. Phillipi collected in the
stratified tuff and clay ninety-two species of shells of exist ing species.... In the centre of Ischia, on the lofty hill
called Epomeo, at the height of about 2,000 feet,... I col lected in 1828 many shells of species now inhabiting the
neighboring gulf. It is clear, therefore, that the great mass
of Epomeo was not only raised to its present height, but
was also formed beneath the waters within the post-pliocene
period.
"Such an upward movement has been proved to be in
progress in Norway and Sweden throughout an area about
1,000 miles north and south, and for an unknown distance
east and west.... Accordingly, we find near Stockholm,
in Sweden, horizontal beds of sand loam and marl containing the same peculiar assemblage of testacea which now live
in the brackish waters of the Baltic.
"On the opposite coast of Sweden, post-pliocere strata
containing recent shells,... such as now live in the northern ocean, ascend to the height of 200 feet; and beds of
clay and sand of the same age attain an elevation of 300
and even 700 feet in Norway.
"Judging by the uniformity of climate now prevailing
from century to century, and the insensible rate of variation
in the organic world in our own times, we may presume that an
extremely lengthened period was required even for so slight
a modification of the molluscous fauna, as that of which the
evidence is here brought to light. On the other hand, we
have every reason for inferring, on independent grounds,
namely, the rate of upheaval of land in modern times, that 
DIFFICULTIES  OF GEOLOGISTS
the antiquity of the deposits in question must be very great.
For, if we assume that the mean rate of continuous vertical
elevation has amounted to 21 feet in a century, and this is
probably a high average, it would require 27,500 years for
the sea-coast to attain the height of 100 feet, without making allowance for any pauses, such as are now experienced
in a large part of Norway, or for any oscillations of level."
-Manial of Geology, pp. 110-115.
Species that are now living occur in great numbers
in the newer pliocene strata, the upper of the tertiary.
"M. Murchison and De Verneuil found in 1840 that the
flat country between St. Petersburgh and Archangel, for a
distance of 600 miles, consists of horizontal strata, full of
shells similar to those now inhabiting the Arctic Sea, on
which rested the boulder formation.
"In Sweden in the neighborhood of Upsala, I observed
in 1834 a ridge of stratified sand and gravel, in the midst
of which is a layer of marl, evidently formed originally at
the bottom of the Baltic, by the slow growth of mussel,
cockle, and other marine shells, intermixed with some of the
fresh-water specie-. The marine shells are all of dwarfish
size, like those now inhabiting the brackish waters of the
Baltic; and the marl in which myriads of them are
imbedded is now more than 100 feet above the level of the
Gulf of Bothni(.  Upon the top of this ridge repose several
huge erratics, consisting of gneiss,... which must have
been brought into their present position since the time when
158 
IN RESPECT TO TIHE CREATIOX OF ANIMALS.  159
the neighboring gulf was already characterized by its pecu liar fauna....
"The  northern drift of the most southern latitudes is
usually of the highest antiquity. In Scotland it rests on
the older rocks, and is covered by stratified sand and clay,
usually devoid of fossils, but in which at certain points...
marine shells have been discovered....  Although a proportion of between 85 or 90 in 100 of the imbedded shells
are of recent species, the remainder are unknown; and even
many which are recent, now inhabit more northern seas,
where we may, perhaps, hereafter find living representatives
of some of the unknown fossils.
"The testaceous fauna of the boulder period in Scotland,
England, and Ireland, has been shown by Prof. E. Forbes
to contain a much smaller number of species than that now
belonging to the British seas.... Yet the species are nearly
all of them now living either in the British or more northern
seas, the shells of more arctic latitudes being the most
abundant, and the most wide-spread throughout the entire
area of the drift from North to South."-Lyell's Manutal of
Geol. pp. 124-126.
"M. Deshayes and Mr. Lyell have recently proposed a
fourfold division of the marine formations of the tertiary
series, founded on the proportions which their fossil shells bear
to marine shells of EXISTING SPECIES. To these divisions Mr.
Lyell has applied the terms eocene, miocene, older-pliocene,
and newer-pliocene, and has most ably illustrated their history in his Principles of Geology.
"The term eocene implies the commencement or dawn of 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
the existing state of the animal creation; the strata of this
series containing a very small proportion of shells referable
to living species. The calcaire grossier of Paris and the London clay are familiar examples of this older tertiary, or
eocene formation.
"The term miocene implies that a minority of the fossil
shells, in formations of this period, are of recent species. To
this are referred the fossil shells of Bordeaux, Turin, and
Vienna.
"In formations of the older and newer-pliocene taken
together, the majority of the shells belong to living species;
the recent species in the newer being much more abundant
than in the older division.
"To the older pliocene belong the Sub-Appenine marine
formations and the English Clay; and to the newer-pliocene
the more recent marine deposits of Sicily, Ischia, and Tuscany."-Dr. Buckland's Bridgewater Treatise, pp. 78, 79.
A considerable number, also, of the fossil fish and
land quadrupeds are of species that still exist. The
tertiary strata which comprise all that are between
the chalk formation and the diluvium, are of great
depth, and are the depositories of by far the most
important classes, especially of land animals.
"It appears that the animal kingdom was early established on the same general principles that now prevail; not
only did the four present classes of vertebrata exist; and
among mammalia, the orders pachydermata, carnivora,
160 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS. 161
rodentia, and marsupialia, but many of the genera into
which living families are distributed, were associated
together in the same system of adaptations and relations
which they hold to each other in the actual creation.
"The bones of all these animals found in the earliest series
of the tertiary deposits are accompanied by the remains of reptiles, such as now inhabit the fresh waters of warm countries,
e. g. the crocodile, emys, and tryonix.
"The second or miocene system of tertiary deposits contains an admixture of the extinct genera of lacustrine mammalia of the first or eocene series, with the earliest forms of
genera which exist at the present time.
"The third and fourth of pliocene divisions of the tertiary
fresh-water deposits,... abound in extinct species of pachydermata, e. g. elephant, rhinoceros, hippopotamus, and
horse, together with the extinct genera mnastodon. With
them also occur the first abundant traces of the ruminantia,
e.g. oxen and deer.
" The seas, also, of the miocene and pliocene periods were
inhabited by marine mammalia, consisting of whales, dolphins, seals, walrus, and the lamantin, or manati, whose
existing species are chiefly found near the coasts and mouths
of rivers in the torrid zone.-Buckland's B-Bridg. Treatise,
pp. 87-92.
"The largest, the most ferocious, and the least useful of
the pliocene species have perished; but the horse, the ass,
the hog, probably the smaller wild ox, the goat, the reddeer, and roe, and many of the diminutive quadrupeds
remain..... It is probable that the horse and ass are 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
descendants of a species of pliocene antiquity in Europe.
There is no anatomical character by which the present wild
boar can be distinguished specifically from that which was
contemporary with the mammoth. All the species of European pliocene Bovidee come down to the historical period, and
the aurochs and musk ox still exist.... There is evidence
that the great bos primigenius, and the small bos longifrons,
which date by fossils from the time of the mammoth, continued to exist in this island after it became inhabited by
man. The small short-horned pliocene ox is most probably
still preserved in the mountain varieties of our domestic cattle. The great urus seems never to have been tamed, but
to have been finally extirpated in Scotland. Of the cervine
tribe, the red-deer and the roebuck still exist in the mountainous districts of the north."-R. Owen's Hist. Brit. Fossil
Mammalia and Birds, Introd. p. xxxii.
The period supposed by geologists to have intervened between the deposition of the eocene strata, in
which a share of these fossils is found, and the epochof the six days' creation, they regard as immense.
Thus Prof. Owell says:
"With the last layer of the eocene deposits, we lose in
this island every trace of the mammalia of that remote
period.   The imagination strives in vain to form an idea
commensurate with the evidence of the intervening operations which continental geology teaches to have gradually
and successively taken place-of the length of time that elap
162 
IN RESPECT TO Tille CiZS,A'iOfN OF ANIMALS.  163
sed before the foundations of Eng,lcnd were aain sufcienitly
settled to serve as the theatre of life to anoither rce of warmblooded quadrupeds.
"In the endeavor to trace the origin of our ensting mommalia, I have been led to view them as descendants of a portion of a peculiar and extensive mamnialian Fauna, which
overspread Europe and Asia at a period geologically recent,
yet incalculably reinote, and long anterior to any evidence or
record of the human race."-Hist. Brit. Fos. pp. xxi-xxxv.
Sir C. Lyell refers the strata in which they are imnbedded to an equally remote age.
"It would be rash to infer that these quadrupeds "-the
mastodons, found in New Jersey and New York —" were
mired in modern times, unless we use that term strictly in a
geological sense. I have shown that there is a fluviatile
deposit in the valley of the Niagara, containing shells of the
genera Melania, Lymnea, Planorbis, Valvata, Cyclas, Unio,
and Helix, &c., all of recent species, from which the bones
of the great mastodon have been taken in a very perfect state.
Yet the whole excavation of the ravine, for many miles
below the Falls, has been slowly effected, since that fluviatile deposit was thrown down.
"Whether or not, in assigning a period of more than
30,000 years for the recession of the Falls from Queenstown
to their present site, I have over or under estimated the
time required for that operation, no one can doubt that a
vast number of centuries must have elapsed before so great a 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
series of geographical changes were brought about as have
occurred since the entombment of this elephantine quadraped. The fresh-water gravel which encloses it, is decidedly
of much more modern origin than the drift or boulder clay
of the same region."Y-11an. Geol., p. 138.
No demonstration could be more absolute than is
presented by these facts that a large share of the present races of animals are derived from those that are
fossilized, and had their origin, therefore, in the same
creative fiat. There is no maxim more fundamental
and indisputable in zoology than that all animals of
the same species had a common parentage, or are to
be traced tp the same creation. To reject that axiom,
would be to reject the tie that connects effects with
their causes, and render it nugatory to reason on the
subject.  The supposition, therefore, that the fossilized
races were wholly exterminated antecedently to the
six days' creation, and that the present living races
had an independent origin at that epoch, is shown to
be erroneous. Those geologists who hold that the
present races were called into being at that date,
must, if they adhere to the maxims of zoology, admit
that those that are entombed in the tertiary deposits
had their origin also at the same era.
But the proof does not stop here. There is ample
evidence that there never was an absolute break in
the descent of certain classes of marine animals, from
164 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS.  165
the date of the first that were fossilized down to the
races that now inhabit the seas. For those in the tertiary strata of the genera and species that are now
living, were contemporaneous with others now extinct
that are fossilized in the strata of an earlier date; and
they in their first periods were contemporaneous with
other genera and species that were fossilized at a still
earlier date, and these last were coeval with still
other genera and species that appear in a still lower
series of rocks; and so on to the lowest strata that
contain fossil shells. An unbroken chain of coexisting genera and species can be made out from the date
of the first to the races of the present hour.
"We find certain families of organic remains pervading
strata of every age, under nearly the same generic forms
which they present among existing organizations; e.g. the
nautilus, echinus, terebratula, and various forms of corals
and among plants, the ferns, lycopodiacee, and palms.
Other families, both of animals and vegetables, are limited
to particular formations, there being certain points where
entire groups ceased to exist, and were replaced by others
of a different character."-Dr. Bucklatnd's Bridg. Treat., p.
100.
"By selecting genera and families, we may show through
what ranges of strata, that is to say, through what geological periods, they existed, and at what periods they were the
most numerous. Thus Trilobites existed during the primary
. 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
and carboniferous epochs, but are never known in the more
recent strata, nor do they exist at present; Productoe pass
through the primary and carboniferous epochs, and end in
the saliferous; Spirifere pass through all these epochs, and
end in the oolites; Ammonites pass through all these
periods, and end in the chalk; Terebratule* existed through
all these periods, and also through the tertiary system, and
are still in being.  On the other hand, certain tribes began
to exist at later periods, as the Belemites, many genera of
Echini, &c., and ended their race before the dawn of the
tertiary period."-Phillips's Guide, p. 75.
There are similar proofs also of the continuance of
certain classes of vegetables from the period of the
earliest strata to the present time.
"From the data hitherto obtainea, tne most eminent
botanists consider that the Floras of the ancient world constitute three distinct epochs or eras.
"The first comprehends the earliest strata in which traces
of vegetation appear, and includes the carboniferous. The
plants of this epoch, as we have already shown, consist of
faci and other cellular tribes; ferns of various kinds in great
* Thus of Terebratulse there were   In the Primary fossiliferous strata
In the Carboniferous system
In the Saliferous system.
In the Oolitic system
In the Cretaceous system.
In the Tertiary strata
~. 30 genera.
. 16   "
. 14    "
.  49 "
.  57    "
.  18    "
Phillips's Guide, p. 76.
166 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS. 167
abundance; coniferous trees related to species of warm cli mates; of palms and other monocotyledons, gigantic lyco podia, and trees (Sigillaria) in great abundance, whose pre cise relations to known forms are not accurately determined.
In this Flora the tree ferns predominate, constituting nearly
two-thirds of the whole known species; and the general
type of the vegetation is analogous to that of the islands and
archipelagoes of intertropical climates.
"The second epoch extends from the New Red or Saliferous strata to the Chalk inclusive, and is characterized by
the appearance of many species of Cycadee, Zamie, and
other Coniferse, while the proportion of ferns is much less than
in the preceding period; and the lycopodiaceous tribes, Calamites, &c., of the carboniferous strata are absent. A Flora
of this nature is analogous to that of the coasts and maritime
districts of I\ew Holland and the Cape of Good Hope.
"The third epoch is that of the tertiary, in which dicotyledonous tribes appear in great numbers, the Cycadem are
very rare, the ferns in diminished numbers, and the Conifera
more numerous. Palms and other intertropicals are found
associated with the existing European forest trees, as the
elm, ash, willow, poplar, &c., presenting, in short, the general features of our continental Flora."-Mantell's Medals of
Creation, vol. i., pp. 200, 201.
These facts thus completely confute the assumption
that an extermination of the vegetables and animals
took place between the fossilization of those that are
imbedded in the strata and those that were called into
life at the epoch of the six days' creation. The chain 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
of coexistence is shown, by the discoveries geologists
have already made, to have extended without an
interval from the first to the last; and the proofs of
the uninterruptedness of the line will be augmented
at every step in the progress of the science.  The examinations have hitherto been confined to comparatively a few sites, chiefly ill Europe. When they
shall have been made on a greater scale there, and
extended to western, northern, and eastern Asia,
Africa, North and South America, and the islands of
the Pacific and Indian oceans, the evidences of the
unbroken continuance of vegetable and animal life
through the whole series of the strata to the present
hour, will undoubtedly accumulate to an indisputableness and vastness that must for ever set aside the
fancy of their extermination at any point in the succession.
And finally, their theory is equally inconsistent
with the history of the deluge. The sacred writer
relates that " the waters prevailed exceedingly upon
the earth, and all the high hills that were under the
whole heaven were covered.   Fifteen cubits and
upward did the water prevail; and the mountains
were covered."  And  as a consequence, "all flesh
died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and
of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing
that creepeth upon the earth, and every man.  All
in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that
168 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS. 169
was on the dry land died," Genesis vii. 19-22. As
the waters of the globe were wholly inadequate to
cover its whole surface to such a depth, if the hills
and mountains continued to maintain their elevation,
it is manifest that they must have been depressed to
near the general line of the lands, and the whole
body of the continents and islands carried down to a
level with the bottom of the seas; or else the surfaces on which the seas rested must have been
elevated to the line of the continents and islands.
Whether the hills and mountains of the antediluvian
globe equalled in height those that now stud the
surface of the earth, we have no means of knowing.*
The present system of mountains and hills must
indisputably, therefore, have received at least their
main upheaval since the flood reached its height;
and probably most of them, at the period when the
continents and islands on which they rise were
elevated to their present position, and the waters of
the deluge again thrown back into the seas and
oceans which now surround them.
The advocates of the geological theory, however,
assign our present mountains and hills a far earlier
date, and assert that many of them at least have
* "If we suppose the elevation of one part to be compensated by
the depression of another, the ocean level will vary merely as the
quantity of land above its surface. If we suppose all the dry land
to sink till it be submerged, it will cause the ocean to rise about 250
feet."-Phillips's Guide to Geol. p. 49.
8 
DIFFICULTIES  OF GEOLOGISTS
existed through a vast series of ages. The supposition
that they were thrown up firom the sea at so late an
epoch as the deluge, they reject as little better than a
solecism. They are thus again in conflict with the
sacred record. No hypothesis can reconcile thenm;
no artifice-if the theory is held to be true-can
shield the text from the discredit of a consummate
error.
Such are the proofs that this great doctrine of
modern speculative geology presents, at every step,
the most direct and absolute contradiction to the
history God has given us of the creation and
deluge.   If that doctrine be true, the record  in
Genesis cannot be. They are at an infinite distance
from each other in respect to each of the acts by
which God accomplished the six days' worik. The
sacred record ascribes the creation of the heavens
and earth to the first of the six days. The theory
asserts that they had then existed through an
immeasurable round of ages. The inspired history
assigns the creation of light to the first day. The
theory affirms that the sun had then existed and
shone on the earth through an incalculable series of
years.   The Bible testifies that God  created the
atmosphere on the second day. The theory asserts
that it had before enveloped the globe through
periods whose duration we cannot estimate. The
sacred history relates that the seas were first formed,
170 
IN RESPECT TO TIIE CRIEATION OF ANIMALS.  171
and dry land made to appear on the third day after
the creation of the earth. The theory declares that
they had existed through innumerable ages anterior
to that epoch. The sacred history teaches that on
the fourth day the earth first received that adjustment to the sun, moon, and stars, by which they
determine the succession of seasons and years, and
the variations of the days and nights. The geological theory assigns that arrangement to an immeasurably earlier date. The inspired record refers the
creation of plants to the third day, the creation of
fish and fowls to the fifth, and the creation of land
animals  to the  sixth.   The theory declares that
record to be contradicted by the relics that lie buried
in the strata of the earth, and affirms that they were
created at an epoch incalculably earlier, and flourished through a-vast tract of ages that intervened,
to the time of the six days' creation. And finally,
the Bible represents that at the deluge the whole
earth was overspread by the ocean, which implies
that the mountains and hills were depressed, and
near a level produced between the bed of the ocean
and the continents and islands. The geological theory
controverts that representation, and maintains that
the present mountains and hills were formed at an
epoch immeasurably more remote. lThey are thus,
on all these subjects, in the most open and undisguised antagonism. Had it been the object of its 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
authors to devise a theory, in conflict in every
element with the inspired history, they could not
have formed one more conspicuously and absolutely
of that character.   Strauss's hypothesis respecting
the facts of Christ's birth, ministry, miracles, death,
and resurrection, is not more at antipodes with the
gospel narrative, than this is with the record God has
given of the creation and deluge. The great postulates on which it proceeds-that the earth anterior to
the six days' creation was reduced to a "wreck,"
mountains and hills obliterated from its bosom, the
light of the sun extinguished, the atmosphere annihilated, the earth deprived of its inclination to the
ecliptic, and races of vegetables and animals that
had inhabited it exterminated-are equally inconsistent with the axioms of the science. Like Buffon's
hypothesis respecting the origin of the solar system,
and Whiston's theory of the cause of the deluge,
they are at war alike with the principles of geology
and the laws of nature, and could never have been
entertained, had their advocates duly considered the
assumptions which they involve, and the embarrassments in which they'entangle them.
The fancy, then, that the theory has been reconciled, or is reconcilable with the Mvosaic record, must
be abandoned. - The verification of their postulates,
which is necessary in order that they may proceed
on them as facts, they can never accomplish. They
172 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMALS. 173
might as well attempt, by chemistry and mechanics,
to bring the antipodes into our hemisphere, as to
bring their fancied record of the rocks into unison
with that of Genesis. They might as well undertake
to compress the universe into the dimensions of the
earth, as to attempt to shrink their fabulous ages
into harmony with the six days of the creation.
There is no consistent medium, therefore, between
the rejection of their theory and the rejection of the
Bible. Geologists and their disciples must, indeed,
on their principles, abandon the hypothesis on which
they have proceeded, and discard the inference of a
prior existence of the vegetables and animals, which
they have mistaken for a scientific deduction-as
they are as inconsistent with the maxims of geology
as they are with allegiance to the volume of inspiration.
On the other hand, the believers in revelation, and
expositors of the sacred word especially, must
adhere, in the interpretation of the inspired history,
to the laws of philology, and receive and maintain
the narrative of the creation as of absolute truth and
authority; and they surely cannot need more ample
means than are furnished by the foregoing considerations to shield it from the imputations which have
been cast on it by the geological theory. 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
QUESTIONS.
What were the creative acts of the fifth and sixth days?  Are not
these irreconcilable with the geological theory, which affirms that
the animals and vegetables that are buried in the strata, existed
innumerable ages before this epoch? Do not geologists admit that
man had no being anterior to the sixth day? Does not the sacred
narrative teach with equal clearness, that the beasts of the earth had
no existence before that day, nor fish nor fowls before the fifth day,
nor vegetables before the third? Is it not as contradictory to the
text, to assert that animals and vegetables had existed millions of
years anterior to the six days' creation, as it would be to assert that
man had? Do not geologists indeed admit that the sacred narrative,
according to the literal import of its language, is at open war with
their theory? By what means then do they attempt to bring them
into harmony? State Dr. Buckland's expedient. State Dr. Hitchcock's. Is not this an explicit admission that the declarations of the
sacred text are to be deliberately set aside, in defiance of the laws
of language, and the doctrine of the geological theory substituted in
their place? Is such an undisguised elevation of the hypotheses of
geologists to a higher authority than the word of God, entitled to be
dignified with the name of science? Is it anything else than an
attempt to fix the brand of falsehood on His word, because it contradicts their speculations?  Is not Dr. Hitchcock mistaken in imagining that the language of the history of the creation and other parts of
the Scriptures is inconsistent with the real nature of the facts which
they respect? Is it not as literally triue and proper to say that the
sun rises and sets, as it is to say that the earth turns on its axis, so
as to produce that apparent motion of the sun?  Are not mankind
accustomed to express themselves in that manner in regard to all
the facts which they perceive by the senses?   Give examples.   Do
not geologists themselves use similar language in the description of
the facts of geology? If the principle of interpretation for which
Dr. Hitchcock contends in respect to the language of the senses is
174 
IN RESPECT TO THE CREATION OF ANIMLS.  175
applied to the terms and phraseology of geology, will it not strike
the whole of its facts from existence, as effectually as it would those
of the sacred text which it is employed to annihilate? Do geologists
adhere to their method of interpreting the history of the six days,
when they come to the creation of man? Would not consistency
require them to? Were human skeletons found intermixed with the
fossil animals and vegetables that are imbedded in the strata, which
they refer to ages that preceded the creation narrated in Genesis,
would not consistency oblige them to assert that man had existed
many ages before the creation of Adam and Eve? Is not their
theory of the existence of plants and animals ages before the creation
recorded by Moses, unwarrantable by their own principles, as well as
contradictory to the sacred word? Show how it is forbidden by their
axioms. But is not their theory confuted by the fact that many of
the plants and animals that now subsist, are of the same species as
those that are buried in the strata, and which geologists affirm had
their existence anterior to the creation of the present races? In
what great division of the strata are these fossils principally found?
What species of animal relics are the most numerous? In what
countries are they found? Are fossil fish and land quadrupeds also
found in those strata? Specify some of the quadrupeds which are
still common. Do geologists refer the formation of the strata in
which these animals are buried, to ages long anterior to the Mosaic
epoch of the creation? What language does Prof. Owen employ to
express his views of their antiquity?  To how remote a period does
Sir C. Lyell refer bones of the Mastodon found near Niagara? But
beyond this, are there not evidences that certain classes of animals
that now exist, have existed at every period from the first strata in
which fossils are found? Does not that prove that there has never
been an absolute extinction of those races from the period in which
they first appear in the strata, to the present time; and confute
the pretence therefore, that the present races of animals are of a
wholly different creation, from those that are buried in the strata?
Are there not classes of plants also now existing, that have existed 
DIFFICULTIES OF GEOLOGISTS
through every period during which the fossilized strata were forming? Do# not that prove that no extermination of vegetables took
place between the fossilization of those that are buried in the strata,
and the creation of those that now spring from the soil? Is not their
theory irreconcilable also with the deluge?  Point out the manner
in which it contradicts it. Is it not clear then, that this doctrine of
geology, is in the most palpable contradiction to the sacred history of
the creation and deluge? State the principal points on which they
contravene each other. Is there any consistent medium then, between
either rejecting their theory, or rejecting the inspiration of the
Bible?
176 
RESPECTING THiE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 177
OCHAPTER VIII.
The false Theories of Geologists respecting the Sources of the Materials of which
the Strata were formed.
IT was the object of the preceding chapters, to
show that the theory of the vast age of the world
is irreconcilable with the inspired history of the
creation; and that the great postulates on which it
proceeds, respecting a chaotic condition of the earth,
an extinction of light, an annihilation of an atmosphere, an erosion of mountains, a change of the
earth's axis in relation to the ecliptic, and an extermination of vegetables and animals, are unauthorized
and incompatible with the principles of geology.
We now proceed to show that the theories respecting
the mode in which the strata of the earth were
formed and brought into the condition in which they
now subsist, which geologists make a principal
ground of their inference that inmense periods must
have been occupied in the process, are in like
manner mistaken, and inconsistent both with the
facts and with the maxims of the science.
That deduction they found-not directly on the
strata themselves, but-mainly, first, on an assump                        8* 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
tion respecting the sources whence the materials of
which they consist were derived; next, on an hypothesis respecting the forces by which those materials
were transported to the places of their deposition,
arranged in their several combinations, and thrown
into the conditions in which they now exist; and
thirdly-which holds but a very subordinate place in
their reasonings-on a theory respecting the production and destruction of the vegetables and animals,
the relics of which are imbedded in the strata.* As
the facts themselves of the science are not the basis
directly of their deduction of the period which they
assign to the formation of the strata, but hypotheses
respecting the causes and processes to which they
* "The whole period occupied in the deposition of the fossiliferous
rocks must have been immensely long. There must have been time
for water to have made depositions more than six miles in thickness,
by materials worn from previous rocks, and more or less comminuted; time enough, also, to allow of hundreds of changes in the
materials deposited, such changes as now require a long period for
the production of one of them; time enough to allow of the growth
and dissolution of animals and plants often of microscopic littleness,
sufficient to constitute almost entire mountains of their remains;
time enough to produce, by an extremely slow change of climate,
the destruction of several nearly entire groups of organic beings;
for although sadden catastrophes may have sometimes been the
immediate cause of their extinction, there is reason to believe those
catastrophes did not usually happen till such a change had taken
place in the physical condition of the globe as to render it no longer
a comfortable habitation for beings of their organization. We must
judge of the time requisite for these deposits by similar operations
now in progress; and those are in general extremely slow."Hitchcock's Geology of Massachusetts, p. 773.
178 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  179
owe their existence, those facts themselves do not
demonstrate that deduction. In order to sustain it,
they must prove that the materials of the strata were
drawn from the sources to which they refer them;
that they were borne to their respective places,
arranged in their combinations, and subjected to the
modifications which they have undergone, by the
forces to which they ascribe those processes. If they
cannot verify these hypotheses, if they are inconsistent with the facts of the science and the laws themselves of matter, then their deduction from them of
the vast age of the world falls to the ground. On
the other hand, the claims of that inference to be
regarded as a scientific deduction will be confuted,
if we simply show that the postulates from which it
is drawn are merely supposititious, not demonstrated.
If, in addition to that, we prove also that they are
altogether irreconcilable with the facts and principles of the science, and the laws of nature, and
infinitely self-contradictory, we shall furnish all the
evidence that can be required to overthrow their
theory; and that we propose to do.
Of the two great postulates on which they mainly
found their deduction of the great age of the world,
that which relates to the geological agents is, as stated
in a former chapter, that the forces by which the
strata of the earth were originally formed and subsequently modified, were those of chemistry, fire, and 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
water, which are now acting on the globe, and producing somewhat similar effects; and that the energy
with which they are now exerting their powers, and
the scale on which they are giving birth to changes
in the earth's surface, are to be taken as the measure
of their intensity, and the rapidity with which they
wrought their several effects in the formation of the
strata. There is, indeed, some diversity of opinion
among them in respect to this branch of the hypothesis. Thus Sir H. T. De la Beche says:
"The two prevailing theories of the present time are-lst,
That which attributes all geological phenomena to such
effects [operations] of existing causes as we now witness;
and 2d, That which considers them referable to a series of
catastrophes, or sudden revolutions. The difference in the
two theories is not in reality very great; the question being
merely one of intensity of forces, so that probably by uniting
the two we should approximate nearer to the truth."-Ma,a/al of Geology, p. 32.
He accordingly, and all others who regard the formation of the strata as having occupied immense
periods, hold that though at some few stages-as in
the elevation of mountains, the dislocation of the
strata, and their subsequent denudation- volcanic
fires and the waters of the ocean must have acted
with far greater energy than ordinarily; yet that, in
the main, the rate at which they are now giving birth
180 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 181
to their several effects is to be taken as the measure
of their past agency. The mnode in which this theory
is advanced by them was exemplified in a former
chapter, by a variety of passages from the leading
writers. We add a few others:
"It is only by carefully considering the combined action
of all the causes of change now in operation, whether in the
animate or inanimate world, that we can hope to explain
such complicated appearances as are exhibited in the general arrangement of mineral masses."-Lyell's Principles, vol.
ii., p. 210.
"The geologist must on no account think it out of the
bounds of his legitimate province to examine with care and
interest into the history of the processes now performed in
the ocean and on land; for it is only by discrimination and
generalization of these that we can hope to draw satisfactory
inferences concerning the force and direction of the agencies
formerly exerted in earlier oceans, and on earlier continents."
-Phillips's Guide, p. 102.
"It is presumed that the reader will.... be convinced
that the forces formerly employed to remodel the crust of the
earth, were the same in kind and energy as those now acting;
or at least he will perceive that the opposite hypothesis is
very questionable."-Lyell's Principles, pref. xi.
"Moving water is the only agent known to us capable
of carrying away the great collective mass of rock "-that 
FALSE ITHEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
has been swept from the mountains and hills. "In order,
therefore, to form a just conception of the time and conditions
required to produce the effects observed, we should carefully
examine the latter, and estimate the transporting powers of
those waters which now exist among the mountains themselves, and which transport detrital matter from the central
parts outwards."- Sir H.  T. De la Beche's Theoretical Geology, p 147.
"The immense period requisite to wear away such a mass
of rock as this theory supposes to have once occupied the
whole valley of the Connecticut, will seem to most minds
the strongest objection to its adoption; I mean, supposing
it to have been effected by suck causes as are operating at present.  But this is not a solitary example, in which geological phenomena indicate the operation of existing causes
through periods of duration inconceivably long.   We may
in this case, indeed, suppose the occurrence of other agencies
in the earlier periods of our globe. Still even with this aid
the work must have been immensely protracted. And why
should we hesitate to admit the existence of our globe
through periods as long as geological researches require?"
-Hitchcock's Geology of Massachusetts, p. 339.
These views are advanced by a crowd of other
writers. There is no element of their speculations in
which they more generally agree, than that the
causes to which the strata owe their origin and
modifications, were those now in activity on the
182
k 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  183
globe, and that they produced their effects by
agencies in the main of only their present energy.
Their other great postulate is, that the stratified
portions of the crust of the earth were formed
mainly from the detritus of rocky continents and
islands, and borne down to the ocean by rivers, or
beat off by waves from the shores, and distributed
over the bottom of the sea by tides and currents.
Thus Dr. Buckland: —
"Beneath the whole series of stratified rocks that appear
on the surface of the globe, there probably exists a foundation of unstratified crystalline rocks, bearing an irregular
surface, from the detritus of which the materials of stratified
rocks have in great measure been derived, either directly
by the accumulation of the ingredients of disintegrated
granitic rocks, or indirectly by the repeated destruction of
different classes of stratified rocks, the materials of which
had, by prior operations, been derived from unstratified
formations, amounting to a thickness of many miles. This
is indeed but a small depth in comparison with the
diameter of the globe; but small as it is, it affords certain
evidence of a long series of changes and revolutions, affecting not only the mineral condition of the nascent surface
of the earth, but attended also by important alterations in
animal and vegetable life.
"The detritus of the first dry lands being drifted into
the sea and there spread out into extensive beds of mud
and sand and gravel, would for ever have remained beneath 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
the surface of the water, had not other forces been subsequently employed to raise them into dry land.
"Wherever solid matter arose above the water, it
became exposed to destruction by atmospheric agents; by
rains, torrents, and inundations, at that time probably
acting with intense violence, and washing down and spreading forth in the form of mud and sand and gravel upon the
bottom of the then existing seas, the materials of primary
stratified rocks, which by subsequent exposure to various
degrees of subterranean heat, became converted into beds
of gneiss, and mica slate, and hornblende slate, and clay
slate. In the detritus thus swept from the early lands into
the most ancient seas, we view the commencement of that
enormous series of derivative strata which by long continued repetition of similar processes have been accumulated
to a thickness of many miles." —Bridgewater Trcatise, pp.
42, 50, 51.
"Thus the origin of strata is derived from depositions of
the materials of the dry land under the waters of the sea,
and, in some cases, of great inland lakes intermixed with
the spoils of animals that have lived and died through a
long succession of ages. If the daily causes of waste
pulverize the solid mountains, and the rivers transport their
ruins to the sea, so other causes acting more extensively
and powerfully, must be allowed a share in producing and
depositing the materials to which we  owe  our present
stratified rocks. The extent and nature of those operations will be fully examined in its proper place, as they are
184 
RESPECTING TIIE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 185
,ow in progress, or are past; and as they include the geology
which relates to the present surface of the earth. In the ruins
of an andcient earth we find the materials which formed the
present; as in the destruction of the land which we now
inhabit nature seems to be preparing habitations for future
races of animated beings.
"But though I have here said that causes operating more
extensively and powerfully than the slow actions of waste
and transportation may have aided in preparing the materials of the strata, we must beware of allowing more effect
than they were capable of producing, as has been done by
those who object to certain geological claims on indefinite
time, and who seek for solutions in transitory diluvian
powers. The effects of such torrents must have been to
deposit mixed materials of various sizes in a confused manner; and they could therefore have prepared the germs of
the conglomerated strata only. The strata formed of finer
materials must have been the consequences of tedious actions,
analogous to those which we daily witness; while their
separation into distinct rocks, into alternations of clay and
sand, producing schist and sandstone, must have equally
been the work of a slow process beneath the water."-Maccullock's Geology, vol. i. pp. 81, 82.
"Denudation is the removal of solid matter by running
water, whether by a river or marine current, and the consequent laying bare of some inferior rock.  Geologists have,
perhaps, been seldom in the habit of reflecting that this operation has exerted an influence on the structure of the earth's
crust as universal and important as sedimentary deposition 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
itself; for denudation is the inseparable accompaniment of
the production of all new strata of mechanical origin. The
formation of every new deposit by the transport of sediment
and pebbles necessarily implies that there has been somewhere else a grinding down of rocks into r'ounded fragments,
sand, or mud, equal in quantity to the new strata. All depositions, therefore, except in the case of a shower of volcanic
ashes, is the sign of superficial waste going on contemporaneously, and to an equal amount elsewhere. The gain at one
point is no more than sufficient to balance the loss at some
other.
"If then the entire mass of stratified deposits in the earth's
crust is at once the monument and  zeasure of the denudation
which has taken place, on how stupendous a scale ought we
to find the signs of this removal of transported materials in
past ages?
"Professor Ramsay has shown that the missing beds
removed from the summit of the Mendips must have been
nearly a mile in thickness, and he has pointed out considerable areas in South Wales and some of the adjacent counties of England where a series of pal,ozoic strata not less
than 11,000 feet in thickness have been stripped off. All
these materials have of course been transported to new
regions, and have entered into the composition of more
modern formations. On the other hand, it is shown by
observations in the same' Survey,' that the palueozoic strata
are from 20,000 to 30,000 feet thick. It is clear that such
rocks, formed of mud and sand, now for the most part consolidated, are the monuments of denuditng operations, which
186 
*
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  187
took place at a very remote period in the earth's history."
-Lyell's Manual, pp. 66-68.
"The strata are accumulations of consolidated sand and
other detritus, the sedimentary deposits of rivers and seas,
combined with the durable remains of animals and plants.
"From the first moment that dry land appeared on the
earth's surface, whatever may have been the material of
which it was composed, the disintegrating effects of atmospheric agents and of water in motion must have commenced.
The detritus thus produced transported to the tranquil
depths of the ocean, would then subside in successive layers,
and a series of sedimentary strata be gradually formed
and after the creation of living things, the durable remains
of animals and vegetables must have become intermingled
with the detritus of the land, and imbedded in the deposits
then in progress.
"If the land were sterile, destitute of vegetation, and
untenanted by any species of animals, the relics of the inhabitants of the sea would alone be imbedded; on the contrary, if the sediments were produced by the action of
streams and rivers flowing through a country covered with
forests, and swarming with animal life, the strata accumulated in lakes and inland bays would teem with the remains
of terrestrial and fluviatile animals and plants." —3Iantell's
Geological Priizciples, in his Excursion round  the Isle of
Wight, pp. 56 —58.
"It is universally admitted that the materials of the
sedimentary strata... are derived from the disintegration, 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
decomposition, and abrasion of older rocks, and from animal
and vegetable secretions."-1Mather's Geology of the first
Geological District of New Yorklc, p. 273.
They thus universally exhibit the strata as formed
from detritus borne down by streams and rivers from
pre-existing continents and islands and distributed
over the bed of the sea.
The surface of that imagined primitive earth, instead of loose soils and strata that are easily disintegrated and borne by torrents and rivers to the sea,
consisted, according to these writers, exclusively of
granite, one of the most solid and indestructible of
the rocks.
"Assuming that the whole materials of the globe may
have once been in a fluid or even a nebular state, from the
presence of intense heat, the passage of the first consolidated portions of this fluid or nebulous matter to a solid state
may have been produced by the radiation of heat from its
surface into space; the gradual abstraction of such heat
would allow the particles of matter to approximate and
crystallize; and the first result of this crystallization might
have been the formation of a shell or crust, composed of
oxidated metals and metalloids, constituting various rocks of
the granitic series, around an incandescent nucleus of melted
matter heavier  than  granite."-Buckland's Bridgewater
Treatise, p. 40.
"That granite has in reality furnished a very large part
188 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 189
of the materials of the recent strata, is proved by their constitution. Quartz, felspar, mica, and hornblende are the
chief materials of the sandstone, shales, and clays; nay, the
very fragments of that rock are found everywhere. Even
in our recent alluvial soils they abound; and it is a question worth considering whether the granite boulders, of
which the immediate origin has so often been vainly traced,
are not rather the portions of decomposed conglomerate
strata, or the more durable remains of the alluvial soils on
which they now repose."-Macculloch's Geology, vol. i., p.
155.
" He who shall divest the present surface of all but its
rocks, who shall exterminate from our maps the great
alluvial plains and deltas of the globe, with the countless
interior tracts of the same nature, will produce a sketch of
the original earth in no small degree interesting.   It is
through decomposition and disintegration, aided by mechanical power, that these changes have been produced."-Macculloch's Geology, vol. ii. p. 2.
We shall have occasion in the course of the discussion to cite other passages in which the same views
are presented. According to the theory, then, the
continents from which the vast materials of the sedimentary strata were originally drawn, consisted
throughout their whole mass of granite, and it was
by the slow process of disintegration by the action
of the atmosphere, heat, moisture, frost, rains, tor 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
rents, and rivers, that that generally hard and almost
unyielding substance was reduced to fragments and
minute particles, and transported to the sea.
The question now is, whether they have demonstrated these great postulates.  It is not enough to
authorize the stupendous inference they have
grounded on them respecting the age of the world,
and invest it with the character of a scientific deduction according "to the strictest rules of the Baconian
philosophy," to show that they are possibly or even
probably true.  They must be established by the
most unanswerable evidence, in order that they can
serve as a foundation for the vast fabric which is
attempted to be erected on them. If they are mere
suppositions, or gratuitous assumptions-if, instead
of being demonstrated they involve gross self-contradictions, and are irreconcilable alike with the laws
of matter and the principles of geology, then the
lofty structure which has been reared on them must
be equally unsubstantial; and such we shall now
proceed to show is their character.
The question which first requires consideration respects the sources from which the materials of the
strata were drawn. And we remark in the first place
that it is a mere hypothesis, not a demonstrated fact,
that they were derived from continents, islands, or
mountains that consisted exclusively of granite. These
writers have not proved it. They do not even claim
190 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  191
to have demonstrated it.  They have taken it for
granted, or advanced it simply as a supposition that
furnishes in their judgment a more probable explanation than any other of the formation of the primary
crust of the earth, and of the origin of the materials
of the strata that were subsequently imposed on the
primitive rocks. Thus Dr. Buckland says:
"As the materials of the stratified rocks are in great
degree derived directly or indirectly from those which are
unstratified, it will be premature to enter upon the consideration of derivative strata until we have considered briefly
the history of the primitive formations. We therefore commence our inquiry at that most ancient period, when there is
much evidence to render it PROBABLE that the entire materials
of the globe were in a fluid state, and that the cause of this
fluidity was heat..... AssUMING that the whole
materials of the globe may have once been in a fluid state,
from the presence of intense heat, the passage of the first
consolidated portion of this fluid to a solid state may have
been produced by the radiation of heat from the surface into
space; the gradual abstraction of such heat would allow
the particles of matter to approximate and crystallize; and
the first result of this crystallization might have been the formation of a shell or crust,.... constituting various rocks
of the granitic series."-Bridgewater- Treat., pp. 39, 40.
"Whence came the materials of the great mass of
deposits which rest upon the primary gneiss and mica
schist? Probably the true answer to this, though we cannot 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
now give adequate proof of it, is that the disin?tegration of
granite and other igneous rocks, to which —on what seem
good grounds-we have already ascribed the origin of gneiss
and mica schist, has been the prolific source of all these sedimnentary strata. Analysis of the principal rocks of the slaty
systems does certainly not contradict this view; which
neither those who admit with Leibnitz the first solid covering of the globe to have been a mass of rocks cooled from
fusion, or with Lyell that strata added above are melted
and reabsorbed into granite below, have any reason to
deny."-Phillips's Geology, vol. i. p. 150.
This view of the primitive earth, which they make
the basis of their theory of the formation of the strata
and inference of the immense age of the world, is
thus merely supposititious. It is not advanced as an
ascertained and indubitable fact. It is not even held
to be susceptible of demonstration. An attempt to
verify it by "the strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy" would be regarded by geologists themselves
as an extravagance. In its highest character it is
only a conjecture. This consideration overturns, therefore, the deduction that is founded on it respecting
the long existence of the world. That conclusion cannot be established on a mere hypothesis. It cannot rise
any higher in certainty than the premise from which
it is drawn.  To build it, moreover, on such a basis,
is as inconsistent with the principles of geology, as it
is with the laws of logic; as they-as was shown in
192 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  193
a former chapter-forbid the assumption of any geo logical effect or condition of the earth as a ground of
induction, that cannot be proved to have actually
existed. The whole fancy, accordingly, of a scien tific confutation by it of the inspired history of the
creation, and demonstration that the earth has subsisted through a vast round of ages, is mistaken. The
circumstance that the sacred narrative is at variance
with an undemonstrated and undemonstrable suvposition, is no proof that it is not consistent with fact.
In the next place, their theory of the formation of
the granitic world, from which they represent the
materials of the strata as derived, is altogether gratuitous also, and in contravention of the laws of matter.  That theory is, as stated by Dr. Buckland in the
passage already quoted from him, that the matter of
the earth was, when created, " in a fluid" or " nebulous state;" that is, in the form of gas, " from the
presence of intense heat;" and that it was by " the
radiation of that heat into space" that " the particles"
were allowed to approximate and crystallize. M1r.
Macculloch also entertains the same view.
"The first condition of the earth which has been inferred,
is that of a gaseous sphere; while it is my business to state
that the only evidence for this is derived from THE ANALOGY
OF COMETS, itself rather more inferential than proved, as far
as the study of these bodies has hitherto proceeded. But it
9 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
must also be said, as corroborative of such an inference, that
the laws of the radiation of heat, and those of chemical combination, do permit the needfitl inference that such a sphere
might or must finally become a fluid; or at least a fluid
globe surrounded by an atmosphere.
"This, then, is the second presuaned condition.   And the
evidence for such a fluid globe is found, first in its statical
figure, and secondly in the various geological facts already
reviewed, and founded primarily on the phenomena of volcanoes, which prove that the interior of the earth, beyond a
certain depth, is at present in a fluid condition from the heat
which was once sufficient for the preceding more extensive
effects.*
"And here terminates that which is of most difficult
investigation in the theory of the earth, and which by many
will still be held with HYPOTHESES.  The evidence, such as it
is, is given; what a rational philosophy will pronounce on it,
will always deserve attention...
"I know of no mode in which the surface of a fluid globe
could be consolidated, but by the radiation of heat; while
of the necessity of such a process I need not again speak.
The immediate result of this must have been the formation
of rocks on that surface: and if the interior fluid does now
produce the several unstratified rocks, the first that were
formed must have resembled these, if not all. We may not
unsafely infer that they were granite, perceiving that sub
* An assumption not only without proof and against the laws of
matter, but rejected by a large body of the most eminent geologists
themselves.
194 
RESPECTING THlE MATERIALS OF TIIE STRATA.  195
stances of this character have been produced wherever the
cooling appears to have been most gradual.   Thefirsi apparently solid globe was therefore a globe of granite, or of those
rocks which bear the nearest crystalline analogies to it."
Geology, vol. ii., pp. 416, 417.
Essentially the same views are advanced by Sir IH.
T. De la Beche.
But this hypothesis is altogether unphilosophical.
The fision of matter, or its existence in a gaseous
form, "from the presence of intense heat," which is
the necessary condition of its assuming that shape, is
not a natural but an artificial state. It is the result
of chemical action, and implies therefore as previous
existence of the matter in a different form. The supposition that the earth was created in that state is a
self-contradiction, therefore, and at war with the laws
of matter. It might as well be supposed that the
world was created with thunderstorms and earthquakes ill progress, which imply a previous existence
of the globe and atmosphere in a different state; or
with animals on the point of giving birth to offspring,
which implies their previous existence. Moreover,
as the heat that is evolved in the action of chemical
agents on each other is always previously latent in
those agents, the supposition of'che fusion of the matter of the globe by the presence of intense heat, implies that that heat had previously existed in the mat 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS.
ter of the globe in a latent state; and that again implies that anterior to the development of that heat,
that matter existed in a different form. It assumes
also that an immeasurably greater quantity of latent
heat existed in the matter of the globe in its original
condition than now subsists in it; and it is implied
also in the supposition, that beyond that which is now
latent in the earth, a quantity as much greater as
would raise the whole of the substances of the globe
to the most intense fusion and convert them into gas,
has passed off from it by radiation into the realms of
space. But that is not only wholly gratuitous and
infinitely improbable, but is in contravention of the
principles of geology also, which forbid the assumption of any geological condition of the earth as a basis
of induction, that cannot be proved to have actually
existed; or any geological effect that cannot have
resulted fiom tlje chemical and mechanical forces that
.t
are now giving birth to changes in the materials
of the globe.  But what can transcend the extrava
gance of the fancy that these forces, acting with even
thousands of times their present intensity, can have
held all the materials of the globe in a state of fusion
or that all the chemical agents which it contains, in
any combination that is possible, are adequate to such
a stupendous effect? By the supposition, caloric, the
grand agent of the imagined fusion, has in a great
degree radiated from the earth into space, so that it
196 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 197
no longer exists here in the force that is requisite to
that effect. A splendid combination of solecisms for
the basis of a philosophical theory! A magnificent
platform for a scientific confutation of the record God
has given of the work of creation!  How is it that
these writers have overlooked a consideration so obvious, and that indicates so decisively the untenableness of their theory?
QUESTIONS.
What is the object of the discussion commenced in this chapter?
Do geologists deduce their inference of the age of the world from
the strata themselves, or from some theory respecting them? What
is the first ground on which they found it? What is the second?
What is the third? If the facts of geology are not the basis of that
inference, is it not clear that those facts do not prove it? In order
to sustain it, must they not prove, not merely assume or suppose the
ground from which they deduce it?  Will then, proving that the
postulates from which it is drawn, are mere suppositions, be to confute its claim to be regarded as a truth scientifically demonstrated?
Will showing that their hypotheses are irreconcilable with the facts
and principles of the science, and the laws of nature, be still more
effectually to overthrow it? What is the first postulate on which
they found their deduction of the great age of the world? State
some of the forms in which they express their belief that the forces by
which the strata were constructed, were the same in kind and energy,
as those which are now acting on the surface of the earth. Are they
generally agreed on this point?  What is their other postulate?
What principal writers maintain that proposition? State the form
in which Dr. Buckland expresses it. In what language is it asserted
by Mr. Macculloch?  HIow is it taught by Sir C. Lyell?  How by
MIr. Mantell? Are geologists generally agreed in this doctrine? Of 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
what did the surface of the primitive earth consist, according to
these writers? By what do they hold those supposed granite continents were disintegrated? By what were the particles to which it is
held they were reduced, borne off to the ocean? What must geologists do, to demonstrate their theory? Must they prove that it rests
on indubitable facts? Or is it enough that it rests on mere hypotheses? What then is the first objection to their theory respecting
the sources from which the materials of the strata were drawn?
Do  not geologists  attempt  to  prove  their  theory?  State  the
language in which they present it as a supposition, or hypothesis.
But if the derivation of the materials of the strata from such continents, is merely hypotheticaI, must not the inference that a vast
series of ages was occupied in disintegrating those continents, transporting their detritus to the ocean, and forming the strata from
them, be merely hypothetical also? Can an inference from a mere
imagined fact, have any more reality, or be any more entitled to be
considered as a demonstrated truth, than the mnerely imagined fact
itself is? If there is no certainty that the strata were drawn from
such a source, how can the supposition that they had such a derivation, prove that infinite ages were occupied in their formation?
Ought not these philosophers who claim that they, alone, are competent to treat the subject scientifically, to be able to answer this
question plainly and demonstratively?
What is the next objection to their theory of the formation of such
granite continents? What is the language in which Dr. Buckland
teaches that the world was created in the form of gas? What is the
language in which Mr. Macculloch represents it as originally existing
in that shape? Is this proved by them, or merely assumed or supposed?  What is the first objection to it?  State some oth(r absurd
supposition that is parallel to it.  Does the supposition that the
world was created in the form of gas, contradict itself?  By implying
what?   What unauthorized assumption does it involve respecting
the quantity of heat in the globe? Is that in contradiction to the
principles of geology, as well as assumed without authority?
198 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 1.99
CHAPTER IX.
The False Theories of Geologists respecting the Sources of the Materials of which
the Strata were formed.
BUT geologists are not only forbidden by the laws
of matter fiomn assuming the existence of such
granitic continents, islands, and mountains as they
suppose, anterior to the formation of the strata, but
they are without any certainty that there were any
mountains, islands, or continents whatever, that could
have furnished materials in any considerable measure
for such vast deposits. This is admitted by Professor
Phillips.
"Whether at the time when  all our continents were
beneath the sea, there were other continents raised above
it, is a matter which it is difficult to bring fairly within the
scope of inductive science, except in a very limited form,
and upon rather doubtful assumptions.  The only clear and
certain evidence of the existence of the land il other situations than where it now appears, is to be sought in the
history of terrestrial organic exuvie imbedded in the earth;
the only reasonable presumptive evidence in favor of such a
doctrine must be founded on mechanical considerations con 
FALL,E THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
nected with the mass and depth of the waters of the ocean.
To conclude that because continents were raised in one
quarter, others must have been depressed elsewhere in a
certain proportion, is inadmissible, because it requires us to
admit what is perhaps false, viz. that the spaces occupied
by the solid and liquid parts of the mass of the globe have
always been exactly and invariably in the same proportion
to each other as at present. Who can assure us of the
truth, or even the probability of such a law?"- Guide to
Geology, p. 38.
Such is undoubtedly the fact. The only certain
evidence which the strata themselves can furnish of
the existence of dry land at the period of their formation, is the presence in them of fossilized animals and
vegetables, to the existence of which dry land was
necessary. The mere fact that the strata were formed
beneath the waters of the oceanl is no proof that the
materials of which they consist were derived from
continents and mountains, any more than it is that
they were not. iNor is the fact that a portion of their
materials were probably or certainly drawn from such
a source, any proof that they all were, any more than
the fact that some of the waters of the ocean have
run from mountains and continents is a proof that
they all originally descended from those sources.
Mr. Lyell makes the same admission.
"If asked where the continent was placed, from the ruins
200 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 201
of which the Wealden strata were derived, we might be
almost tempted to speculate on the former existence of the
Atlantis of Plato as true in geology, although fabulous as
an historical event.  We  know that the present European
lands have come into existence almost entirely since the deposition of the chalk; and the same period may have sufficed for
the disappearance of a continent of equal magnitude situated
farther west."-Lyell's Principles, vol. ii., p. 458.
Mr. Alaccul]och held that the mountains and continents fromr which the materials of the strata were
originally derived, preceded those that directly furnished the elements of the present series.
"That this system had a beginning we are certain; where
that may be, we know not; but for us it is placed beyond
that era at which we can no longer trace the marks of a
change of order of the destruction and renovation of its
form. It is from this point that a theory of the earth must
at present commence.
" Hence, then, I have drawn the conclusion that there
was one terraqueous globe, one earth divided into sea and
land, even prior to that last named; containing mountains to
furnish and an ocean to receive those materials which
formed the second set of mountains, whose fragments are now
imbedded in our primary strata, or in those of a third order.
Geologists may perhaps be startled at conclusions which
they have hitherto overlooked, obvious as they are, and clear
9* 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
as the reasoning is: how they should not have been seen
by those who have shown such anxiety to maintain the antiquity of the globe, it is not for me to explain."-Geology,
vol. i., pp. 462, 464-466.
Yet notwithstanding this fancied proof of the existence of at least two sets of mountains and continents
that were the sources, in succession, of the materials
of "our primary strata," lhe yet acknowledges himself unable to decide whether or not those first mountains were, in a measure at least, identical with those
that now exist on the globe.
"In this state of the earth the present primary strata
occupied horizontal positions beneath this ocean; though
we are uncertain whether certain parts of those which we now
esteem such might not have been the very mo?,ntains whence they
were formied.  This is probably the fact, however incapable
we yet are of proving it, owing, to our imperfect observations, and the still more imperfect views which geologists
have hitherto taken of a theory of the earth. We cannot
conceive that all the supra-marine land which produced the
primary strata should have been mouldered and transferred
to the sea before these underwent their first disturbance;
nor that it should have all been depressed beneath the sea
while the new-formed rocks were elevated."-Vol. i., p. 468.
This extraordinary induction scarcely merits a formal confutation. A more dim and uncertain argu
202 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF TEIE STRATA. 203
ment could hardly be made the ground of the vast
train of consequences he deduces from it. The point
on which he builds ltis inference is altogether assumed
by him, inasmuch as the existence in the strata of the
fragments of other rocks, is not of itself a proof that
those firagments were derived from mountains, unless
it is first established that the materials of such rocks
cannot have been drawn from any other source;
which is the precise point he was to demonstrate.
This whole imagined induction, indeed from the processes that are now taking place, is, as we shall hereafter show, a fallacy; inasmuch as the fact that
minute particles and sands are borne down to the sea
from the present mountains and plains, which consist
in a large degree of loose soils, or sedimentary rocks
that are easily disintegrated, is no evidence that similar materials and on much the same scale would have
been carried down from mountains and plains that
consisted exclusively of granite. The supposition is
a solecism, as it implies that the same causes, though
acting on different materials and in different conditions, would nevertheless produce precisely the same
effects.
Other writers regard the mountains and continents
from which the strata were derived as no longer in
existence.
"However incomprehensible it may appear to those who 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
have not studied the subject, geologists entertain no doubt
that all our present mountains, composed of sedimentary mnatter, were accumulated beneath the sea during countless ages;
and, if so, other continents must have existed to furnish
materials, though no traces of such lands now remain."Sir R. I. Murchison's Silurian System, p. 573.
"It is universally acknowledged among geologists that
these immense sedimentary deposits could only have accumulated beneath the waters of the ocean during an incalculable period of time, long anterior to the present condition
of the surface. Now, in order to furnish materials for such
formations we must conceive of the existence of continents where
no vestige of them now remains; from the abrasion and destruction of these, and from the transporting power of river
and ocean currents, the materials composing them were
reduced to the state of pebbles, sand, and finely comminuted
mud, which were widely diffused, and gradually or rapidly
precipitated upon the ocean bed."-HIall's Geology of Western New York, p. 521.
If no trace of those continents now remains, it is
plainly impossible, from the mere strata themselves,
to demonstrate that they were in such positions and
consisted of such elements, that they can have furnished the materials from which the strata were
formed.   It is only by assuming the point to be
proved, that all sedimentary strata must have been
formed of materials derived from pre-existing moun
204 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  205
tains and dry land, that such a conclusion can be
obtained. Discard that assumption, and let the question to be determined be, whether the materials of
stratified rocks must necessarily be derived by disintegration and transportation from granitic continents
and mountains, and the error of their argument is
apparent; as it is on the assumption that that must
be their origin that their whole theory is founded.
Some geologists seem to suppose that a large share
at least of those materials were derived from the
mountains that now subsist on the globe. But it is
shown to be erroneous by the fact that all the great
ranges, and most of every subordinate class, have
been thrown up from beneath the ocean since the
formation of the tertiary, the last great division of
the strata.*
"If we admit tha,t the primary, the transition, the
secondary, and the tertiary classes of rock were formed at
*"If we date the age of granite from the period of the elevation
of granite mountains we must admit that some granite mountains
are comparatively recent, for they have been elevated since the
deposition of the secondary strata. I have shown this to be the case
with the Bernese and Savoy Alps in my Travels published in 1827.
In the edition of the present work in 1828, I have shown also, by a
description and sections, that the elevation of the granite of Savoy
is more recent than that of the central part of England. M. Elie de
Beaumont has since adopted the same views, and has extended them
to other mountain ranges. Professor Sedgwick and Mr. Murchison
have further proved that a part of the Tyrolean and Bavarian Alps
was elevated since the deposition of tertiary strata; for these strata
are filled up with them to the height of several thousand feet."Bakewell's Geology, p. 101. 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
different successive epochs, and that the lower beds in each
of these classes are more ancient than the beds that rest
upon them, it follows as a necessary consequence that the
elevation of any of these rocks must be dated from a later
epoch than the period of their formation. The elevation of
a range of primary or transition mountains, if they are not
covered by. any secondary or tertiary formations, may
indeed be dated either from an epoch coeval with their
consolidation, or from any subsequent epoch; but if they are
partly covered by secondary or tertiary beds which are
tilted up with them, we have direct evidence that the date
of their elevation was posterior to the secondary or tertiary
epoch."-Bakewell's Geology, p. 101.
"It is a general law, confirmed by most ample evidence,
that the interior parts of mountainous regions consist of
granite and other pyrogenous rocks rising from below all
the strata, and bearing them up to their present elevations.
From these elevated points and lines, both the subjacent
igneous and the superior stratified rocks descend at various
angles towards the plains and more level regions, beneath
which they sink and pass at various distances until they
again emerge in some other mountain group having similar
characters. In consequence of this arrangement, it happens
generally that the oldest strata, those which sink deepest
under the plains, rise highest against the mountain slopes.
The most constant of all the facts connected
with this part of the subject, is the development of granitic
or some other pyrogenous rocks about the centres of the
elevated groups from beneath all the strata there occurring."-Phillips's Guide, p. 31.
206 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  207
"Etna would appear to have been the seat of volcanic
action through a long series of ages, commvencing  with the
supercretaceous rocks, on which much of the igneous mass is
now based.
"In central France, amid the extinct volcanoes which
there constitute such a remarkable feature in the physical
geography of the country, we certainly approach relative
dates in some instances.   Thus the volcanic mass of the
Plomb du Cantal appears to have burst through, to have
upset, and to have fractured the fresh water limestones of
the Cantal, which, according to Messrs. Lyell and Murchison,
may be equivalent to the fresh-water deposits of the Paris
basin, and to those of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight.
"With regard to the igneous rocks of Auvergne, MM.
Croiset and Jobert consider that there are about thirty
beds above the fresh-water limestone, which may be divided
into four alternations of alluvial detritus and basaltic deposits. Among the beds there are three which contain organic
remains; two belong to the third of the ancient alluvions,
that which succeeded the second epoch of volcanic eruptions; the third fossiliferous deposit being referable to the
last epoch of ancient allutvion.
"The principal ossiferous bed is about nine or ten feet
thick, and can be traced a considerable distance.... The
fossil species, according to MM. C. and J., are very numerous, consisting of Elephant, Mastodon, Hippopotamus, Rhinoceros, Tapir, Boar, Felis, Hycena, Bear, Canis, Castor,
Hare, Water Rat, Deer, and Ox."-..  T. De la Beche's
Maanual, pp. 241, 242. 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
"The same phenomena are exhibited in the Alps on a
much grander scale; those mountains being composed, in
some even of their higher regions, of newer secondary formations, while they are encircled by a great zone of tertiary
rocks of different ages, both on the southern flanks towards
the plains of the Po, and on the side of Switzerland and
Austria, and at their eastern termination towards Styria
and Hungary. This tertiary zone marks the position of former seas or gulfs, like the Adriatic, which were many thousand feet deep, and wherein masses of strata accumulated,
some single groups of which seem scarcely inferior in thickness to the whole of our secondary formations in England.
These marine tertiary strata have been raised to the height
of from 2,000 to 4,000 feet, and consist of formations of different ages, characterized by different assemblages of organized fossils.   The older tertiary groups generally rise to the
greatest heights, and form interior zones nearest to the central ridges of the Alps.   Although we have not yet ascertained the number of different periods at which the Alps
gained accessions to their height and width, yet we can
affirm that the last series of movements occurred when the
seas were inhabited by mnany existing species of animals.
"The Pyrenees also have acquired the whole of their
present altitude, which in Mount Perdu exceeds 11,000
feet, since the deposition of some of the newer or cretaceous
members of our secondary series."-Lyell's Priinciples, vol. i.,
p. 139.
There are similar proofs, also, of the elevation from
208 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 209
the ocean of the other great ranges of Europe and
Asia since the formation of the secondary strata.
The great mountains of this continent, also, the Appalachians and Andes, are now universally regarded
as having been thrown up from the ocean since the
period of the secondary formations. The Appalachians bear on their tops or sustain on their sides the
main members of the great series from the Potsdam
sandstone, the lowest of the fossiliferous rocks on this
continent, up to the upper division of the carboniferous group. Deposits of equally late date are found
also in the lofty ranges of the Andes.
"I will give a brief sketch of the geology of the several
parallel lines forming the Cordilleras. Of these lines there
are two considerably higher than the others; namely, on the
Chilian side, the Peuquenes ridge, which, where the road
crosses it, is 13,210 feet above the sea; and the Portillo
ridge on the Mendoza  side, which is 14,305 feet.  The
lower beds of the Peuquenes ridge, and of the several great
lines to the westward of it, are composed of a vast pile
many thousand feet in thickness of porphyries, which have
flowed as submarine lava, alternating with angular and
rounded fragments of the same rocks, thrown out of the submarine craters.  These alternating masses are covered in
the central parts by a great thickness of red sandstone, conglomerate, axld calcareous clay slate, associated with and passing into prodigious beds of gypsam.  In these upper beds
shells are tolerably frequent; and they belong to about the 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
period of the lower chalk of Europe.  It is an old story, but
not the less wonderful, to hear of shells which were once
crawling in the bottom of the sea, now  standing nearly
14,000 feet above its level. The lower beds in this great
pile of strata have been dislocated, baked, crystallized, and
almost blended together, through the agency of mountain
masses of a peculiar white soda-g,ranitic rock.
"The other main line, namely, that of the Portillo, is of
a totally different formation; it consists chiefly of grand
bare pinnacles of a red potash-granite, which low down on
the western flank are covered by a sandstone, converted by
the former heat into quartz-rock.  On the quartz there rest
beds of a conglomerate several thousand feet in thickness,
which have been upheaved by the red granite, and dip at an
angle of 45~ towards the Peuquenes line. I was astonished
to find that this conglomerate was partly composed of pebbles derived from the rocks, with their fossil shells of the
Peuquenes range, and partly of red potash-granite, like that
of Portillo. Hence we must conclude that both the Peuquenes and Portillo ranges were partially upheaved and
exposed to wear and tear, when the  conglomerate was
forming...
"Looking at its earliest origin, the red granite seems to
have been injected on an ancient pre-existing line of white
granite and mica, slate. In most parts, perhaps in all parts
of the Cordilleras, it may be concluded that each line has
been formed by repeated upheavals and injections; and
that the several parallel lines are of different ages.   Only
thus can we gain time at all sufficient to explain the truly
210 
RESPECTING THIE MATERIALS OF TlE STRATA.  211
astonishing amount of denudation which these great, though
comparatively with most other railses recent, mountains have
suffered.
"The shells in the Peuquenes, or oldest ridge, prove, as
before remarked, that it has been upraised 14,000 feet since
a secondary period, which in Europe we are accustomed to
consider as far from ancient; but since these shells lived in
a moderately deep sea, it can be shown that the area now
occupied by the Cordillera must have subsided several thousand feet-in northern Chili as much as 6,000 feet-so as
to have allowed that amount of submarine strata to have
been heaped up on the bed on which the shells lived."Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle, pp. 319-321.
"The Uspallata range is separated from the main Cordillera by a long narrow plain, or basin, like those so often
mentioned in Chili, but higher, being six thousand feet above
the sea. This range has nearly the same geographical position with respect to the Cordillera which the gigantic Portillo line has, but it is of a totally different origin; it consists of various kinds of submarine lava, alternating with
volcanic sandstones and other remarkable sedimentary deposits; the whole having a very close resemblance to some of
the tertiary beds on the shores of the Pacific. From this
resemblance I expected to find silicified v,ood, which is generally characteristic of thoseformations.  I was gratified in a
very extraordinary manner. In the central part of the
range, at an elevation of about 7,000 feet, I observed on a
bare slope some snow-white projecting columns; these were
petrified trees, eleven being silicified, and from thirty to 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
forty converted into coarsely-crystallized white calcareous
spar. They were abruptly broken off, the upright stumps
projecting a few feet above the ground.   The trunks measured from three to five feet each in circumference.   They
stood a little way apart from each other, but the whole
formed one group. Mr. R. Brown, who has examined the
wood, says it belongs to the fir tribe, partaking of the character of the Araucanian family, but with some curious
points of affinity with the yew. The volcanic sandstone in
which the trees were imbedded, and from the lower part of
which they must have sprung, had accumulated in successive
thin layers around their trunks; and the stone yet retained
the impression of the bark." —Darwin's Voyage of the Beagle,
pp. 331, 332.
All the great ranges are thus of recent origin, and
there are mountains-generally of inferior height,
and consisting mainly of granite-that were elevated
at an earlier period, yet none are known that can,
with any probability, be regarded as having emerged
from the ocean anterior to the formation of the lower
groups of the strata.
" No truth is more certain or important in geological reasoning, than the formation of all our continents and islands
by causes acting below the sea. As far as relates to the
stratified rocks this is obvious; but it is not the less certain
for the unstratified rocks, those having uh(ndoubtedly been uplifted to our view from beneath the strata. It is possible there
may yet be found some granite rocks which were raised
212 
RESPECTING THIE MATERIALS OF THlE STRATA. 21.13
above the general spherical surface before the production ot
any deposits from water, and which therefore may be presumed to form an exceptLoil to this general rule; but such
truly primitive rocks have nowhere been seen, nor is there
any ground of expectation that they will be discovered."Phillips's Geology, vol. ii., p. 248.
As the most ancient of our present mountains are
thus of later date than the primary strata, and all the
principal ranges-like the Alps, the Himalaya, and
the Andes-were elevated subsequently to the deposition of the secondary, and even portions of the tertiary formations, we have the most decisive evidence
that they were not the sources of the materials from
which the strata were formed. If their materials
were derived from mountains and continents, it must
have been from a different set, of which neither any
traces remain, nor any indications of the positions
which they occupied.
This consideration is thus again fatal to their theory.
No condition can be more indispensable to its establishment, than that it should be shown that contemporaneously with the deposition of the strata, there
were continents and mountains in existence that
might have furnished materials for their formation;
and in order to that, their position should be determined and their dimensions and elevation proved to
be such as rendered them adequate to the office that 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
is assigned them. To admit that no vestiges of them
remain, and that there are no means even of determining where they were stationed, is to admit that
the induction that is founded on them is supposititious
also and without authority.  This branch of their
scheme is thus inconsistent also with the principles
of geology, which prohibit the assumption of any condition of the earth as a basis of induction, which cannot be proved to have truly existed.
Let us, however, suppose that precisely such continents as they contemplate were in existence, and
situated in positions the most favorable for the office
they assign them; and in place of relieving their
theory from embarrassment, it only renders its error
more apparent.
The average elevation of the present continents
and islands above the ocean is but a few hundred
feet. Lake Superior is estimated to be about six
hundred and forty feet only above that level. Were
all those portions therefore of the mountains and high
lands of the continent north of the equator that are
above the surface of that lake, removed and spread
over those parts that are below it, they would
undoubtedly be altogether inadequate to raise them
to the same height above the sea. On the other
hland, the strata of the continents are estimated by
geologists to be on an average not less than six, eight,
and perhaps even a greater number of miles in depth.
214 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 215
Were they removed therefore and thrown into the
ocean, the granitic basis on which they now rest,
would be on an average at almost an equal depth
beneath the surface of the sea.  It is implied accordingly that the imagined continents from which the
materials of those strata are supposed to have been
drawn, were elevated a corresponding height above
the ocean. This is distinctly indicated by Macculloch.
"The immense deposits of materials which now form the
alluvial tracts of the globe, the enormous masses of secondary strata which have been produced by ancient materials
of the same nature, all prove the magnitude of the destrtuction
whicl  moun?tains have formerly experienced, which they are
now daily undergoing.   Let imagination replace the plains
of Hindostan on the Himalaya, or rebuild the mountains
which furnished the secondary strata of England, and it
needs not be asked what is the extent of ruin, modern or
ancient.   In this ruin the highest rocks participate most
largely; so largely that we can scarcely hope to find one
portion of that surface which was once most elevated above
the waters. If ill the progress of such extensive destruction, thus probably acting on the primary rocks at two distinct periods, every vestige of overflowing granite has disappeared, it is assuredly an event not calculated to excite
surprise."-Geology, vol. i. p. 154.
He here speaks as though those deposits were 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
drawn from the present mountains of the globe; that,
however, is inconsistent with the views we have
quoted from him on another page, and is erroneous;
as is shown by the proofs we have adduced, that the
elevation of our present mountains took place mainly
since the formation of the principal strata.  His
exemplification, nevertheless, serves to indicate the
extraordinary height which the theory ascribes to
those imagined continents. The super-position upon
England of a mass of granite mountains in height as
many miles within a fraction above the present surface, as the under surface of the lowest of its stratified rocks is below that line, which is reckoned at an
average of seven, eight, or even ten miles, would give
the elevation which the corresponding portion of the
suppesed granite continent or island must have possessed in order to have furnished the materials of
those strata. The only deduction required is that of
the average of the present surface above the level of
the ocean, which is but a few hundred feet.  The
height of the imagined continent or island must
accordingly have been far greater than of the loftiest
present mountains of the earth, or at least six, seven,
or eight miles.
On the other hand, on the supposition on which he
here seems to proceed, that the materials of the strata
were derived from the present mountains, the bases
of which they surround, then the super-position on
216 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  217
the Himalaya and the table lands on which they rest,
of an equal area of the strata of the plains of Hindo stan, would give the height which those mountains
must, according to the theory, originally have pos sessed; which, if those strata are on an average like
those of England, six, seven, or eight miles in depth,
would raise that mountain range to the height of
eleven, twelve, or thirteen miles.
Making the most moderate estimate, therefore, of
those supposed continents and islands, they must
have soared to a height immensely above the loftiest
summits of those that are now on the earth. Their
existence is, accordingly wholly incredible, and
would have altogether precluded the effect which
they are employed to explain. For their whole surface must have towered to such a distance within the
regions of perpetual congelation as to have been
buried to a vast depth in snow, on the supposition
that sufficient vapor to form snow ascended to such a
height in the atmosphere, and rendered it impossible
that any considerable streams should have flowed
from them to bear their loosened particles and broken fragments into the surrounding sea; and if no
vapor ascended to that height, then no water or snow
could have fallen on them, and thence no rivers
could have run from them and borne their detritus
to the ocean. No condition can be imagined presenting a more absolute barrier to their disintegration
10 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
and transference to a distant scene. No animals or
vegetables could have lived on such frozen lands;
and probably no such warmth could have been communicated by the sun to the sea as to have fitted it
for the existence af animals like those that are buried
in the strata. What an extraordinary conception of
the methods taken by the Almighty Creator to prepare the world for the residence of man! Where in
the annals of crude and thoughtless speculation can
a more absurd and monstrous extravagance be found?
Not to insist, however, on this embarrassing condition of their theory; let us suppose that those fabulous continents and islands were not of such an incredible and fatal elevation, but only of the height of
our present continents, and were diversified like them
in their surfaces; and they must still have been wholly
unsuited to the purpose for which geologists invent
them; for, consisting exclusively of granite, there
could not have been any permanent rivers on them
like those of the present earth, by which their detritus
could have been borne down to the ocean.  No matter how much rain fell, no springs like those that
form our rivers could have risen from- th'eir surface;
inasmuch as a soil that is permeable by water, strata,
and strata that are at an angle with the horizon, are indispensable conditions to the existence of such springs.
The supposition of water rising through unstratified
rocks by the force of gravity is a solecism. It is only
218 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  219
by volcanic forces that water is thrown up from
beneath the unstratified rocks.   Without soils and
strata, therefore, by which rains could be absorbed
as they fell, and thence gradually drained again, there
could be no permanent rivers like those which now
bear a tide of earthy and vegetable matter from the
hills and plains to the seas. From such a vast floor
of impermeable granite the waters, wherever there
was a descent, would have run as they fell, and the
rivulets and streams to which they gave rise, vanished
on the discontinuance of rain. The rains of a monsoon on ranges like the Andes, the Himalaya, or the
mountains of Abyssinia, instead of saturating the
surface with a mass of water, which, slowly emerging
again, should supply permanent streams like the
Amazon and Orinoco, the Ganges and Indus, the
Nile and Niger, that roll without intermission to the
sea, would have swept to the ocean with the rapidity
of torrents, and immediately left their channels dry,
till renewed by the return of another season of
storms. But such torrents and floods acting on the
surface only at intervals, or during a few days of the
year, could never have disintegrated such granitic
masses and borne their ruins to the ocean on a scale
at all commensurate to the representations of the
theory.  Myriads of ages would have been almost as
inadequate to such a process as so many days or
hours.   The cause, through whatever period con 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
tinued, would have been wholly unequal to the effect.
This consideration, which again evinces the error
of their views, has been altogether overlooked by
geologists.  Notwithstanding they so expressly represent the continents to which they refer the materials
of the strata as consisting exclusively of granite, they
in fact treat them, in most of their reasonings, as
though they were covered, like the present mountains
and plains, with vast masses of loose earth and easily
disintegrated strata, that were everywhere moistened
by rains and traversed by streams and rivers, and
they found their estimate of the rates at which the
strata were deposited on the quantities of matter that
are now borne down the great rivers to the sea, and
deposited in the deltas at their mouths.
But the present action of rain and rivers on the
soil and strata can only be taken as a measure of their
agency at former periods on surfaces of the same
kinds. It is no criterion of the action of similar
volumes of water on continents composed exclusively
of granite, from which the strata of the present are
held to be derived. To reason thus, from one world
to another of a wholly different nature, is an extraordinary method of establishing a scientific induction
according to " the strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy." Nearly the whole of their reasoning, accordingly, on this topic is irrelevant and deceptive.
They have thus had the misfortune to unite a sin
220 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 221
gular complication of impracticable conditions in
their theory; first selecting as the only source from
which the materials of the strata were derived, continents and islands of granite that, from its solid and
impervious nature, is generally almost insusceptible
of disintegration by the most powerful agents that act
on it; next, elevating those indestructible mountains
to such a stupendous height that if vapor ever reached
them, not a drop could descend on them, except in a
state of the intensest congelation, nor a particle of the
vast masses of snow, in which they must have become
enveloped, ever melted, so as to exert its disintegrating
power on their surface; and finally, employing only
occasional and insufficient agents to exert a destroying force on their unyielding masses, and only occasional and transient agents to bear the slight spoils that
might have been drawn from them to the distant sea!
Admirable architects truly of the world!  Who can
wonder at the haughty disdain with which so many
of them are accustomed to repel the criticism of their
theory by any except of their own profession, as an
infringement of their rights and an impeachment of
their infallibility!
QUESTIONS.
Have geologists any certainty of the existence of granite continents, like those from which they represent the materials of the strata
as having been derived? Does Professor Phillips admit that their 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
existence is merely conjectural, or assumed? Does the fact that the
strata were formed beneath the ocean, prove that the materials of
which they were constructed were drawn from granite continents?
Does Sir C. Lyell indicate that he cannot tell where the continent was
situated from which he supposes some of the strata of Great Britain
were formed? Does Mr. Macculloch make a similar admission?  How
many sets of continents and mountains does he hold have existed on
the earth? Do other writers maintain that no traces now remain of
the continents from which they hold the materials of the strata were
derived? If no traces of them now remain, is it not clear that there
are no evidences of their once having existed? If there are no traces
of such continents, is it not possible that the strata were derived from
some other source?  And if they may have been drawn from some
other quarter, is it not to beg the question to assume that they were
derived from them? Do some geologists seem to suppose that a large
part of the materials of the strata were derived from the present
mountains of the globe? What fact proves that supposition to be
erroneous? Are most of the present mountains covered in a measure
with the tertiary or latest great division of the strata?  Is that universally admitted by geologists?  Is it true of the Alps, and other
mountains of Europe? Cite the proofs of it from Bakewell, Phillips.
De la Beche, and Lyell. Is'it true of the Appalachians and Andes of
this country? Cite the proofs of it. Are these great ranges of recent
origin, compared with the older strata? Is it held by geologists that
the ranges of granite instead of being older than the main groups of
the strata, have been thrown up since the strata were deposited,
and reached the surface by being driven through them?   Cite the
testimony of Professor Phillips to that fact. Is it true also of the great
mountains of Asia as well as of this continent and Europe? Is not
the fact that these mountains were not in existence when the strata
were formed, sufficient proof that the strata were not constructed of
detritus drawn from them?   Is not this consideration fatal to their
theory? Is not the assumption of the existence of continents and
mountains of which they have no proof, against their fourth axiom,
0
222 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  223
also, which prohibits their assuming any geological facts, the reality
of which they are not able to demonstrate?
But let it be supposed that such continents as they imagine, existed,
would it in any measure relieve the advocates of the theory
from their difficulties? Would the height of those mountains be an
obstacle to their furnishing materials for the strata? How is it apparent that they would have been of an immense height? Must they
not have continued as long as rivers ran from them and carried down
materials for the strata, to be at as great an elevation above the
ocean as the present continents and mountains are? How else could
rivers have run from them with sufficient force to carry any amount
of detritus to the ocean?  If then the present strata were drawn from
them, must they not originally have been as much higher than our
present continents, as a quantity of materials equal to those of the
strata, superimposed on them would make them? As then the strata
are eight or ten miles in thickness, must not those continents and
mountains have been eight, ten, twelve, or more miles in elevation?
But could mountains of such a height have furnished materials for
the formation of the strata? Is it sure that vapors -would have
ascended to such a height as to have fallen on them in rain or snow?
If snow fell on them, would not the cold that would have reigned
there have kept them bound in perpetual frost, and prevented the
disintegration of their surface, and the descent from them of rivers?
Could any species of either animals or vegetables have subsisted on
them? Can a grosser contradiction to the laws of matter and of life
be imagined, than that the materials of the strata which abound with
animals and vegetables that were inhabitants of temperate climes,
were drawn from such frozen regions?
"Let it be supposed, however, that those imagined continents and
mountains were no higher than those of the present earth, could they
then have filled the office which geologists assign them? Why could
there be no permanent springs and rivers there? Is there any reason
to believe that the mere action of the air-changes of temperature
and occasional moisture, would ever disintegrate whole continents 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
of solid granite, as hard and impermeable as most of the rocks of
that kind are which rise to the surface of the earth? If such granite
continents could not have been disintegrated, and no permanent
rivers could have run from them to boar off their detrit-as, is it not
clear that they never could have furnished the materials of which the
strata were formed? Have geologists noticed these difficulties in
framing their theory? Have they proceeded in their calculations on
the assumption that their fancied continents, instead of consisting
exclusively of granite, were covered with loose soil, like the present
lands of the globe, and were traversed by numerous permanent streams
and rivers? Is that legitimate? Does the fact that some measure
of mud, sand, and vegetable matter is borne to the sea by the continually running rivers of the present globe, which is covered by a deep
layer of loose earth, and annually shoots up a vast growvth of vegeta -
bles, prove that an equal quantity of similar matter would annually
be borne to the sea from mere granite continents, which had neither
any loose earth nor vegetable matter on their surface-nor any rivers
to bear such materials, if they existed, to the ocean?  Recapitulate
the several impracticable positions they have thus incorporated in
their theory of the origin of the strata.
224 
RESPECTING THiE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  225
CHAPTER X.
The false Theories of Geologists respecting the Sources of the Materials of which
the Strata were formed.
BUT let us suppose that the chemical and mechan ical agents that may be presumed to have acted on
those rocky continents would have rapidly disinte grated their surface, and reduced them on a vast
scale to such minute particles as could have been
transported by streams to the sea; and their theory
still continues embarrassed with equally insurmountable difficulties.   For they proceed in it on the
assumption, first, that their whole mass would, during
the progress of the process, be converted into detritus;
and next, that every particle of the detritus produced
from them would be borne to the sea, and enter into
the composition of the strata; as otherwise they must
have been of a still more enormous height than that
which is assigned to them. As the bulk, which we
have indicated as ascribed to them by the theory, is
only equal to that of the strata which are held to
have been formed from them, if but one third, one
half, or three quarters of their mass is supposed to
10* 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
have been transferred to the sea, then they must have
been of a still greater bulk, in order that that proportion may correspond to the dimensions of the strata
that are held to have been built out of their ruins.
But neither of those conditions is consistent with tlhe
laws that govern the disintegration of mountains and
the transportation of their detritus to the ocean. Let
us, in the first place, suppose the surface of those
imagined continents to have become disintegrated to
such a depth that the fragments and levigated particles, if spread out on the bottom of the ocean, would
have formed a stratum of several feet in thickness;
and yet no known or conceivable agency of streams,
torrents, and rivers could have ever conveyed the
whole, or any considerable portion of them, to the
sea. The supposition is as inadmissible and preposterous as the fancy were that the rivulets and streams
now running, can ever bear to the ocean all the comminuted dust, sand, and gravel with which our present
continents and islands are overspread. So far from
achieving such a stupendous result, they would never
have made any mrore appreciable progress towards it
than our present rivers have made in reducing the
elevation of the continents and diminishing the quantity of dry land. If they were shaped, like the continents of this hemisphere, with a vast range of mountains running through their whole length along their
western verge, so that no rains could have fallen on
226 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 227
their western slope to bear their debris on that side
to the ocean; and if from the foot of that range on
the east they were spread out like the vast regions of
South America, that are traversed by the La Plata,
the Amazon, and the Orinoco, and the immense plains
and prairies drained in this division of the continent
by the Mississippi, the St. Lawrence, and the M]ackenzie, it is obvious that their detritus could never in
any great quantity have been transported to the
ocean. Ninety-nine parts out of a hundred —probably nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand
would for ever have remained where they fell, as the
materials that constitute the surface of our present
continents have continued where they were first
formed.  The rivulets and rivers that are of sufficient
force to bear particles of earth and sand from their
places towards the sea, probably do not come in contact even with one particle in millions of those that
constitute the soils and debris that are spread on the
surface. They act only on the narrow line of their
channels, which, compared to the whole area, are but
what the lines of longitude marked on an artificial
globe are to the spaces that lie between them. If
the supposed continents were formed like Europe,
with a few lofty ranges, from the bases of which vast
plains extended like those of the Po, the Rhinie, and
the Danube, or immense levels like those that stretch
from the Baltic to the Ural Mountains, and the 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
steppes of northern Asia, then also a great share of
their detritus must for ever have remained where it
originated; and that would have been still more
emphatically the fact, if, like Australia, their interior
through vast spaces was depressed below the level of
their coasts, so that the waters falling on them could
have no outlet to the ocean. Whatever might have
been their forms, therefore, if they corresponded in
any considerable measure to those of our present continents, the transportation of any large quantity of
detritus from their general surface by torrents and
rivers must have been wholly impossible. We have
in the vast experiment that has been made on our
present continents for four thousand years, the most
ample demonstration that streams and rivers are
altogether inadequate to such an effect. Were all the
detrital matter that has in that period been borne by
them from the dry land, and now lies buried beneath
the seas, restored to the places from which it was
removed, the largest portion of it would undoubtedly
be lodged along the line of the streams. The share
that nine tenths of the surface would receive would
scarcely be appreciable.
And next, the conversion of the whole imass of
those granite continents into detritus-the other condition of their theory-would be equally impossible.
For the rate of disintegration and the area on which
it took place, instead of advancing or continuing the
228 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  229
same, would continually decrease in proportion as the
detritus accumulated on the surface and protected it
from the action of destructive chemical and mechanical agents. A thin layer of loam, sand, or gravel,
would have been a shield against the decrystallizing
action of the atmosphere and erosion by water. This
is shown by the fact that granite rocks that have been
cut and scored by the passage over them, as it is supposed, of icebergs armed with boulders, and afterwards buried by drift, on the removal of the soil with
which they have been covered, exhibit no indications
of having undergone disintegration after they had
received those marks.  Many of those, indeed, that
have been exposed to the action of the elements
appear unaltered. The grooves ploughed across them
are as smooth and well defined as they can be
believed to have been when first made.
It is shown also by the failure of the most powerful
streams to produce any important change on the
height or form of the granite rocks over which they
have run for thousands of years.   Let any one
examine the granite rocks that in many places lie at
the bottom of the rapid streams of New England, and
form the dykes over which they fall, and he will find
them generally free from any marks of disintegration
or erosion by the grinding of sand, pebbles, or ice.
The cavities that are cut where the water rushes down
rapids or over falls, are caused by the whirl of gravel 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
and pebbles in depressions, not by the mere passage
of the stream.   This is indicated by Hlumboldt in
respect to the great cataracts of the Orinoco, formed
by granite dykes, that have not been worni away, he
represents, in any perceptible measure by the rush
of that vast volume of water.
"When seated on the bank of the Oroonoko, our eyes are
fixed on those rocky dykes, the mind inquires whether, in
the lapse of ages, the falls change their form or height. I
am not much inclined to believe in such effects of the shock
of water against blocks of granite and in the erosion of
silicious matter.   The holes narrowed towards the bottom,
the funnels that are discovered in the raiudales, as well as
near so many other cascades in Europe, are owing only
to the friction of the sand and the movement of quartz
pebbles................
"We will not deny the action of rivers and running
waters when they furrow friable ground covered with
secondary formations. But the granite rocks of Elephantine
have probably no more changed their absolute height
during thousands of years than the summits of Mont Blanc
and of Canigou.   When  you have closely inspected the
great scenes of nature in different climates, it is impossible
not to admit that those deep clefts, those strata raised on
end, those scattered blocks, those traces of a general convulsion, are the results of extraordinary causes, very different from those which act slowly on the surface of the globe
in its present state of tranquillity and repose. What the
230 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 231
waters carry away from the granite by erosion, what the
humid atmosphere destroys by its contact with hard and
undecomposed rocks, almost wholly escapes our perception;
and I cannot believe, as some geologists admit, that the
granitic summits of the Alps and the Pyrenees lower in
proportion to the accumulation of pebbles in the gullies at
the foot of the mountains. In the Nile, as well as in the
Oroonoko, the rapids may diminish their fall, without the
rocky dykes being perceptibly altered."-H,umboldt's Narrative, vol. v. pp. 62, 64, 65.
The supposition, then, that such granitic continents
could ever be disintegrated and transported to the
ocean by the chemical and mechanical agents that
are now acting on the surface of the earth, is
altogether untenable.   Such indiestructible masses
stretched along the line of the ancient seas could no
more have furnished the materials of our strata than
though they had been stationed in another world.
Geologists themselves could never have advanced
such an hypothesis had they properly considered the
impracticable conditions it involves.
Admitting, however, that those imagined continents
of granite could have been disintegrated by the
chemical and mechanical agents to which they would
have been subjected, and the theory is still embarrassed by the equally fatal objection, that they would
not even then have furnished the materials of the
stratified rocks; inasmuch as some of the most im 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
portant of the mineral substances that enter into their
composition are not constituents of granite, except in
quantities almost too slight to be appreciable.
Granite is composed either of quartz, felspar, and
mica, or quartz, felspar, and hornblende; and usually
in the proportion of two parts of quartz, two or three
of felspar, and one of mica, or hornblende; and consists, when mica is an element, of 74 to 75 per cent.
of silica, 13 to 14 of aluinine, 8 or 9 of potash; and
four or five other ingredients, amounting together to
the remaining four or five per cent. The quantity
of lime is less than half of one per cent., and of iron,
less than two. When hornblende is an element, the
potash is diminished one half, the lime increases to
near five per cent., and the iron to near three; and
these elements are not promiscuously blended, but
the quartz, felspar, and mica, or hornblende, are separately crystallized and united in that form in a compact mass.* On the supposition, then, that such
mountains and continents of granite could have been
decrystallized and transferred to the bed of the ocean
they could not have contributed to the formation of
any strata except those of which silica and alumine
are the constituents; that is, gneiss, quartz rock,
sandstones, shales, and sand and gravel. They could
have furnished nothing, except on a scale too insig
* Phillips's Geology, vol. ii., pp. 65, 66.
232 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 233
nificant to merit consideration, towards the structure
of the vast beds of limestone, iron, chalk, salt, and
several other important deposits.
The theory thus fails again to fill the office for
which it is devised, and on a vast scale. Grant them
all that it can yield, exhaust its utmost resources, and
instead of supplying, as it professes, the whole of the
materials of which the strata are constituted, it can
only furnish from one-half to two-thirds. Hiow fatal
to their system this defect is, is seen from the fact
that limestone, to the formation of which it could contribute nothing, occurs among the lowest of the stratified rocks, and alternates either with sandstones,
shales, or coal, throughout the whole series of the
primary, secondary, and tertiary groups, extends over
immense areas, and is often of great depth.
"One of the most remarkable geological features of this
continent is the vast extent of the carboniferous limestone.
I have traced its eastern border-conforming to the course
of the other mineral formations east of the Mississippimore than one thousand miles running to the west of south,
from the State of New York to the thirty-fifth degree of
north latitude in the State of Alabama; the course is there
changed, and lies to the north of west, leaving Little Rock
on the Arkansas about thirty miles to the south, and disappearing between five and six hundred miles from the Rocky
Mountains. This deposit extends uninterruptedly a geographical distance of at least 1,500 miles from east to west; 
FALSE TIEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
underlying portions of the states of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Missouri, and the territory of
Arkansas on that line. In Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia,
and Maryland, it is bounded by a line of which the Cumberland Mountains form a part. In the plains through which
the Mississippi flows, and which include the Illinois prairies,
it appears like a continuous floor, forming an almost unvarying flat."-Featherstonhaugh's Geological Report, 1835,
pp. 27, 28.
Of the aggregate of the several layers in the carboniferous group, the following section of the upper coal
series in Western Virginia may be taken as an example:
"First or lower bed,
Second,       I"
Third,        "
Fourth,       "
Fifth,       1"
Sixth,       I"
Seventh,     "
Eighth,       "
Ninth,        "
12 feet 0 inches.
6 "  4"
3 "10   As
1 I  6 "
6 "s6  "1
2 It0 
7 "    6   A
7   "  0    "
5   "A 0    "
50 As 10 "
Making a total thickness of limestone in this group along
the line of section of fifty feet; adding to these twenty-four
in the lower shale and sandstone group, and three in the
lower coal group, and we have in the whole extent of the
234 
RESPECTING TIEE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 235
coal measures embraced in the section, a thickness of about
seventy-seven feet of limestone."-Rodgers's Report ont the
Geology of Virginia, 1839, p. 93.
The inadequacy of their theory to account for this
important portion of the strata, though seen and
acknowledged by geologists, has not led them either
to abandon or modify it.  Some  candidly confess
themselves unable to give a satisfactory explanation
of its origin; while Macculloch, Phillips, and some
others, maintain, as the most probable hypothesis,
that it was formed of the exuvise of testaceous animals, and was drawn originally by them from the
waters of the sea. But that, besides being a mere
conjecture and infinitely improbable, furnishes no
indication of its original source; as it implies either
that the lime was previously held in solution in the
waters of the sea —which was impossible, as the quantity is such as would have thickened all the waters
of the globe to a paste-or else that it was gradually
introduced into them from some unknown source,
which is no explanation whatever of its origin. Instead, therefore, of demonstrating their hypothesis
that the whole of the materials of the strata were
drawn from their fabled mountains of granite, by
their own concession that large portion of them that
consists of limestone was of a different derivation. Those vast formations, accordingly, inter 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
spersed through the whole mass of the strata, are so
many monuments of the error of their theory.
Iron, also, which enters very largely into the composition of many of the strata, especially of the carboniferous groups, cannot have resulted from the decomposition of granite, but must have been altogether
drawn from some other source. Besides, indeed,
those rocks which imbed it in masses and derive from
it their principal character, it exists in ordinary sandstones, and shales consisting mainly, like granite, of
silica and alumine, in far greater portions than in
that rock.
So, also-to say nothing of chalk-of the vast beds
of salt. The nature of that mineral forbids the supposition that it can have resulted from the disintegration of granite; as there is no such element in its
composition.
The theory thus fails to make any provision for the
formation of at least one-third of the strata for which
it professes to account by a scientific induction according to " the strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy." Can higher evidence be asked of its utter
erroneousness? Yet its authors, though aware that
it is thus incommensurate to the vast task which they
assign to it, seem not to regard its failure on so immense a scale as a proof of its inaccuracy, or reason
for its abandonment. They continue to make it the
basis of their arguments for the vast age of the world,
236 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 23[
and treat the inference they found on it as a scientific
induction.
Unfortunately, however, for the theory, this defect
does not terminate at that point.  It, in fact, fails as
entirely to account for those strata of which silicious
sand is the principal element, as for those which consist of limestone, iron, and salt; for though the main
materials of sandstone are those of which granite consists, silica and alumine, yet the form in which they
now exist demonstrates that they cannot have been
derived from that rock.  In granite those elements,
with a slight mixture of potash, iron, and lime, are
combined in three different proportions in crystals of
quartz, felspar, and mica, or hornblende; but in sandstone they are not in the form of quartz, felspar, and
hornblende, or mica crystals, as the first three would
undoubtedly have been, at least in a chief degree,
had they been drawn from granite. INor are they
crystallized; but instead, are, at least mainly, of a
mere granular structure, or formed by an aggregation
of particles by a law essentially unlike that of crystallization. The nature and importance of the distinction
in structure and form that exists between them-the
crystals of granite being geometric, though imperfect,
but the particles of sandstone generally simple grains
or comminuted mud —may be seen from the following
passage:
"Quartz is crystallized in double six-sided pyramids in the 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
substance of granitic, porphyritic, and other igneous rocks;
in six-sided prisms terminated by six-sided pyramids in mineral veins and in cavities in granite; compact in veins; nodular in amygdaloidal traps; rolled masses in old red conglomerate millstone grit, and grauwacke; worn grai?ts in sandstones, clays, certain quartz rocks, and coarse clay slates.
"Felspar; primary rhomboidal crystals in granite, porphyry, trachyte, and basalt; composite crystals in cavities
of granite and veins; disturbed crystals in gneiss; rolled
crystals in conglomerate; decomposed or porcelain clay in
some granites and sandstones.
"Mica, crystallized in hexagonal plates in granite, porphyry, lava, and primary limestone; disturbed crystals in
gneiss and mica schist; fragmentary scales in sandstone, sand,
shale, and clay.
"Hornblende, crystallized with felspar in granite, greenstone, basalt, and lava, also in hornblende slate." —Phillips's
Guide, p. 7 9.
In granite, quartz has thus a geometric shape, but
in sandstone it is in the form of minute particles or
grains.  The Potsdam Calciferous and Medina sandstones, for example, of this State, generally exhibit no
traces in any of their parts of a crystalline structure,
but are formed by a mere aggregation of minute particles, and, on being broken, are easily reduced to the
most attenuated granules or dust. They are nevertheless usually represented by geologists as drawn
wholly from granite, and as owing their new shape
238 
RESPECTING THE AIATiRIALS OF THE  STRATA. 239
to the fracture, rolling, or abrasure of the crystals,
of which they originally formed a part.
"Take for example the very common rock sandstone; its
component grains of quartz, felspar, and mica, are more or
less rolled or fragmented crystals of these substances, derived
from rocks like gneiss, mica, schist, &c., which are also composed of grains of the same kinds, less affected by mechanical processes; or from granite, porphyry, &c., which are
purely crystalline rocks.   Such derivative sandstones are
formed at this day from such crystallized granite and other
rocks."-Phillips's Geology, vol. i. p. 31.
"In a general sense, the red sandstone must be considered
as formed of fragments, more or less minute, of preceding
rocks or minerals. When these are of the usual size of
sand, the finer sandstones are produced; when larger, the
results are coarser gritstones and conglomerates, or breccias.
The term sandstone is, however, equally applied to the
whole, although rather in a geological than in a mineralo
gical sense."-VIaccullock's G. C. of Rocks, p. 402.
In the first place, however, this transformation
from crystals to grains is not demonstrated.   The
mere fact that the particles of sandstone consist of
the same elements as the quartz crystals of granite,
is no proof that they were derived from that rock,
any more than the fact that the elements of granite
are essentially the same as gneiss and the primary
shales and sandstones is proof that that rock was 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
according to the hypothesis proposed by Sir C. Lyell
-formed from them. Yet the theory has no other
ground for its support than the mere similarity of
their elements. 
In the next place, it is inexplicable, on the supposition that they had their origin in granite, that no
traces remain in them of the crystals from which
they were drawn. Crystallized quartz, even in the
state in which it usually exists in granite, is an extremely hard, and under the action of the chemical
and mechanical agents to which it is ordinarily
exposed, almost indestructible mineral. That vast
mountains, that whole continents towering several
miles into the atmosphere, and consisting largely of
that element, should have been dissolved and reduced
in a great measure to the most comminuted particles
by the mere chemical and mechanical forces that are
now acting on the surface of the globe, may justly be
pronounced a physical impossibility.   No effect can
be conceived more obviously and absolutely beyond
the powers of those agents.
No mode of the production of such a change can
be suggested that does not leave the theory embarrassed with this insuperable objection. To suppose
the quartz and other crystals in granite to have been
subjected to a chemical solution, were first to assume
that there were chemical forces then in activity of
immeasurably greater energy, and operating on a far
240 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 241
wider area, than there now are on the globe. But
that is prohibited by the maxims of geology, which
require that if the solution of granite mountains and
continents is to be accounted for, it should be by
forces the same in kind and intensity as those that
are now exerting their powers on the earth. Next,
if they are supposed to have undergone a solution,
then their assumption of their present granular form
must have been the effect of a different and peculiar
chemical agency. But that is again forbidden by the
principles of geology.  As no chemical agents are
now in activity that generate such silicious grains
and aggregations of grains as those that constitute
the Potsdam, Calciferous, Medina, and other sandstones, it cannot, according to the maxims of the
science, be assumed that they existed and acted at
a former period.
The supposition that they were reduced from
crystals to their present granular forms-spherical,
irregularly rounded, and angular- by mechanical
forces, abrading or fracturing them, is embarrassed
by equally formidable difficulties. It is altogether
incredible that any mechanical force -as of the
waves of the ocean, or the current of rivers-should
have acted on every point of vast mountains and
continents so as to have broken, worn, and disintegrated their whole mass. It is equally incredible
that such agents, acting wherever they might, should
11 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
have reduced the silicious elements universally of
the masses with which they came in contact, to
grains of such a minute and uniform size. No result
can be conceived more wholly without the limits of
possibility than that such causes acting with indefinitely varying forces on rocks differing widely in
their solidity, should give birth to such extraordinary
effects, and in such unvarying uniformity. No such
results spring from their present action. The supposition is, therefore, as absolutely prohibited as the
others, by the principles of geology.
We might extend this argument to arenaceous
shales, granular quartz, the conglomerates of which
silicious pebbles are a principal element, and ordinary sand and gravel. Instead of crystals, they are
aggregates of grains, or concretions of minute particles by a law wholly unlike that of geometric
crystallization.  The theory thus fails as entirely to
account for these vast formations as for those that
consist of ingredients wholly unlike those of granite.
These considerations thus furnish the most resistless demonstration of its error. Whatever else may
be thought to have been susceptible of derivation
from such continents of granite,-the vast beds of
gravel, sand, salt, chalk, limestone, and sandstone,
cannot have been drawn from that source. Their
nature, or the forms in which they exist, make the
supposition a paradox. The most indisputable proofs
are graven on their fronts that that was not their
242 
RESPECTING THE MlATEIALS OF THE STRATA. 243
origin. But withdrawing these, there is nothing left
through the whole mass of the fossiliferous rocks even granting that all the other insuperable obstacles
to the theory could be overcome-which its advo cates can refer to those fabulous continents, except
certain conglomerates and those shales and clays of
which alumine is a chief ingredient; a slender basis
truly, could they verify their hypothesis in respect to
them, on which to erect a demonstration of the
immeasurable age of the world!  Can a more unfortunate predicament be imagined of writers who have
indulged so confident a persuasion that they had
established their system by evidence scarcely inferior
in certainty to that of mathematics?
Passing over, however, all these insurmountable
objections to their theory, let us suppose their imagined continents reduced in any requisite measure to
disintegration, transformed into sand, gravel, and pebbles, and traversed by streams and rivers of sufficient
size and force to bear such materials to the sea; and
there still would be no agent by which they could be
spread out on the bottom of the deep over the vast
spaces that are occupied by many of the strata.  The
larger streams, like the Ganges, Indus, Nile, Niger,
Amazon, Mississippi, and St. Lawrence, would carry
no gravel or sand whatever to the ocean.   These
great rivers deposit all the heavier particles with
which they are charged, in their first stages, hundreds 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
of miles before they reach their mouths, and bear
nothing to the ocean but comminuted mud and vegetable matter that is held in solution; and that they
throw down almost immediately on reaching the sea.
No portion of it, probably, is carried beyond the lines
at which their currents are arrested by the resistance
of the waters of the ocean: and that is within a
very narrow circle, compared to the vast spaces that
lie beyond. The result accordingly of their transporting agency is, simply, at first slowly to diminish
the depth of the ocean at their mouths, and finally,
gradually to extend the dry land at those points into
the sea. Their influence is exhausted in the formation of their deltas. The main bed of the ocean is as
completely unaffected by them as though they were
not in existence. Their limited power and the narrow
sphere within which their agency is circumscribed,
forbid the supposition that such rivers can have
been the instruments of conveying to the ocean the
materials of which the strata are constituted. The
area over which many of the strata extend is immense.
Gneiss is generally considered as one of the most universal of the rocks, and lies very generally, it is held,
between the granite which is the fundamental rock,
and the fossiliferous strata. The fossiliferous strata in
some of their divisions exist everywhere, except in
the narrow spaces in which either granite, or some of
the lowest orders of the stratified rocks, rise to the
244 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF TIE STRATA. 245
surface. In this country the New York or Silurian
system, extending from the lowest of the fossiliferous
rocks up to the old red sandstone, and comprising a
vast series of sandstones, limestones, and shales,
spreads in some of its divisions from the eastern range
of the Appalachians to Lake Superior, and from Lake
Champlain to the Rocky Mountains, and forming a
bed on an average many thousand feet, and in places
probably several miles in thickness. The fancy that
that vast mass of matter can have been borne there,
and distributed in so equable a manner by rivers, is
an extravagance at which common sense revolts. It
is only matched in its disregard of probability, by the
hypothesis that the limestone and chalk formations
are the product of testaceous animals elaborated by
them from other matter, of which lime is not in any
appreciable measure a constituent. The effect, in the
conditions that are supposed, lies wholly out of the
sphere of possibility. It might as well be imagined
that the granite mountains themselves that rise from
beneath these strata and rear their naked summits
into the sky, were floated in solid masses by streams
or tides from those fabled continents, and planted in
their present positions. The cause is infinitely disproportioned to the task that is assigned it. It has
none of the qualities that are requisite to the production of such an effect.
Sir C. Lyell, however, notwithstanding he admits 
FALSE TIIEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
that all the heavy matter borne down by a river must
fall to the bottom almost immediately on its entering
the sea, still maintains that the stream naturally advances the line of its deposits further into the deep,
and that the change of the area, by that cause, on
which its sediment is thrown down, and a transferrence
of the river itself to a new line and point of debouchure by the elevation or inclination of the continent
from which it descends, will sufficiently account for
the distribution of the detritus out of which he holds
the strata were formed, over the area which they
occupy.
"It is only by carefully considering the combined action
of all the causes of change now in operation, whether in
the animate or inanimate world, that we can hope to explain such complicated appearances as are exhibited in the
general arrangement of mineral masses.
"The surface of the terraqueous globe may be divided
into two parts, one of which is undergoing repairs, while the
other, constituting, at any one period, by far the larger portion of the whole, is either suffering degradation, or remainimg stationary without loss or increment. The dry land is
for the most part wasting by the action of rain, rivers, and
torrents; and part of the bed of the sea is exposed to the
excavating action of currents, while the greater part, remote
from continents and islands, receives no giew deposits.   For as
a turbid river throws down all its sediment into the first lake
which it traverses, so currents flowing from land or from
246 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  247
shoals purge themselves from foreign ingredients in the first
deep basin which they enter, and beyond this the blue waters of
the ocean may for ages r'emair clear to the greatest depths.
"The other part of the terraqueous surface is the receptacle of new deposits, and in this portion alone the remains
of plants and animals become fossilized. Now the position
of this area, where new formations are in progress, and where
alone any memorials of the state of organic life are preserved, is always varying, and must for ever continue to vary;
and for the same reason that portion of the terraqueous globe,
which is undergoing waste also shifts its position/; and those
fluctuations depend partly on the action of aqueous and
partly on igneous causes.
"In illustration of these positions I now observe that the
sediment of the Rhone, which is thrown into the Lake of
Geneva, is now conveyed to a spot a mile and a half distant
from that where it accumulated in the tenth century, and
six miles from the point where the Delta began originally
to form. We may look forward to the period when the
Lake will be filled up, and then a sudden change will take
place in the distribution of the transported matter; for the
mud and sand brought down from the Alps will thenceforth
be carried nearly two hundred miles southwards, where the
Rhone enters the Mediterranean."'-Principles of Geology,
vol. ii. pp. 210, 211.
No river, however, nor rivers could ever, by that
process, spread a layer of pebbles, sand, or the most
comminuted mud over the whole bed of a spacious 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
sea; nor bear any appreciable quantity of matter
more than a very short distance within the deep.
The current of a river on entering the sea, whether
the waters of the deep are stationary, or in motion on
a line that is transverse to that current, must meet a
resistance that instantly checks its rapidity, and soon
puts an end to its progress. All the matter accordingly borne forward by its impulse, or held in solution, must necessarily be deposited in the area within
which it is circumscribed. Not a particle can ever
be carried out of that limit, except by a movement
of the waters of the sea that is independent of the
river. It is demonstrable, therefore, that the detritus
carried down by a river cannot be spread over the
whole of the bed of an ocean, or spacious sea; inasmuch as it would require that the current of the river
should extend over the whole of the area, and displace the whole mass of the waters of the ocean, or
sea, which is as much out of the circle of possibility
as it is that it should transport the solid strata themselves by its current. This part of Sir C. Lyell's
theory, therefore, furnishes no solution of the diffusion
over the bed of the ocean of the materials of which
the strata are formed.
His supposition that it could be produced by a
change of the position of the continents from which
it is supposed to be drawn, causing a transferrence of
248 
RESPECTING TIIE IMATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  249
the rivers to new lines and points of debouchure, is
equally untenable.
"On the other band, if a current charged with sediment
vary its course-a circumstance which must happen to all
of them in the lapse of ages-the accumulation of trans ported matter will at once cease in one region, and com mence in another.
"Although the causes which occasion the transferrence of
the places of sedimentary depositions are continually in
action in every region, yet they are particularly influential
where subterranean movements alter from time to- time the
levels of land; and their effect must be very great during
the successive elevations and depressions which must be
supposed to accompany the rise of a great continent from
the deep. A trifling change of level may sometimes throw
a current into a new direction, or alter the course of a
considerable river.   Some  tracts will be submerged and
laid dry by subterranean movements; ill one place a shoal
will be formed, whereby the waters will drift matter over
spaces where they once threw down their burden, and new
cavities will elsewhere be produced both marine and lacustrine which will intercept the waters bearing sediment, and
thereby stop the supply once carried to some distant basin.
"Without entering into more detailed explanations, the
reader will perceive that according to the laws now governing the aqueous and igneous causes, distinct deposits must
at different periods be thrown down on various parts of the
earth's surface, and that in the course of ages the same
11* 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
area may be again and again the receptacle of such dissimilar sets of strata."-Principles of Geology, vol. ii. p. 212.
But this does not account any more than the other
for the diffusion of the materials of any one of the
strata over the whole bed of the ocean; it only indicates a mode in which the points where rivers enter
the sea may be changed from time to time so as to
produce a change of the areas at the margin of the
ocean, where the sediment borne down by them shall
be deposited.  It leaves all the other parts of the
bottom of the sea as unprovided as they were before,
with materials for the formation of new strata. In
order to explain their deposition over the whole bed
of the ocean by such a cause, it would be necessary to
suppose, not only that the continents fromn which
the materials of the strata were derived, but that small
divisions of the bottom of the sea itself, also, were successively elevated, so that the river should in succession enter it at as many points as would be requisite,
in order to the deposition of a stratum over its whole
area. That, however, cannot have happened; inasmuch as the elevation and depression of the surface
in detached parts that must then have taken place at
the formation of each layer of the system, would have
broken their whole mass into fragments, and reduced
them to a promiscuous heap of ruins. But they have
suffered no such violence. The New York or Silu
250 
RESPECTING THiE,MATERPIALS OF THE STRATA. 251
rian groups which underlie the whole country friom
the Alleghanies far into the Canadas, and from Vermonot beyond the Mississippi, are but slightly dislocated.  Throughout a large part of their immense
area they lie at a dead level, or moderate inclination,
and have never been seriously disturbed in any of
their members since their deposition. It is clear then
beyond debate, that their materials were never transported to their several places by the action of rivers.
The supposition is indeed so palpably at war with the
laws that govern their agency, and so absurd and
enormous an extravagance, as to render it siurprising
that considerate persons should have ever entertained
it, and made it the basis of an argument for the
immeasurable age of the world.
And finally, in addition to all these evidences of
the error of their theory, the distribution of the elements, silex, alumine, and lime, of which the formations chiefly consist, into separate strata, is an equally
decisive proof that they cannot have been drawn from
such pre-existing continents, nor been borne to their
several places and arranged in their positions by the
agency of streams, rivers, and currents. The detritus
that is wafted down by rivers to the sea, is not separated, on its deposition, according to the species of
which it consists, and its different ingredients thrown
down on different areas. Instead, they fall together
and form a promiscuous mass. The only separation 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
that takes place, is of the heavier from the lighter
grains and particles-gravel falling first, sand next,
then comminuted mud, and last, light vegetable particles; and as their fall takes place by the force of
gravity, the points at which they severally descend
are determined by their weight, not by the material
of which they consist.
The strata, however, were not formed in that manner, but their great elements were distributed into
separate layers; sandstone, sand, and gravel, of which
silex is the chief ingredient, being arranged by themselves; slate, marl, and clay, which owe their principal character to alumine, forming a different set of
layers; and limestone and chalk, of which lime is the
great ingredient, constituting beds and masses by
themselves. The sand, gravel, and pebbles, moreover,
thlat enter into the composition of many of their layers,
instead of being sorted according to size and weight
so that they regularly decrease in dimensions in one
direction, and increase in the other, as in the deltas
of rivers, are distributed indiscriminately throughout
the spaces-sometimes of vast extent-which  they
occupy. Thus the sandstones of the New York system stretching, there is reason to believe, from Vermont to the Rocky Mountains, and from the Appalachians far into the Canadas, do not vary in the
coarseness of their grains and pebbles in any ratio to
their distance from their eastern, western, southern,
252 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA. 253
or northern edges, or from any interior points in the
area over which they are spread.   Nor do those of
the oarboniferous system, which extend from the
Alleghanies through the western parts of Pennsylvania and Virginia, the southern part of Ohio, and a
large share of Kentucky, Indiana, and Illinois.  Their
variations, if they vary, are obviously from chemical,
not from mechanical or geographical reasons.
These facts form, therefore, the most unanswerable
demonstration, in the first place, that the materials of
the strata were not derived, as the theory represents,
from disintegrated continents of granite —as they
could not then have been assorted as they are, and
their several elements arranged in layers by themselves; and in the next place, that the distribution
throughout their whole extent, of the sand and gravel
that enter into the composition of sandstones and
other strata, were not transported in their present
form firom a distance to their places, by the action of
streams and currents.
Such are the proofs of the error of this extraordinary theory, which refers the materials of the stratified rocks to anterior continents and islands of granite.
There is not a solitary step in the process which it
contemplates at which it is not confuted by a palpable contradiction to the laws of the physical world,
and the principles of geology. The supposition with
which it commences of the creation of the earth in a 
FALSE TIIEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
state of gaseous fusion, is a paradox. There are no
indications where the continents and mountains were
stationed, from the ruins of which it is held the strata
were formed. IHad there been such continents and
mountains as the hypothesis implies, they must have
been of such an elevation as to have been protected
by congelation from being disintegrated and tranlsported to the sea by the action of water. Had they
been depressed into a temperate region, still no
springs could have emerged from their surface, nor
permanent streams and rivers descended fiom them to
the sea. IHad they been disintegrated and traversed
by streams and rivers, they could never have borne
more than an inconsiderable portion of their detritus
to the ocean. Had their detritus been transported to
the sea, it could not have been transformed into sand,
gravel, and pebbles: it could not have been spread
over the bed of the ocean: it could not have been
assorted according to the materials of which it consists, and formed into separate layers of sandstone,
limestone, and shale. There is not one of these processes through which the theory represents the materials of the strata as having passed, that is not in contradiction to the laws of the physical world, and an
infinite impossibility. The demonstration is absolute,
therefore, that the strata cannot have been formed by
these processes, and that the whole theory is groundless and mistaken. The inference accordingly that is
254 
RESPECTING THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  255
founded on it of the vast age of the world, is equally
unphilosophical and false.
QUESTIONS.
Suppose that chemical agents could have acted on those continents, and produced a rapid disintegration, is it credible that it
could have gone to the extent the theory assumes? What are the
two conditions which that implies? Is either of them consistent with
the laws of matter? If those continents became covered with a soil,
is it not as incredible that streams should have borne it all to the
ocean, as it is that the streams of the present continents should bear all
the earth and gravel of the regions from which they run to the sea?
Is there any reason to suppose that a millionth part of the detritus
of the Andes ever reaches the ocean? Does it not, with the exception of comparatively few particles, lodge near the foot of the ranges
from which it is disintegrated? Does not all but the merest fraction
of the debris of the Rocky Mountains remain where, or near where,
it first falls?  Could the other condition which they assume have been
realized?  Give the first reason that it could not.  Give the second
reason. What does Humboldt state in regard to the inadequacy-of
rivers to wear away the rocks over which they pass? Is it clear then
that continents of granite could never have been converted into sand
and dust, and transported to the ocean by the chemical and mechanical agents that are now acting on the earth's surface?
But could those granite continents have been reduced to dust,
would they have furnished the various substances of which the strata
consist?  Of what is granite composed?  What are the proportions
in which these elements exist in it? What are the only strata that
might have been formed out of those elements? What other strata
are there of which they could not have furnished the principal ingredient? What proportion of the strata then must have been derived
from some other source? By what formation is this exemplified in
this country?  Is limestone spread over vast regions?  What aggre 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
gate thickness do its several beds in a single group sometimes attain?
Are geologists aware that these immense deposits of lime cannot be
accounted for on their theory? What other substances are there that
enter into the composition of the strata, that cannot have been deri ved from granite? Do these facts confute their theory? Does it
fail also to account for those strata, such as sandstone, that consist
of substances that exist in granite? State the reason. What is the
difference of the form of quartz in granite and sandstone? Is the
assumption of geologists that the crystals of granite have been
changed into the granules of sandstone, admissible? What is the first
reason against it?  What is the second?  Can such a change have
been produced by chemical agents? Can it by mechanical forces?
What other classes of strata are there that cannot, for the same rea son, have been derived from granite? Does the theory then fail to
account for all but an inconsiderable portion of the strata?
Suppose, however, those difficulties were overcome, and that rivers
could have borne down a large quantity of detritus to the sea; could
they have spread it over vast areas of the bottom of the ocean? Do
the great rivers of the present earth carry the earthy matter with
which they are charged more than a short distance into the sea? Is
it not a law that of the matter borne down by a river, that which is
of greater specific gravity than the water itself, sinks as soon as the
force of the current ceases to bear it forward? Is it not certain that
no river of the globe continues its current more than a few miles
after it enters the ocean? Is it not impossible then that rivers can
have diffused their detritus over the whole bottom of the ocean? Are
not the strata, however, spread over vast areas? Give examples.
What can be more clear than that these strata can never have been
formed over such immense spaces by the agency of rivers?  What is
Sir C. Lyell's theory of the agency of rivers in the formation of
strata? Could a river ever by that process form a layer of pebbles
or sand over more than a very limited space? State the reason that
it could not. What is his theory in respect to a change of the points
at which rivers enter the ocean? Could such changes ever enable
256 
RESPE TG THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.  257
them to spread their earthy and vegetable matter over the whole bottom of a spacious sea? 
And finally, is not the distribution of the chief elements of the
strata into separate layers inexplicable on their theory? What are
those elements? How are the different earthy elements borne down
by rivers usually deposited? Are they sorted, or thrown down promiscuously? What is the manner in which the elements of the strata
were distributed? Specify the elements of the leading groups. Recapitulate these various proofs of the error of the theory. 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
CHAP:TER XI.
False Theories of Geologists respecting the Formation of the Strata.
THAT branch of their theory which relates to the
sources whence the materials of the strata were
derived, and the agents by which they were conveyed
to their place of deposition being thus confuted, the
next inquiry respects their other great postulate, that
the original formation of the strata and the mnodifications to which they have been subjected, were the
work of the chemical and mechanical forces that are
now producing changes in the earth's surface, and
were the result of agencies, in the main, of only their
present measure of intensity.  If this postulate, on
which they found the most of their reasonings, is
shown to be gratuitously assumed also, inconsistent
with the most important characteristics of the strata,
and in contravention of the principles of the science,
then the second main ground of their inference of the
great age of the world will also be overthrown: and
such is undoubtedly its character.
As it is apparent from the preceding discussion that
streams and rivers have had no important agency in
258 
RESPECTING T'HE FOlRMATON OF THE STRATA.  259
the conveyance of the materials of the strata to the
points of their deposition, they are ini thile main
excluded from the question. There are no traces of
their influence until a large part of the depositions
were formed, and whatever effects they may have
produced towards the close of the secondary and
during the tertiary periods, they must, from the
resistance currents firom the land meet on entering
the ocean, have been confined to the vicinitv of the
points of their debouchure.  The question, therefore,
as far as all the most extensive and important effects
are concerned, relates only to the chemical and volcanic forces, and the mechanical agencies of the
ocean under which the strata were formed, and subsequently thrown into their present conditions.
And in the first place, the assumption that all
these great effects are the result of the causes that
are now in activity, and arose gradually from agencies of essentially the intensity they are now exerting,
is based on altogether inadequate and mistaken
ground. It certainly is not a self-evident proposition.
There is nothing in the nature of the strata themselves that shows directly that they must have been
formed exclusively by causes like these, acting with
only their present energy. If that is made a principle or postulate of the science, it must first, like other
facts, be established by appropriate evidence. But
no such demonstration of it is furnished by geologists. 
FALSE THEOlIES OF GEOLOGISTS
It is either assumed without any attempt at its veri fication, or founded on vague and imaginary analogies. Thus Sir Charles Lyell, for example, who in
the construction and support of his theory reasons
altogether from the present to the past, takes for
granted at every step of his argument, the point on
which its validity depends;* namely, not only that
the causes now producing geological effects on the
globe are the same in kind as those to which the
stratified rocks owe their existence and modifications,
but that the scale on which they are now acting, and
the rate at which they are giving birth to their
several effects, are the measure of the energy with
* "Now the principal source from whence we are enabled to draw
such conclusions respecting the nature of the solid materials of the
earth, and the changes which they have undergone, is a comparison
of geological phenomena with the effects previously known to have
been produced in modern times by running water and subterranean
heat. Hence the utility of one of the preceding treatises on aqueous
and igneous causes, in which it was shown that strata are at present
in the course of formation by rivers and marine currents; both in
seas and lakes; and that in several parts of the world rocks have
been rent, tilted, and broken, by sudden earthquakes; or have been
heaved up above, or let down below their former level; also that
volcanic eruptions have given rise to mountain masses made up of
scoria, and of stone both porous and solid....
"From these remarks it will be seen that a study of systematic
treatises on the recent changes of the organic and inorganic world,
affords a good preliminary exercise for those who desire to interpret
geological movements. They are thus enabled to proceed from the
known to the unknown, or from the observed effects of causes now in
action to the analogous effects of the SAME or SIDLAR CAUSES which
have acted at remnote periods."-Lyell's  Principles, Preface, pp.
xiii., xiv.
0
260 
RESPECTING TilE FORMATION OF THiE STRATA. 261
which they acted, and the rapidity with which they
wrought their results, in the formation of the strata.
For he offers nothing but the effects themselves that
are now in the process of production, the strength of
the agents that are bringing them into existence, and
the rapidity with which they are wrought as proofs
that all the geological effects of ancient times which
it is his aim to explain, were wrought, by the same
agents at the same rate; and thence makes the
ground of his inference that the periods occupied in
their production must have been of the immeasurable
length which he ascribes to them. But the effects
that are now taking p ace plainly yield no verification of his inference, unless it is either self-evident,
or is shown by extraneous proof, that all the geological effects in question must necessarily have been
produced by the same cause, acting, uniformly with
the same energy. But that, instead of proving, lihe
takes for granted. Hiis argument, accordingly, expressed syllogistically, is nothing more than the following:
All the geological changes that have been produced
on the globe have been the work of causes identically
the same in kind, energy, and the rapidity with which
they produced their effects.
But the causes that are now giving birth to geological changes are feeble, and advance at a very slow
rate in the production of their effects. 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
Therefore, the causes under which the formation of
the stratified rocks took place, must have been similarly feeble, and advanced at a similarly slow rate in
the production of their effects.
And again:
The energy with which geological causes act, and
the rate at which they give birth to their effects, are
uniformly the same at all periods.
But the energy of the causes that are now working
changes on the earth is slight, and long periods are
occupied in the completion of their effects.
Therefore, the causes by which the strata of the
earth were produced were equally slight in their energy, and periods equally long in proportion to the
magnitude of the effects they produced, were occupied
in their completion.
The whole point to be established, is thus assumed
in the premise from which it is deduced. Itie proceeds throughout his discussion on a mistaken view
of the real question in debate-which is, what the
causes were by which the stratified rocks were formed,
and what the mode was of their agency and the
rapidity with which they wrought their effectswhich is to be determined by the nature of the effects;
not-which is the position hlie employs himself in
endeavoring to evince-whether, on the supposition
that the causes that are giving birth to geological
effects, are in nature, strength, and rate of produc
262 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 263
tion, identically like those by which all former effects
were produced, immeasurably long periods must not
have been occupied in their completion. In the one
case, those ancient effects are made the measure of
their causes; in the other, modern effects, which are
wholly inferior in magnitude, and in a large degree
of a different nature, are made their measure. Hiis
whole system is thus built on the assumption of the
premise from which it is deduced. Hie accordingly
does not generally attempt directly and absolutely to
demonstrate the solutions he suggests of the phenomena, real or presumed, which he endeavors to explain; but presents them simply as suppositions
which-admitting the postulate on which he proceeds
-furnish possible or probable explanations of them.
Thus it is by such a mere hypothesis that he endeavors to account for the great variations in the temperature of the globe, which he assumes have taken
place.
"I shall now proceed to speculate on the vicissitudes of
climate which must attend those endless variations in the
geographical features of our planet, which are contemplated
in geology.  That our speculations may be confined within
the strict limits of analogy, I shall assume, 1st, That the
proportion of dry land to sea continues always the same
2dly, That the volume of the land rising above the level of
the sea is a constant quantity; and not only that its mean, 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
but that its extreme height, are liable only to trifling variations; 3dly, That both the mean and extreme depth of the
sea are invariable; and 4thly, It may be consistent with
due caution to assume that the grouping together of the
land in great continents is a necessary part of the economy
of nature; for it is possible that the laws which govern the
subterranean forces, and which act simultaneously along certain lines, cannot but produce at every epoch continuous
mountain chains, so that the subdivision of the whole land
into innumerable islands may be precluded.
"If it be objected that the maximum of elevation of land
and depth of sea are probably not constant, nor the gathering together of all the land in certain parts, nor even perhaps the relative extent of land and water: I reply, that
the arguments about to be adduced will be strengthened, if
in these peculiarities of surface there be considerable deviations from the present type. If, for example, all other circumstances being the same, the land is at any one time more
divided into islands than another, a greater uniformity of
climate might be produced, the mean temperature remaining
unaltered; or if at another era there were mountains higher
than the Himalaya, these, when placed in high latitudes,
would cause a greater excess of cold. Or if we suppose that
at certain periods no chain of hills in the world rose beyond
a height of 10,000 feet, a greater heat might then have prevailed than is compatible with the existence of mountains
thrice that elevation.
"However constant may be the relative proportion of sea
and land, we know that there is annually some small varia
264 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 265
tion in their respective geographical positions, and that in
every century the land is in some parts raised, and in others
depressed by earthquakes, and so likewise is the bed of the
sea.  By these and other ceaseless changes, the configuration of the earth's surface has been remodelled again and
again since it was the habitation of organic beings, and the
bed of the ocean has been lifted up to the height of some of
the loftiest mountains.....
"If we now proceed to consider the circumstances required
for a general change of temperature, it will appear from the
facts and principles already laid down, that whenever a
greater extent of high land is collected in the polar regions,
the cold will augment; and the same result will be produced when there is more sea between or near the tropics;
while, on the contrary, so often as the above conditions are
reversed, the heat will be greater. If this be admitted, it
will follow, that unless the superficial inequalities of the
earth be fixed and permanent, there must be never-ending
fluctuations in the mean temperature of every zone; and
that the climate of our era can no more be the type of every
other, than one of our four seasons of all the rest.
"To simplify our view of the various changes in climate
which different combinations of geographical circumstances
may produce, we shall first consider the conditions necessary
for bringing about the extreme of cold, or what may be
termed the winter of the'great year,' or geological cycle,
and afterwards the conditions requisite to produce the maximum of heat, or the summer of the same year.
"To begin with the northern hemisphere, let us suppose
12 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
those hills of the Italian peninsula and of Sicily, which are
of comparatively modern origin, and contain fossil shells
identical with living species, to subside again into the sea
from which they have been raised, and that an extent of
land of equal area and height, varying from one to three
thousand feet, should rise up in the Arctic ocean, between
Siberia and the north pole. In speaking of such changes
I shall not allude to the manner in which I conceive it
possible they may be brought about, nor to the time required
,for their accomplishment-reserving for a future occasion
not only the proof that revolutions of equal magnitude have
taken place, but that analogous operations are still in gradual progress. The alteration now supposed in the physical geography of the northern regions would cause additional snow and ice to accumulate where now there is usually
an open sea; and the temperature of the greater part of
Europe would be somewhat lowered, so as to resemble more
nearly that of corresponding latitudes of North America;
or, in other words, it might be necessary to travel about 10~
further south to meet with the same climate which we now
enjoy. No compensation would be derived from the disappearance of land in the Mediterranean countries; but the
contrary, since the mean heat of the soil in those latitudes
is probably far above those which would belong to the sea,
by which we imagine it to be replaced
"But let the configuration of the surface be still further
varied, and let some large district within or near the tropics,
such as Mexico, with its mountains rising to the height of
twelve thousand feet and upwards, be converted into sea,
266 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA.  267
while lands of equal elevation and extent rise up in the arc tic circle. From this change there would, in the first place,
result a sensible diminution of temperature near the tropic,
for the soil of Mexico would no longer be heated by the sun,
so that the atmosphere would be less warm, as also the
neighboring Atlantic. On the other hand, the whole of
Europe, Northern Asia, and North America would be chilled
by the enormous quantity of ice and snow, thus generated
on vast heights on the new arctic continent. If, as we have
already seen, there are now some points in the Southern
hemisphere where snow is perpetual down to the level of the
sea, in latitudes as low as central England, such might
assuredly be the case throughout a great part of Europe,
under the change of circumstances above supposed; and if
at present the extreme range of drifted icebergs is the
Azores, they might easily reach the equator after the
assumed alteration. But to pursue the subject still further
-let the Himalaya mountains, with the whole of Hindostan,
sink down, and their place be occupied by the Indian Ocean,
while an equal extent of territory and mountains of the
same vast height rise up between North Greenland and the
Orkney Islands.   It seems difficult to  exaggerate  the
amount to which the climate of the Northern hemisphere
would then be cooled....
"Let us now turn from the contemplation of the winter
of the' great year,' and consider the opposite train of circumstances which would bring on the spring and summer.
To imagine all the lands to be collected together in equatorial latitudes, and a few promontories only to project beyond 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
the thirtieth parallel, would be undoubtedly to suppose an
extreme result of geological change. But if we consider a
mere approximation to such a state of things, it would be
sufficient to cause a general elevation of temperature. Nor
can it be regarded as a visionary idea that amidst the revolutions of the earth's surface, the quantity of land should, at
certain periods, have been  simultaneously lessened in the
vicinity of both the poles, and increased within the tropics.
We must recollect that even now it is necessary to ascend to
the height of fifteen thousand feet in the Andes under the
line, and in the Himalaya mountains which are without the
tropic, to seventeen thousand feet, before we reach the limits
of perpetual snow. On the northern slope, indeed, of the
Himalaya range, where the heat radiated from a great continent moderates the cold, there are meadows and cultivated
land at an elevation equal to the height of Mont Blanc.
If, then, there were no arctic lands to chill the atmosphere
and freeze the sea, and if the loftiest chains were near the
line, it seems reasonable to imagine that the highest mountains might be clothed with a rich vegetation to their summits, and that nearly all signs of frost would disappear from
the earth.
"When the absorption of the solar rays was in no region
impeded, even in winter, by a coat of snow, the mean heat
of the earth's crust would augment to a considerable depth;
and springs, which we know in general to be an index of the
mean temperature of the climate, would be warmer in all
latitudes.  The waters of lakes, therefore, and rivers, would
be much hotter in winter, and would never be chilled in
268 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF TIE STRATA.  269
summer by melted snow and ice. A remarkable uniformity
of climate would prevail amid the archipelagoes of the temperate and polar oceans, where the tepid waters of equatorial currents would freely circulate.
"We might expect, therefore, in the summer of the'great
year,' which we are now considering, that there would be a
predominance of tree-ferns and plants allied to palms and
arborescent grasses in the islands of the wide ocean, while
the dicotyledonous plants and other forms now most common in temperate regions would almost disappear from the
earth. Then might those genera of animals return, of which
the memorials are preserved in the ancient rocks of our continents. The huge iguanodon might reappear in the woods,
and the ichthyosaur in the sea, while the pterodactyle might
flit again through umbrageous groves of tree-ferns.   Coral
reefs might be prolonged once more beyond  the arctic circle, where the whale and the narwal now abound; and
droves of turtles might wander again through regions now
tenanted by the walrus and the seal.
"But not to indulge too far in these speculations, I may
observe, in conclusion, that however great during the lapse
of ages may be the vicissitudes of temperature in every zone,
it accords with this theory that the general climate should
not experience any sensible change in the course of a few
thousand years, because that period is insufficient to affect
the leading features of the physical geography of the globe."
-Principles, Book i., chap. vii., pp. 121-131.
This is perhaps the most ingenious and elaborate 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
theory presented by Sir Charles Lyell in the whole
course of his speculations to account for the geological conditions which he supposes to have once
existed; and were the reality of those conditions
admitted, it would in some respects form a plausible
solution of the effects he refers to them. Instead,
however, of being established by a scientific induction, it is a mere supposition.   Not a pretence is
made of demonstrating it by direct and indubitable
evidence. Every one of its propositions that is made
the basis of the inference he aims to sustain by it, is
preceded by an IF, tall
"As the mast
Of some great admiral."
The only consideration he offers to support it is,
that if the conditions and processes he supposes are
admitted, they seemingly furnish a natural and adequate explanation of the variations of temperature
and peculiar forms of vegetable and animal life,
which he holds characterized the earth at certain
stages of its ancient history. It contributes nothing,
therefore, towards the verification of his general
theory respecting the force by which the strata were
formed, and the vast series of ages their deposition
occupied. To treat it as a fact; to exalt it to the
rank of a positive proof of that great hypothesis; to
make it the basis of a rejection and confutation of the
270 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA.  271
testimony of the Scriptures respecting the date of the
creation of the earth, is truly an extraordinary misjutdgment.  The fact that it apparently presents an
explication of the conditions and events it is invented
to explain is no evidence of its truth. To admit the
validity of such a method of establishing a system,
would be at a blow to annihilate every fact of experience, and overthrow every truth of science. The
theory of Buffon, of Burnet, of Whiston, of La Place,
respecting the origin and laws of the world, might,
by such a process, be as effectually established as
that of Newton.
Its want of pertinence to the immediate purpose
for which he employs it is not, however, its only disqualification for the support of his system; as he
deserts in it the great postulate on which he professedly proceeds, that the forces that are producing
changes in the earth's surface act without intermission and with a uniform energy; and tacitly assumes
that those forces at certain crises operate with thousands of times their ordinary intensity, and give birth
to changes immeasurably above the usual range of
their effects; as it is inconsistent with the conditions
he prescribes to himself, to suppose that under such
a process, "the general climate should not experience
any sensible change in the course of a few thousand
years; because that period is insufficient to affect the
leading features of the physical geography of the 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
globe," which he supposes to be so wholly revolutionized. It would be impossible that such an elevation of a continent with lofty mountains in one part
of the ocean, should take place simultaneously with
a depression of an equal area of land with mountains
of the same height in another; and yet at the same
time, "the proportion of dry land to sea contimue the
same; the volume of the land rising above the sea
be a constant quantity; and not only its mean but
its extreme height be liable only to trifling variations; and both the mean and extreme depths of the
sea be invariable," unless the change took place
instantaneously, or at least was completed in so brief
a space that the period occupied in it would not be
of any geological consideration.   For on no other
condition could the proportion of dry land to sea,
the volume of land above the level of the sea, and
both the mean and extreme height of thie mountains,
continue the same. If the elevation, for example,
of the supposed continent in the sea between
Greenland and the Orkneys, took place at the
same rate as the depression of the Himalaya
mountains and IJindostan, and advanced so gradually
as to be prolonged through a vast round of ages, it is
manifest that Hiindostan would descend beneath it
thousands of years before the corresponding part of
the arctic continent could emerge from its bosom.
The submersion of Hindostan would take place in the
272 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 273
early stages of the revolution; the ascent of the other
at its close. During the vast period therefore that
intervened, the proportion of dry land to sea, and of
the volume of land rising above the level of the sea,
instead of remaining constant, would, to that extent,
be altered; and consequently an equal change would
be produced in the mean and extreme depth of the
ocean.  Moreover, as there are great inequalities in
the surface of Hiindostan, a large part consisting of
low plains, part of high table lands and elevated
valleys, and part rising into lofty mountain rangesother subordinate variations in the proportion of land
to sea would take place while the submersion was in
progress.  A depression of two to three hundred feet
would carry beneath the waters all the lower plain
of the Ganges and a wide tract along the eastern
coast of the peninsula, probably together equal to one
third of the whole. A further descent of five hundred feet would leave nothing above the waves except
the mountains, the table lands, and the high valleys
that lie between the ranges or heights of the Himalaya.. The table lands that slope from the Ghauts on
the western side of the peninsula to the opposite coast
on the bay of Bengal, rise from 1700 to 2800 or 3000
feet above the level of the ocean; and the lower of
the high valleys of the Hlimalaya, 2000 feet. They
would be submerged therefore by an additional
descent of 1200 to 2200 feet. A further depression
12* 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
of 1200 to 1500 feet would carry beneath the waters
other valleys of the Himalaya, that are at an elevation of 4000 to 4500 feet.  There would then remain
south of the Himalaya only the Vindhyan range of
mountains, running across the peninsula, north of the
Nerbudda to the western coast, and the western and
eastern Ghauts, the former of which rise from 6000
to near 9000 feet.* There would thus be five or six
stages in the submersion, at which great changes
would take place in the proportion of the land to the
sea, and of the volume of land rising above the water.
Equal variations also in the opposite direction would
result from the emergence from the ocean of those
parts of the supposed arctic continent, that would
correspond to these divisions of Hiindostan.
It is physically impossible, therefore, that the
changes he contemplates should take place without
producing repeated and great variations in the average of the extent and the volume of dry land, and of the
depth of the sea, unless they were wrought with such
rapidity that the time which they occupied should be
of no consideration. But to be accomplished with such
rapidity would require an intensity of volcanic forces
immeasurably transcending those that are ordinarily
exerted in the modification of the earth's surface.
The effects also would boundlessly surpass in magni * Macculloch's Geographical Dictionary; Articles Himalaya and
Hindostan. Guyot's Earth and Man, p. 66.
274 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 275
tude any that are now in progress, or that have happened for many ages. Such a depression of one con
tinent and elevation of another would produce movements of the ocean also, on a scale and of a violence
immensely beyond those of ordinary disturbances of
its bed by earthquakes. Wide-spreading deluges, and
the wreck of islands and continents generally, would
inevitably result from them.
Hie thus in his hypothesis completely deserts the
theory of the uniform force and activity of geological
agents, on which he founds his system; and tacitly
raises those of fire and water to so vast an energy, and
exhibits them as acting on so stupendous a scale, and
dispatching their effects with such celerity, as to discountenance and set aside the grounds on which he
builds his inference, that longperiods have been employed in the deposition and modification of the strata.
Of this purely supposititious character are many of
the other solutions which he presents of the phenomena he attempts to explain; and such are the speculations also generally of those who maintain that the
stratified rocks were formed by the geological agents
that are now in activity, and at a rate essentially the
same as that at which they produced their present
* We may indicate as examples, their theories respecting the production of gneiss, the origin of lime and chalk, the formation of salt
and coal, the causes of denudation, the sources of drift, the deposition of alluvia, the periods at which different classes of animals began
to exist, and a crowd of others. 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
effects.* They are mere conjectures or suppositions,
not demonstrated facts, and present, therefore, no
basis for a scientific induction of the inference they
found on them of the great age of the world.
QUESTIONS.
What is their second postulate which is examined in this chapter?
Is it clear from what has already been shown, that rivers had no important agency in the formation of the strata? What then are the
agents by which, according to the theory, the strata must have been
formed? What is the first objection to the theory that the strata are
the work of such causes in kind and energy as are now in activity on
the earth's surface? Ought it not to be demonstrated, instead of gratuitously assumed? Have geologists verified it by proofs? What
course does Sir C. Lyell pursue in regard to it? What is the only
consideration which he offers to prove it? But what points ought he
to establish, in order that that consideration may demonstrate that
which he alleges it as proving? Does he establish that point, or does
he take it for granted? State his argument in a syllogistic form:
first, in which all changes are affirmed to be the effects of the same
causes; and next, in which all causes are affirmed to act with the
same energy. Is it clear from these that he assumes in his premise
the whole  point which he affects to prove?  What is the question
which he should have debated? What is the question which he in
fact debates?  Does he thus try the question by a false measure?
Does he pursue this course generally in his attempts to account for
particular effects? State his mode of explaining the changes in the
temperature of the earth. Does he establish this by a scientific induction, or does he merely affirm, that if the conditions he supposes are
admitted, then the results for which he contends would follow? Is it
not wholly unphilosophical thus to substitute hypotheses for facts;
assumptions for proof? Might not the theories of Buffon, Whiston,
La Place, and the author of the Vestiges of Creation, be established
276 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRIATA.  277
by that process, as well as his theory of the changes for which he
attempts to account? Does he not also desert in it the postulate on
which he professedly proceeds, that the forces that are producing
changes on the earth act uninterruptedly, and with the same energy?
State the mistake into which he falls in the representation that if
Hindostan with the Himalaya mountains were slowly to sink beneath the ocean, and a continent of equal dimensions, a similar general surface, and like mountains, were at the same time to rise at the
same rate from the ocean between the Orkneys and Greenland, the
quantity of land that would rise above the ocean would, at any stage
of the process, precisely equal that which would descend beneath it.
Exemplify the error of that assumption. If two pyramids of equal
dimensions were to pass through such a change of positions, is it not
clear that the twenty feet of the base of the pyramid that sunk
beneath the water, while twenty feet of the apex of the other rose
out of it, would comprise hundreds and thousands of times as many
cubic feet as the apex comprised? Are many of the solutions of facts
which geologists offer as confirmations of their theory, of the same
supposititious character, and contradictory to their own principles? 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
CHAPTER XII.
False Theories of Geologists respecting the Formation of the Strata.
BUT this great postulate of their system is not only
merely hypothetical and unsupported by evidence;
it is confuted, and shown to be wholly groundless, by
the fact that many of the most extensive and
important of the geological effects which it professes
to explain, are not now in the process of production,
nor the causes to which they owed their existence
any longer in activity.  If the assumption were
correct that the forces by which geological effects are
produced are in the main at all periods identically
the same, act uniformly with the same energy, and
generate the changes to which they give birth at the
same rate, then every class of effects that has ever
resulted from their agency would continue to be
wrought by them at the present time, and on a scale
as vast as at any former period. Nothing, however,
is more certain than that many of the most important
species of those effects are no longer taking place,
and thence that the causes in which they originated
278 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA.  279
are no longer in activity, at least in the conditions
and forms in which they give rise to such products.
Such is the formation of granite.   That rock is
more extensive, exists in greater volume, and fills and
has filled a more important office in respect to the
sedimentary strata, than any other in the series. It is
far the greatest and the most significant of the effects
that are the subject of geological inquiry. It wraps,
it is generally believed, the whole circle of the globe,
and is the basis on which all the other formations
rest; and it has come into existence, or received its
present form, at least to a vast extent, since the formation of large portions of the rocks which now
repose on it. Those masses of it indisputably which
rise above the original level of the sedimentary rocks,
and form the centres of the great mountain ranges,
were formed and elevated into their present positions
after the deposition of the strata that lie on their
summits, or rest on their sides, and they are now
accordingly referred by geologists generally to the
close of the secondary, or to the tertiary period.
But no granite, so far as is known, is produced at
the present time, nor has been since the formation of
the masses that constitute the main element of the
great mountain ranges, and were the instrument by
which the sedimentary strata that clothe their sides,
and rest on many of their heights, were thrown up.
There is not the slightest proof, or probability even, 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
that a particle of it has been crystallized for ages.
What the conditions are, indeed, that are essential to
its formation, are not fully known. It is generally
held to be the result of fusion; but what the precise
combination of causes is, or what the circumstances
are in which they must act in order to unite the
ingredients of which it consists in the proportions and
forms that constitute its peculiarities, there are no
means in the present state of the science of determining.
The greatest and most important geological process
that has ever taken place on the earth's surface, and
that was wrought on its greatest scale at a late
period in the formation of the sedimentary strata, is
thus wholly unlike any that is now in progress, or has
been for ages, and confutes therefore the theory that
the forces by which the crust of the earth was formed
and modified, exist and operate with the same energy,
and give birth to the same species of effects, and on
the same scale, at all periods.
Gneiss, also micaceous, chlorite, and argillaceous
schist, quartz rock, and other species that belong to
the first series of the stratified formations, are not
now in the process of deposition, and have not been
for ages, nor are there any indications that the causes
from which they sprang are any longer in activity.
These also, though not universal, like granite, are
very extensive. They underlie very generally, as far
280 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA.  281
as is known, the secondary formation, and are, in
many localities, of immense depth. They constitute
proofs, therefore, as vast as they themselves are, that
the geological forces by which the strata have been
formed, do not act without intermission, and with an
unvarying energy, and give birth to their effects at
the same rate at all periods. If that were their law,
these rocks, instead of being confined to the primary
formation, would have been intermixed with the
whole secondary and tertiary series, and would now
be generating on as great a scale as they were in
their own proper age. Can a more emphatic confutation be asked of the doctrine, that geological causes
act at all periods with an unvarying energy?
Serpentine, greenstone, basalt, and nearly the
whole series of trap rocks, also came into existence
exclusively, so far as is known, at a period long past.
They were first thrown up, it is generally held, after
the completion of the primary series, and their epoch
appears to have closed near the commencement of
the tertiary. They were as manifestly the product
of a limited period, and owed their existence to a
condition of the globe that no longer exists, as the
formation of granite, gneiss, quartz rock, old red
sandstone, or any other rock, the production of which
has ceased. To assume, as a self-evident proposition,
that the causes by which these immense masses were
thrown up from the unfathomable depths of the earth, 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
through the vast series of crystalline, primary, and
secondary rocks, are still in uninterrupted activity,
and giving birth on an unvarying scale to the same
effects, and make that postulate the basis of a theory
of the whole series of formations, is to offer a contradiction to fact that is not often exceeded in boldness
and extravagance.
Sand, gravel, and pebbles, are still more important elements of the earth's crust, that owe their
existence to causes that are no longer in activity.
They not only form, in a great measure, the loose unstratified mass that lies on the surface of the globe,
but enter very largely into the composition of the
principal layers in every group of strata throughout
the secondary and tertiary formations-sandstones of
every class, many conglomerates, and the arenaceous
forms of shale and limestone-and constitute not improbab]y one-third of the whole mass from the lowest
to the last of the fossiliferous beds.  And they were
all formed undoubtedly by chemical forces at the
points and at the time of their deposition from the
ocean; as there are no known agents by which, had
they originated elsewhere, they could have been distributed over such vast spaces, and immixed so
equably in the strata in which they are imbedded.
Had the materials of which they consist been originally derived, as geologists maintain, from granite
continents, and borne down to the sea by rivers, they
282 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 283
still must have received their present form after their
diffusion through the waters from which thiey were
precipitated; as their structure is not now crystalline
like that of the quartz, felspar, mica, and hornblende
of granite, but granular and concretionary, and the
product therefore of a wholly different chemical
agency.  Their formation is, accordingly, one of the
greatest and most peculiar of which the surface of the
earth has been the theatre. The number of particles,
grains, pebbles, and stones of larger size, that belong
to this class in single layers of moderate extent, transcends immeasurably our powers of enumeration, and
can be grasped only by Omniscience.  How infinite
then is the multitude that constitute their whole mass!
Many of the strata of which they are the principal
ingredient, are spread over vast areas, and of great
depth. Groups of the old red sandstone are in some
localities three or four thousand feet in thickness.
Yet every one of those grains and pebbles, small or
large, is of itself a proof of the error of the doctrine
that the causes by which they were produced are still
in activity, and perpetually giving birth to similar
formations. Not a particle of sand or gravel, not a
solitary pebble or mass of larger size, like those which
are imbedded in conglomerates, has been brought into
existence for ages. The supposition is, as we have
already shown, inconsistent with the conditions that
are requisite to such concretions. The silex that is 
FALSE THEOR IES OF GEOLOGISTS
now deposited on the earth's surface, is deposited
fromn waters that are raised to an intense heat, and
instead of uniting to form sand or gravel, takes the
shape of incrustations on stems, leaves, and other
objects on which it happens to be thrown down.  As
absolute proof as the lapse of many ages, without a
solitary addition to their countless throng, can form,
exists therefore, that neither the chemical agents are
now in activity, nor the waters of the ocean in the
conditions that are requisite to their production. The
fancy that they are, is as palpably against the fact,
and as irreconcilable with the laws that now govern
the modifications of matter, as it were to inmgine that
new suns are forming in our firmament, or new moons
generating to revolve with ours around our earth.
Such is the fact, also, with lime. No deposits
of that mineral now take place on the surface, except
such as is thrown up by springs, and is derived therefore from the strata over which those waters run: and
that, on its deposition, forms a loose porous mass,
essentially unlike the limestones from which it is
drawn. Not a grain is added by the process to the
general mass of the mineral. There is only a transference of particles from earlier formations that lie at
a considerable depth, and union of them again at the
surface in a new form. But if the causes that originally gave birth to the vast beds of limestone that
occur throughout the whole series, from the earliest
284 
RESPECTING THE FORMlATION OF THE STRATA. 285
to the latest of the stratifiect rocks, are still in uninterrupted activity, and generating new deposits on as
great a scale as at former periods, why is it that none
of these new formations are noticed or discovered?
Why is it that not a particle can be shown to be
added to the aggregate?  What can be more unscientific than thus to maintain the continued activity
and undiminished energy of causes that once operated
on so immense a scale and generated such massive
products, though no fruits whatever are seen of their
present agency; though the most indisputable proofs
of their discontinuance for ages are presented in the
fact, that through that long period they have not
given birth to any of their proper effects?
Chalk was, in like manner, the product of peculiar
causes acting in peculiar circumstances for a limited
period.  It is not, like limestone, sandstone, and shales,
distributed in frequent beds throughout the whole
series of the strata, but occurs only in a single group
near the close of the secondary formation. Nor is it
generally diffused like many of the earlier and later
deposits, or found in all the localities where the other
members of the group to which it belongs occur.
Instead, it is confined to comparatively narrow limits.
"Respecting the geographical distribution of the cretaceous group.... throughout the British Islands, a large
part of France, many parts of Germany, in Poland, Swe 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
den, and in various parts of Russia, there would appear to
have been certain causes in operation, at a given period, which
produced nearly, or very nearly the same effects. The variation in the lower portion of the deposit seems merely to consist in the absence or presence of a greater or less abundance
of clays or sands, substances which we may consider as produced by the destruction of previously existing land, and as
deposited from waters which held such detritus in mechanical solution. The unequal deposit of the two kinds of matter in different situations would be in accordance with such
a supposition. But when we turn to the higher part of the
group, into which the lower portion graduates, the theory
of mere transport appears opposed to the phenomena observed, which seem rather to have been produced by deposit
from chemical solution of carbonate of lime and silex."Sir H. T. De La Beche's Manual, p. 259.'
The limitation of this formation to a single period
and to a narrow area, is thus wholly irreconcilable
with the theory that geological causes act at all periods
and with a uniform energy. If that postulate were
true, chalk should exist, and on as great a scale in the
different groups of the primary and earlier classes of
the secondary formations, as it does in the series to
which it gives its chief characteristic.   It should
occupy a proportional place also among the tertiary
strata, and be in the process of formation at the present time. No indications appear, however, of such
formations since the commencement of the tertiary
286 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF TIE STRATA. 287
period. Can a more decisive proof be demanded of
the error of that postulate?  Can a proposition be
advanced in more direct and palpable repugnance to
facts?
Rock salt, in like manner, instead of being inter spersed like sandstone, limestone, and shale, through
the whole succession of the strata, as the theory of
the uniform activity and energy of geological causes
requires, is mainly confined to a single era. There are
examples, indeed, of the rise of salt springs, as in this
State, from the New York or Silurian system. Even
they, however, are generally associated with the new
red sandstone, or the groups with which that is immediately connected; and rock salt itself occurs chiefly
in that formation. Though found in every quarter of
the globe, it is not, like sandstone and shale, a universal deposit, but exists only in patches, or districts
widely separated from each other. It is in some
localities several hundred feet in thickness. Geologists, however, instead of being able to point out any
exemplification in the processes that are now going
forward of the mode in which it was formed, have
not hitherto succeeded in presenting any probable
theory of its origin.
"It is not surprising that the origin of rock-salt has been
a subject of much inquiry among geologists; yet nothing
like a rational theory has yet been offered. It is far easier 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
to show that the most simple and obvious hypothesis is
wrong or imperfect than to propose a probable one. The
origin of gypsum is not less mysterious, even with every conjecture we can make respecting the presence and acidification of sulphur; yet this inquiry has never excited the same
anxiety. No rational explanation has yet been suggested;
and I have none to offer. But we must seek for the greater
ambition of geologists on the subject of salt, in their wish to
derive these deposits from the waters of the ocean in a simple and direct manner; seizing on one obvious analogy only,
to the neglect of other possible modes of explanation. That
it has been the produce of the ocean is possible, since the
rocks among which it is found are indebted for their existence to the same source.- Yet no obvious method of accounting for its peculiar appearances or limitation can be engrafted
on that general admission; while it were as well for geology, and in other matters than this, if they who deposit
pure rock salt in the Mediterranean at this day, would learn
at least as much of chemistry as the' Chemist' of three blue
bottles. The desiccation of saline lakes will not account
for it, because subterranean salt is far more pure than that
which must be the produce of the evaporation of the sea.
The mode in which it is disposed will not admit of this
explanation; and still less can any system of evaporation
account for the concretionary structure of the salt of Cheshire.
"To these difficulties it must be added that the depth of
sea-water required to produce in this manner some of the
larger masses known in Europe, is incomprehensible.   It
288 
RESPECTING TIEE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 289
might also be asked why marine organic bodies have never
been found in or near it, and wherefore it is accompanied by
gypsum.   As it is lastly true that the strata which lie
above it have been deposited from the ocean, it is impossible to comprehend how, under these circumstances, evaporation could have taken place. The subject is beset with
difficulties-fortunately for the cultivators of a science which
would lose the greater part of its attractions were there
nothing left for them to explain. As to the theory which
derives it from volcanic actions, it seems useless to discuss
such a question, when no volcanic rocks accompany these
deposits in the sandstone, and when, with some very slender
exceptions, deposits of salt are not found attending on this
class of rocks. Were this the cause, it would remain also
to be explained why it is limited to the red marl." —Ilaccullocli's Geology, vol. ii., pp. 293, 294.
"We shall not call in question that gem-salt, either pure
or mixed with muriatiferous clay, may have been deposited
by an ancient sea; but everything evinces that it was formed
diring, an order of things bearing no resemblance to that in
w/lich the sea at present, by a slower operation, deposits a few
particles of mnrtiate of soda onil the sands of our shores."Hrumboldt's Narrative, vol. ii., p. 262.
It is thus the product almost exclusively of a few
periods, an       d        of causes or circumstances so obscure and
peculiar t        ha t  n o  satisfactory theory can be formed of
th    eir natur e.  It presents a resistless confutation,
therefore, of the postulate, that the causes of geologi
13 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
cal effects are always in activity, and giving birth to
their several results on the same scale. Why, if that
be true, are not masses of rock salt found at every
stage in the series, firom the primary formations to
the close of the tertiary? Why are they not now in
the process of deposition in the bays and gulfs of the
sea?
Coal is likewise the product of peculiar causes and
a limited period; and of causes or conditions, that, so
far from being understood, are as much in debate
among geologists, as the origin of rock salt.  That it
was formed beneath the ocean and mainly of vegetables that had their growth on the land, are the only
points in respect to which they are in any considerable measure agreed. It is held by one class that
those vegetables grew where the coal lies, and by
another that they were transported from a distance by
rivers and currents. Some maintain that it had its
origin in peat; and others in arborescent ferns and
forest trees.  That the principal beds are of a single
period, proves that the causes by which they were
generated acted only at that epoch; and that they are
confined to a few limited areas, shows that they acted
only in those scenes, and confutes the doctrine accordingly that the geological agents by which the strata
were formned, have acted at all periods, and given
birth to their effects at a uniform rate.
Coal ought, on that theory, to be found in as great
290 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA.  291
abundance in the primary and tertiary series as in the
secondary, and to be forining as visibly and rapidly
at the present period as any other geological effect
that is now taking place.
But besides these and other classes of effects that
were peculiar to the eras when they were brought
into existence, and sprung from causes that are no
longer in activity, it is equally apparent that some of
thegeological agents that are still producing changes
on the earth's surface, instead of operating at all times
with the same energy, must have acted during the
formation of the strata with far greater intensity and
on a much wider area than at present. This is admitted by many geologists.
"Although it is maintained in one of the most popular
geological systems that the powers of nature are as active
and energetic at the present as in ancient periods, still, after
a survey of the whole subject, and of the evidence on which
those views rest, doubts of their correctness remain in the
minds of most geologists. That a more quiescent state would
now prevail, and that the former violence of the elements
should be restrained, or rather become more feeble by a
more equable balance of the forces which act and react on
each other, is agreeable to reason and the benevolence of
the Great Architect of the universe."- nEtmons's Geology
of the Second District of Neaw York, p. 17.
Thus the ocean, either from chemical elements im 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
mixed in it, the motion of its waters in tides and cuLrrents, or other causes, must have had a power of diffusing the materials of the strata that were introduced
into it, over wide areas, that is altogethler unknown at
the present period. There are many strata of sandstone, limestone, and shale, that originally extended,
there is reason to believe, without interruption, many
hundreds, and perhaps even thousands of miles, the
elements of which, therefore, as they were deposited
at the same epoch o-;er the whole area, must have
been interfused through the whole body of the waters.
And where the beds, after solidification, are fifty, one
hundred, or perhaps several hundred feet in thickness, as the materials cannot all have been supported
by the waters at the same time, the agents by which
they were transported to the place of deposition must
hlave continued in activity for a considerable period.
But no such power of holding matter in solution or
suspension, and distributing it over vast areas, is now
displayed by the ocean. The clay, sand, gravel, and
ashes that are now introduced into it by streams or
volcanic eruptions, are thrown down near the points
where they enter its waters, and produce no change
whatever on its bottom generally. The slight force
with which it now acts, and the narrow spaces to
which its effects are confined, scarcely present an
analogy to the vast scale on which it operated at
earlier periods and the massy results to which it gave
292 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF TIUE STRATA. 293
birth. To take the power with which it now acts as
the gauge of its energy at former epochs, is as unauthorized and unphilosophical, as it were to make the
slighlt effects which it now produces the measure of
those of all other ages.
Next: The action of the ocean on the continents
and islands in the erosion of mountain ranges, denidation of hills, or level tracts of strata, and scooping
of valleys, which took place on a stupendous scale at
former epochs, has no parallel in its present agency.
Instead of sweeping over the land in resistless deluges,
cutting passages for itself through rocky barriers, and
ploughing channels betwixt the hills and across plains,
it is now confined to its decreed place, and its proud
waves are stayed by the limits God has assigned it.
No greater contrast can be conceived than that which
the limited energy with which it now acts in its narrow sphere, presents to the resistless power with which
in former ages it swept the continents and islands,
tore asunder their rocky ranges, cut deep gorges
through the strata, and transported to new positions
vast masses of the loose earths that form the present
surface.
The fires, in like manner, that burn in the depths
of the earth, and have acted a more important part
than any other agent in producing the changes that
have taken place on the surface, exerted their power
on an immeasurably greater scale in former ages than
at present. 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
This is seen from the immense formations at early
epochs of granite, of which none, so far as is known,
is now in the process of production.
It is seen from the vast masses of porphyry, greenstone, basalt, and other rocks of that class that are of
volcanic origin, which are wholly the product, it is
generally held, of the secondary, or the first stages of
the tertiary period.
It is seen also from the great number of volcanoes
in every part of the globe, once active and disgorging
immense masses of lava, that have now for many ages
been wholly extinct.  The number that now burii
without intermission is very small. They once
amounted, there is reason to believe, to many tholsands.
It is demonstrated in a still more striking mainner,
in the universal changes they produced in the surface
in the upheaval and dislocation of the strata, and the
elevation of the hills and mountains. These great
effects are now referred by geologists universally to
subterranean fires, or the evolution of heat by processes
causing an intense fusion and expansion of the materials on which it acted;  and the energies by whlichl
they were wrought must have immeasurably surpassed the most powerful that are now exerted in
earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. All the expansive forces that have shaken the earth for ages united,
would have been wholly inadequate, there is reason
to believe, to throw up the Andes, the Himalaya, or
294 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 295
the Alps. This is admitted by many geologists, who
nevertheless maintain that vast periods have been
occupied in the formation of the strata.
"If now we withdraw ourselves from the turmoil of volcanoes and earthquakes, and cease to measure them by the
effects which they have produced upon our imaginations,
we shall find that the real changes they cause on the earth's
surface are but small, and quite irreconcilable with those
theories which propose to account for the elevation of vast
mountain ranges, and for enormous and sudden dislocations
of strata, by repeated earthquakes acting invariably in the
same line, thus raising the mountains by successive starts of
five or ten feet at a time, or by catastrophes of no greater
importance than a modern earthquake.   It is useless to
appeal to time; time can effect no more than its powers are
capable of performing; if a mouse be harnessed to a large
piece of ordnance, it will never move it, even if centuries on
centuries could be allowed; but attach the necessary force,
and the resistance is overcome in a minute."-H    1. De
La Beehe's Maqzual, p. 131.
The vast chlanges indeed that have been produced
on the earth's surface, so far transcend the forces that
are now in activity, as to render the supposition that
they have resulted from their operation, an extravagance unworthy of the support of men of judgment
and science.
This great postulate of their theory is thus, like the 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
other, Vwholly iTeconcilable with the i'fCts of geology,
and the laws of chemical and mnechlanical frces.  So
far from having resulted from the agents that are now
producing changes on the crust of the globe, and acting with their present energy, all the great processes
by which the principal rocks, from the earliest to the
latest, have been formed, have sprung from causes
and conditions that were peculiar to the epochis when
they were produced, and are no longer in existence; 
while the energy exerted at former periods by some
of the agents that are now in activity, and the spaces
on which they acted, were immeasurably greater than
at present. The overthrow of that postulate involves
the confutation accordingly of the inference founded
on it of the vast age of the world. As the strata cannot have been formed by the feeble agents and slow
processes which that postulate represents, the inadequacy of those agents to a rapid production of such
stupendous effects, is no proof that immeasurable
periods-which would add nothing to the strength or
efficiency of such causes-must have been occupied
in their production. That an insect would be unable
to drag a heavy mass of matter from its place, though
the effort was prolonged for countless ages, presents
no ground for the conclusion that a similar period
would be required for its removal by an elephant or
a steam locomotive.  Yet it is on such a transparent
fallacy that the whole deduction proceeds of the vast
296 
RESPECTING T'IfE FORMATION OF TIaE STRATA.  297
age of the world, from the tardy rate at which geological causes are now giving birth to their several
effects.
These main foundations of their theory being thus
overthirown, the only ground that remains for its support, is that which is supposed to be furnished by the
vegetable and animal relics that are imbedded in the
strata. But their inference fromn them of the great
age of the world, is equally unauthorized and unphilosophical.
In the first place, it is, like their other arguments,
founded, in a great measure, on their theory of the
agents and processes by which the strata were formed;
not on the nature, condition, or mass of those relics
themselves; and is built, therefore, on an assumption
of the point which it professes to demonstrate.
In the next place: Neither the masses of those fossilized relics, nor the conditions in which they are preserved, present any decisive, or probable evidence
that the immense periods which geologists assume
were occupied in their growth and deposition. In
respect to the coal formations, for example, lignites,
and other vegetable fossils, the supposition of vast
periods is not requisite at all to account for the growth
of sufficient masses of vegetables to constitute such
deposits. The vegetables existing on the globe at a
single epoch, were they gathered into spaces commensurate with those that are occupied by the mine                          13* 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
ralized vegetables, are enough, not improbably, to
constitute deposits of equal bulk. The difficulty,
accordingly, of accounting for their vast dimensions,
does not lie at all in their quantity, but in their transportation to the places of their deposition. But that
is not obviated in any degree, by the supposition that
great periods were occupied in its accomplishment.
That supposition, indeed, is forbidden by the condition of the coal strata. That the leaves, stems, and
trunks, of which they are formed, neither grew in the
places of their deposition, nor were transported there
gradually through a series of ages, is clear from the
fact that they had undergone no decay, but retained
their structure and forms uninjured when the process
of their fossilization commenced. Had a long period
passed during the accumulation of a stratum, those
that were first deposited would have been decomposed, and changed into vegetable mould. The lowest
layers, however, of beds that are ten, twelve, or fourteen feet in thickness, exhibit no traces of such a decomposition. The forms of the stems and leaves are
there as distinct and perfect as in the layers at the
upper surface.   Had they been  transported,  and
slowly accumulated there by streams and currents
charged by detritus from continents or islands, there
would have been a large mixture in them of earthy
particles, such as now takes place in the deposition of
trees, plants, and leaves at the mouths of rivers. But
298 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF THE STRATA. 299
no such foreign ingredients are intermingled with
them.  The main beds consist, throughout their whole
mass, of pure vegetable matter.  These facts demonstrate, therefore, both that they were transported from
other sites, and that their accumulation, deposition,
and the first steps of their fossilization, were accomplished with great rapidity.
Nor are vast periods any more necessary to account
for the animal relics that are buried in the strata. So
far from it, the slightness of these remains presents a
resistless demonstration that no such incalculable series
of ages, as geologists assume, can have elapsed during
their deposition. It is infinitely incredible, had the
ocean and extensive continents and islands, been peopled through such immeasurable periods as thickly
as they now are, that their relics would not have been
imbedded in vastly greater numbers and masses in
the strata   This is too apparent to admit of dispute
in respect to all vertebrate animals, both of the land
and the sea. If all the relics of those classes that
have hitherto been found in different localities, are
taken as a measure of the quantity that lies buried
throughout the globe in the strata to which they belong, the whole mass can scarcely exceed the number
that subsists at the present epoch —certainly not the
crowds that people the land and sea in the lapse of
one or two centuries, Of this any one may convince
himself, who considers how countless the multitudes 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
were of the wild animals that lived on this continent
three centuries ago, or how innumerable they and
the flocks and iherds of tame animals are at the present period: what infinite hosts of fish people the
waters of the torrid zone; and what armies of cod,
mackerel, herring, and other tribes swarm at certain
seasons on the coasts of New England, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia.   Miultitudes equivalent to
these, a few times repeated, would equal, there is reason to believe, the whole of like classes that are
entombed in the strata.  The difficulty in accounting
for their deposition, accordingly arises, not from the
greatness, but rather from the slightness of their numbers, compared to the period during which they may
have been accumulating.   Two or three centuries
seem as adequate to their production as fifteen or
twenty.
Such is the fact also with the relics of testaceous
and infusorial animals, which exist on a scale, and are
multiplied with a rapidity as much greater proportionally, than the vertebrate classes, as their dimensions are less than theirs. The seas along the shores
in every part of the globe, but especially in the equatorial and temperate climes, swarm with infinite hosts
of testaceous animals.  Thus Mr. Darwin relates:
"The kelp" of the sea in high southern latitudes, sometimes-" grows to the length of sixty fathoms and upwards.
Soo 
RESPECTING THE FORM ATION OF THE STRATA.  301
... Captain Fitz Roy found it growing up from the depth
of forty-five fathoms.
"The number of living creatures of all orders whose existence intimately depends on the kelp, is wonderful. A great
volume might be written describing the inhabitants of one
of these beds of sea-weed. Almost all the leaves, except
those that float on the surface, are so thickly incrusted with
corallines as to be of a white color. We find exquisitely
delicate structures, some inhabited by simple hydra-like
polypi, others by more organized kinds, and beautiful compound Ascidise. On the leaves also, various patelliform
shells, trochi, uncovered molluscs, and some bivalves, are
attached.  Innumerable crustacea frequent every part of
this plant.  On shaking the great entangled roots, a pile of
small fish, shells, cuttlefish, crabs of all orders, sea-eggs,
star-fish,  beautiful holuthurnioe,  planarioe, and  crawling
nereidous animals of a multitude of forms, all fall out
together. Often as I recurred to a branch of the kelp, I
never failed to discover animals of new and curious structures."-Darwin's Voyag,e of the Beagle, p. 240.
]But the infusorial tribes pervade the waters at
every point, and in some localities on a scale in numbers as far transcending that of the larger animals as
their bulk is less.   They swarm in such incalculable
multitudes in some localities, as to give their color to
the whole mass of the water over large areas.
"During a run of fifty leagues, the sea was constantly of
an olive green color, remarkably turbid, but it then changed 
FALSE THlEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
to a transparent blue. The green appearance of the sea in
these latitudes I formerly ascertained to be occasioned by an
innumerable quantity of small molluscous animals of a yellowish color contained in it. A calculation of the number
of these animals in a space of two miles square and 220
fathoms deep, gave an amount of 23,888,000,000,000."Scoresby's Journal of a Voyage to the Northern Whale Fishery, 1822, p. 18. See also pp. 351, 353.
"We entered on a zone where the whole sea was covered
with prodigious quantities of medusas. The vessel was
almost becalmed, but the mollusca were borne towards the
southeast with a rapidity four times that of the current.
Their passage lasted near three-quarters of an hour. We
then perceived but a few scattered individuals following the
crowd at a distance, as if tired with the journey." —HLmboldt's Narrative, vol. i., p. 72.
These and other forms of infusorial animals existed
not improbably in far greater multitudes at those
epochs in the formation of the strata, when the waters
of the seas were charged alternately with much
greater quantities than at present of silex and lime.
The vast scale on which they exist, and the rapidity
with which they succeed each other, is such, therefore, that instead of a long series of ages being requisite to account for the masses in which they are accumulated in certain localities, it would be inexplicable
had such incalculable periods passed, that their relics
had not risen to an immeasurably greater bulk. The
802
4' 
RESPECTING THE FORMTION OF THE STRATA.  303
cause, if supposed to act through an innumerable
series of ages, would as far transcend the magnitude
of the effect, as the vertebrate and testaceous animals
of such incalculable periods would exceed in number
the relics of their classes that are imbedded in the
strata.
The whole ground on which they have founded
their induction of the great age of the globe, is thius
swept from beneath them.  They not only have not
established their theory by legitimate and adequate
proofs; they have not advanced a solitary consideration that yields it support.  Their whole argument
proceeds on postulates that are gratuitously assumed,
and that are in blank contradiction both to all the
great facts of the science and the laws themselves of
matter.  That so mistaken a system should  have
gained the assent and advocacy of so large a body of
studious and talented men, is truly a matter of astonishment.   The fact, indeed, that they universally
and unhesitatingly concur in assigning a vast period
to the formation of the strata, is sometimes alleged as
a proof of the validity and amplitude of the evidence
on which their judgment is founded. The unanimity
and ardor with which they maintain it, and the disquietude and not infrequently discourtesy with which
they receive a doubt of its truth, are certainly remarkable. Their concurrence, however, is seen to be
entitled to but little weight, when it is considered 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS
that it is almost absolutely confined to this branch of
their speculations-that there is not another question
in the whole range of their system, in regard to which
they do not entertain a wide diversity of opinion.
They are not agreed, for example, whether the world,
at its creation, was in a gaseous or in a solid form.
They are not agreed in respect to the processes by
which granite, gneiss, schist, and the other primary
rocks were produced. They are not agreed in respect
to the point at which the secondary series commences,
the order of the strata, the sources from which some
of their elements were drawn, nor the agencies to
which they owe their peculiar structure. They differ
in respect to the point at which vegetable and animal
life commenced, and the forms which it first assumed.
They entertain the most diverse and absurd opinions
respecting the origin of limestone, coal, gypsum, chalk,
magnesia, iron, and salt. They hold conflicting views
in regard to the state of the globe at the epoch of the
different formations, the forces by which the strata
were dislocated, the causes by which the mountains
were upthrown, the period at which land animals
were first called into existence, and the origin of the
races that now inhabit the globe. They differ likewise, to the extent of countless ages, in regard to the
period that has elapsed during the formation of the
strata. In short, beyond the simple facts that the
strata have been formed since the creation of the earth,
304 
RESPECTING THE FORMATION OF TIIE STRATA.  305
that chemical and mechanical forces of some kind
were the principal agents in their deposition, and that
the fossilized forms that are imbedded in them once
belonged to the vegetable and animal worlds-there
is scarce a topic of any moment in the whole circle
of the science, in respect to which they do not maintain very diverse opinions; there is scarce a solitary
point so fully ascertained as to be placed beyond
doubt.  Their unanimity in assigning a vast round of
ages to the world, while they thus disagree in repect
to the nature of the processes to wtich they suppose
those inca7cu7lable ages qwere reuisite, instead therefore of giving strength to their induction, indicates
that the grounds on which it rests are mistaken.
Whlat can be more absurd than to suppose that an
inference erected on such a mere mass of gratuitous
assumptions and disputable theories, can be entitled
to the rank of a philosophic induction?  WVhat can
be more preposterous than to dignify a branch of
knowledge in which there is so little that is settled,
and so much that is in debate, with the lofty title of
an accurate science?  It cannot, as a whole, rise any
higher, in a demonstrative relation, than the parts of
which it consists; the conclusion cannot acquire any
greater validity, than the postulates possess from
which it is drawn.
They have not then, as their theory represents,
unfolded and established a series of facts that are at 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS.
variance with the scriptural history of the creation,
and that render it certain that the earth had, at the
epoch at which that dates its existence, already subsisted through innumnerable ages; nor is there anything in their discoveries that detracts in the least
from that inspired narrative. So far from it, as their
speculations are built throughout on hypotheses, not
upon facts; as their inference is drawn from supposititions conditions and imagined processes, not from
causes and conditions that are real and capable of
being verified; the fancy that they have convicted
the sacred record of error, and demonstrated the vast
age which they assign to the world by unanswerable
evidence, is as groundless and mnistalen as it were to
imagine that the scriptural account of the creation is
confuted by Buffon's hypothesis, or that Newton's
theory of the motions of the planets is overthrown by
Descartes' fancied vortices. The history of the creation in Genesis remains untouched.   If it is to be
controverted, it must be by proofs, not by assumptions; by arguments founded on a real, not on a
supposititious world. When, however, the question
of its truth is tried by its proper criteria, it will be
found-as we  shall show,-that  instead of being
confuted, it is corroborated by all the facts of the
strata, and all the laws that govern the action of
geological forces.
306 
FALSE TIEORIES O  F GEOLOGISTS.
QUESTIONS.
What is the second objection to the theory respecting the uniform
action of the causes by which the strata and other rocks that constitute the surface of the. earth were formed? If their theory were true,
would rocks, and formations of all kinds that were produced in the
early ae,ges of the globe, continue to be produced on a similar scale
now? Is it a fact, however, that none of the most important classes
of rocks are now in the process of formation? What is the first and
most important species to which no accessions are now making?
Describe it.   What is the second?   Describe it and its extent.
What is the third? How extensive is it? What other elements of
the earthis crust are not now in the process of augmentation? Are
sand, gravel, and pebbles important constituents of the earth's crust?
How were they probably formed? Is there any reason to believe,
that one of this infinite multitude of granules, or large masses, has
been formed for ages?  How is it with lime?  Are there any additions made to the mass? How is it with chalk? Was the formation
of that, confined to a limited period?  Is that admitted and maintained by geologists?  How is it with rock-salt?  Is that distributed
like sandstone and limestone through the whole series of the strata;
or is it confined within narrow limits? Is coal confined mainly to
one great division of the strata, called for that reason, the carboniferous, not distributed through thre whole?
Is it apparent also, that some of the geological agents that are
still producing effects on the earth's surface, are not now acting with
more than a moderate share of the energy with which they exerted
their powers during the formation of the strata? Is this admitted
by geologists? Is this true of the ocean? What is the first class of
effects in respect to which this is apparent? What is the second class
of effects in respect to which it is manifest? Is it true in regard to
volcanic fires? Point out proofs of it. Is this admitted by geologists?
What is the testimony of Sir T. H. De La Beche, respecting it?
Do these several considerations show that this postulate of their
307 
FALSE THEORIES OF GEOLOGISTS.
theory, instead of being legitimate, is inconsistent with the facts of
geology, and the laws of matter? What else do they allege to sustain their theory of the great age of the world? What is the first
objection to their argument from the vegetable and animal remains
that are buried in the strata? What is the second objection? Are
there positive proofs in the condition of the great mass of fossilized
vegetables, that they cannot have been accumulated and buried by a
slow process, but must have been enveloped in the earthy matter in
which they are interred, in vast masses at once, before decay had
commenced?   Is there any reason to suppose vast periods were
requisite for the generation of the animals that are entombed in the
strata? Is the number of those relics greater than the sea and land
might have supplied in a very few centuries? Is it not incredible that
if millions of ages, as geologists maintain, had passed while the fossiliferous strata were forming, an incalculably greater number
would not have existed, and their relics been incorporated in the
strata? Is not this preeminently certain in respect to the testaceous
and infusorial tribes?  State some of the proofs that they swarm in
infinite numbers, both in the cold and the warm latitudes?
Is the whole ground on which they found their inference of the
great age of the world, thus swept from beneath them, and the whole
fabric of their theory shown to be based upon unauthorized assumptios, instead of facts?
308 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.
CHAPTER XIII.
The Materials of the Strata, derived from the Interior of the Earth.
THE great question in theoretical geology on which
the conclusion in regard to the age of the worldfounded on the structure of its rocky crust —depends,
respects the sources from which the materials of the
strata were derived.   If they are held to have been
such that immeasurable periods were required for
their removal and deposition in their present form,
then an existence of corresponding length is to be
ascribed to the earth. If they are held and shown to
have been such that but a brief period was necessary
to their transference and arrangement in the positions
in which they now lie, then there are no geological
grounds for assigning it a longer existence than that
which is ascribed to it by the Maker himself in the
history hlie has given us in his word of its creation.
Whatever views, however, may be entertained ox
that subject, it will be admitted by all who regard
the earth as the work of the All-wise and Almighty
Creator, that they were specifically designed by him,
and the causes and conditions from which they sprang
309 
TiE MATERI.&LS OF TIlE STRATA
arranged for the purpose of giving them existence
They are not the offspring of chance. They are not
the accidental work of causes that might not have
acted, or that might have generated a wholly different
product, without affecting the end for which they
were created. The marks of intelligence and benevolence with which they are everywhere stamped,
and the important office they fill in determining the
condition of the race, forbid such a supposition. It
is by them, in an eminent degree, that the world is
fitted to be the residence of such an order of beings
as men;-beings that  are fallen, that are to be
divided into different communities, and subsist under
separate governments; that are capab)le of civilization, of arts, of commerce, and of great advances in
knowledge; that are to gain the means of subsistence
and comfort by toil and ingenuity; and that are to
be placed in a great diversity of conditions, that they
may in every possible form act out their natures, and
show the moral dispositions with which they are animated towards God and one another.  This constitution of the earth has, accordingly, exerted a most
decisive influence on their physical, social, and moral
condition. It is in a very large degree because its
crust is what it is, in the proportion of the land and
water; in the form and position of the continents and
islands; in the direction and height of mountains;
and in the nature and situation of rocks, soils, and
310 
DERIVED FROM TIIE INTERIOR OF THiE EARTH. 311
minerals, that the life and career of the human family
have been what they have; and that the condition
of the several branches of which it consists is now
what it is, in respect to knowledge, arts, government,
and religion. A different arrangement of even a few
of its features would have made it in important
respects a different world, changed the relations to
each other of large portions of its population, given a
different direction to their pursuits, generated other
empires, and issued in a different history.  Had the
Alps, for example, instead of separating Italy from
France, divided France from Germany, it would have
given a different caste to the whole history of ancient
and modern Europe. Had the Himalaya, with their
lofty table lands, in place of dividing IHindostan from
Thibet, been interposed between Germany and Russia, the climate, the productions, and the population
would have been essentially changed, and the agency
of the different tribes on one another, both in Europe
and Central Asia, beeni altogether unlike what they
have been.   Had Africa, instead of projecting firom
Europe to the south, stretched to the west, and joined
this continent, it would have given a different turn,
in a great degree, to the affairs of the whole world.
America nmight then have been known, perhaps, to
both Europe and Asia many ages ago;  and been
invaded by hostile armies from Africa, or Afiica been
conquered by the tribes of this western world. Eu 
THE MATERIALS OF TIIE STRATA
lope and the Atlantic side of North America would
then have been isolated from the southern part of the
globe, and could have had no such commerce, and
thence no such arts, and therefore no such eminence
in wealth, cultivation, and power, as they now enjoy.
Hiad South America extended to the Pole, and had
the islands that lie southward from Malacca joined
that peninsula, and rising into a continent stretched
down to the region of perpetual ice, the three great
southern oceans would have been isolated; there
then could have been no circumnavigation of the
globe, and consequently there could have been no
general commerce.
The existence also of such strata as constitute the
surface of continents and islands, and their upheaval
and dislocation in their present bform, have had an
almost equal influence on the pursuits and character
of the nations that occupy them. Hilad it not been
for the metals that were imbedded in them, there
could have been neither arts nor commerce. Hiad it
not been, for example, for the tin, iron, lime, and coal
that were deposited beneath the soil of Great Britain,
she could neither have had such an agriculture, such
manufactures, nor such navigation.  IHad not the
strata in which they and other important minerals
are lodged, been elevated from their original position, broken into fragments, and exposed at the
surface, they wvould have remained unknown, or from
312 
DERIVED FROM TIE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 313
their inaccessibleness been without use; and she
would have had but a barren soil and a scanty and
uncultured population.   It is thus  by the provision of these means from which all the implements
and enginery, and most of the materials of the arts
are drawn, that man is armed with his power over
the earth and sea, and made capable of appropriating
them to his use, and rendering them the instruments
of subsistence, comfort, and progress in all the forms
of cultivation.
It is apparent, therefore, from the momentous influence it was thus to exert, that the investiture of the
earth with such a surface was expressly designed by
the Creator, and held an important place in the great
systemn of measures by which it was to be prepared
to be the habitation of men. It was an indispensable
condition to his placing them in such situations, and
exercising over them such a providential administration as he has; and thence a necessary condition to
their being subjected to such a discipline, made capable of such pursuits and acquisitions, and exerting
such agencies as have constituted the great features
of their physical, social, political, and in an important
sense, also, their moral history. N'o part of the constitution of the world has drawn after it a more important train of consequences. No part of it bears
more clear and emphatic proofs that it had its origin
in the sovereignty, wisdom, and benevolence of its
14 
THE  ATERIALS OF THE STRATA
author, and held a conspicuous place in his great
scheme, as the Ruler of the world. Whatever, then,
the causes were of the formation of the strata, they
are to be regarded as hlaving been expressly assigned
to that work, and armed with the requisite power for
its accomplishment; and whatever the sources were
from which the materials of the strata were drawn,
they were arranged by him in their several places,
with a direct reference to the agents by which they
were to be transferred to their present positions, and
the uses to which they are now appropriated. The
means and conditions were fitted to the results that
were to be attained, with the same intelligence and
skill that mark the adaptation of other physical
causes to the effects which God employs them to
produce.
This great truth is to be borne in mind in our inquiries in respect to the agents and processes to which
the strata owve their existence. Instead of having
come into being aside from the great purposes of the
Almighty, or sprung from causes whose proper office
was to produce a different class of effects, they are
the work of agents, and the result of conditions that
were expressly appointed for their production, and
that, on completing them, had accomplished their
mission. They are themselves as absolute proofs of
the existence and agency of such causes in such conditions, and for that end, as the world itself is of the
314 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF TIlE RAR ii. 315
existence and agency of its cause. The fact that the
agents by whichl they were produced, ceased to give
birth to such effects, is a proof also that those agents
are either no longer in existence, or at least no longer
in activity in the circumstances that are requisite to
the generation of such products. And the limitation
of the effect to the point at which it terminates, was
accordingly as much a matter of arrangement, as the
agency was of the causes by which that effect was
carried to that extent.
With these views, then, of the place which the
present constitution of the globe holds in the great
scheme of the divine administration, and the certainty
that it is the result of causes and conditions that were
expressly ordained to its production, let us inquire
whence it was that the materials were derived that
constitute the present surface of the earth, that has
been formed since the creation of the globe itself.
Two theories have been entertained by geologists
on this subject.  Tlie first is that which was advanced
by Werner, who maintained that the whole rocky
and earthy mass of the strata was originally held in
solution by the waters of the ocean, and was gradually deposited by the agency of chemical and niechanical causes. But that is now universally rejected;
as the waters of the ocean are wholly inadequate to
the solution of such a quantity of matter; as there
are no chemical forces by which such a mass and 
THE IMATERIAI,S OF THE STRATA
combination of elements could be at once held in solution in any volume of water however great; and no
known laws of chemical agents by which such mixed
substances held in solution could be separated and
assorted in such a manner as to form strata differing in their composition like those of the crust of
the earth. Instead of furnishing any explanation of
the problem which it professes to solve, it embarrasses and confounds it by false assumptions and palpable contradictions to the laws of matter.
The other theory is that now generally held, which
represents the materials of the strata as having been
drawn from pre-existing continents and islands of
granite, that were gradually disintegrated, borne
down by streams to the sea, and spread by tides and
currents over its bottom. But this, as was shown in
a former chapter, is equally groundless and unphilosophical; as there are no proofs that such continents
and islands ever existed; while it is certain from the
elevation which is ascribed to them, and from the
laws that govern the disintegration and transportation of such masses, that they cannot have been the
source of the materials from which the strata were
formed. 
But if the materials of the earth were neither
originally held in solution in the waters of the ocean,
nor derived by disintegration from pre-existing continents and islands, it is manifest that, at least in the
316 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 317
main, they must have been drawn from the interior
of the globe. We shall, accordingly, endeavor, to
show that that was their origin; and that it supersedes the necessity of assigning to the earth any
earlier date than that which is ascribed to it by the
history in Genesis of the creation and deluge.
In order to accomplish this, it is not necessary that
we should demonstrate directlyr'om the strata themselves, that they were thrown up from the depths of
the earth, and arranged in their present form wiithin
thte pcriod that is implied in the Mosaic history of the
world from its creation to the remodification of its
surface at the deluge. All that it is requisite for us
to prove, is simply that it was compatible with the
laws of nature, and therefore possible and probable;
as that being shown, the consistency of the facts of
geology with the Scriptures is established. And that
we shall accomplish by proving tirst, that all the
ingredients that enter into the composition of the
different species of rocks and soils, originally existed
in masses in the interior of the earth; next, that vast
volumes of them have been thrown up from the
depths where they were first placed, and become
parts of the present surface of the earth; and thirdly,
that there have been agents in the proper conditions,
and of sufficient force, to have ejected the whole body
of the sedimentary strata, and within the periods
during which, according to the sacred narrative, they 
THE MAITERIALS OF THiE STRATA
must have been formed. If these points are established, as the formation of the strata will be shown
to have been practicable within the period that
elapsed from the creation to the change of the earth's
surface at the period of the deluge, no ground will
exist in the strata themselves, for referring the creation of the world to an earlier date than that which
is assigned it by the sacred history. This we shall,
accordingly, now proceed to prove.
In the first place, then, there is the most ample certainty that all the various substances that enter into
the composition of the present surface of the earth
existed originally, and still exist within its depths.
The chief of those substances are silica, alumine, lime,
soda, potash, iron, magnesia. Of these, silica exists
in far the greatest quantity; constituting, probably,
at least one-half of the whole mass of the rocks and
soils. Its proportion in granite is usually about
seventy-five per cent., to thirteen or fourteen of alumine, eight or nine of potash, nearly two of iron, a
trace of lime, and one or two other ingredients. This
rock is now universally regarded as having been
thrown up from beneath the primary stratified deposits, and must have come, therefore, in a large measure from a depth in the earth, and demonstrates
accordingly the existence in its interior of the several
elements that enter into its composition. Felspar,
mica, and hornblende, instead of simple minerals, are
318 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 319
formed by the union of those elements in different
proportions. In felspar there are of
Silica,.:.    64-04
Alumina,...    18-94
Oxide of iron,.
In hornblende, the proportions are usually
Magnesia,..
Protoxide of iron,.
-    of magnesia,.
loi.a    1.50*
Several of these elements, however, enter in much
larger proportions into the composition of lavas.
Thus of the felspathic minerals in volcanic rocks,
there are in
Silica. Alumine. Lime. Magnesia. Soda.
Anorthite,  43-79  85-49 18-93
Labradorite, 53848  26-46  9'49   1-74  4'10
Andesin,      59-60  24-28  5-77   1-00  6-53
Albite,       69'36  19.26  0-46         10'50
Orthoclase,  65-72  18 57  0 35           1-25  
Adularia,    65-59  17-97  1-34          1'01
t and a trace oiron, mag    l nesia, soda, and potash.
1I-0 and a trace of potash.
1-5S 1-08 potash.
0-43 *-       4
14-02'1
13'99   " t
In the volcanic rocks or lavas themselves these in
gredients exist in still different proportions. Thus in
trachytes and other volcanic rocks, silica ranges from
49-21 to 73-46; alumina from 12-04 to 20-80; iron
* H. T. De La Beche's Geol. Observer, pp. 34, 35.
t H. T. De La Beche's Geological Observer, p. 352.   Daubney's
Description of Volcanoes, p. 13.
Potash,... 13-66
Lime,... 0-76
.. 0-T4
18-79
7-32
0-22
Silica,.
Alumina,.
Lime,.
.. 45-69
.. 12-18
.' 13-S3
Fluoric acid, 
THE MATERIALS OF TIlE STRATA,
from 1'49 to 11.84; lime from 0'45 to S8-83; magnesia
from 0'39 to X796; potash from 1'42 to 7'16; and soda
from 4'29 to 7'9S, with sometimes a trace of mangaIlese.*
In the recent lava of Kilauea, Hawaii, silica ranges
from 39'74 to 59'80; protoxide of iron froli 16'91 to
33'62; and soda from 4'83 to 21'62.t
In basalt, silica ranges from 44'50 to 59'5; alumina from 11'5 to 17'56: iron from 4-64 to 20.t
In all these volcanic rocks, which it is universally
held are ejected from deep abysses in the earth, all
the great elementary substances of which the strata
consist are thus conspicuous ingredients.  They present the most decisive proofs, therefore, that the various substances that enter into the composition of the
strata were placed by the Creator originally in masses
in the interior of the earth.
Butt besides the place which lime holds in these
volcanic rocks, it has in some instances been thrown
up in masses from the interior of the planet.  Thlus
Mr. Emmonhs describes many veins, dykes, and larger
bodies in the northern section of this State that are
undoubtedly of igneous origin.
"The origin of primitive Iimestone, I apprehend, is precisely the same as that of all the granitic compounds. It is
* De La Beche's Geol. Observer, p. 353.
t Dana's Geology of the U.S. Ex. Exped., p. 200.
: De La Beche's Geol. Observer, p. 396.
320 
DERIVED FROM THIE INTERIORI OF THE EARTH. 321
not as some, perhaps, would be ready to suggest, produced
by the overflowing of a molten mass of granite on a sedimentary limestone, thereby decomposing it; and by which
portions the most intensely acted on would be raised in a
vaporous state, and made to penetrate the mass of cooling
granite above.  Geologists, in speaking of limestone, seem
to be averse to the admission that it may form a portion of
the interior of the earth, or even to admit that it may exist
there at all; but there seems not a particle of sound reason
against the doctrine that it may be as common in the earth
as silex, or any of the simple or compound rocks. There is,
in fact, more reason to make this inference, for many of the
phenomena of nature speak of its being, and proclaim its
existence. From what I have seen of it, I am disposed to
consider it as one of the igneous products, having its origin
in a mode corresponding to all the unstratified rocks, and
differing from them merely in the materials of which it is
composed."-Emmmons's Geology of the 2d District of New
Yorlc, p. 26.
He accordingly cites a number  of localities in
which large masses, dykes, and veins of limestone
project up from beneath into granite, in such a manner as to render it indisputable that they were forced
from below in a state of fusion like the veins and
dykes of granite, quartz, trap, and other species that
have been driven up from beneath by heat into the
primary and secondary formations.
Iron, also, has been ejected from the interior of the
14* 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA
earth in masses, as is seen from its existence in rocks
that are of igneous origin. Thus of the magnetic
oxide Air. Emmons states:
"Masses of ore appeared to be coeval with the rock
which incloses them; or such a view comports best with
many facts and phenomena which are brought to light in
mining.   If this is sustained by future investigations, it will
necessarily follow that the original formation must have
been influenced by the same agents as those which were
concerned in the production or modification of the materials
composing the rock.   The rock which incloses the ore is
clearly unstratified; from which we are also to infer the
igneous origin of the inclosed mass of ore. We are clearly
driven off from every other mode of formation: the theory
of electromagnetic agency appears out of the question."Emmons's Geology of the 2d District of New York, p. 90.
Other passages might be quoted from him and
others, that present the same fact. We have thus
the most indisputable proofs that all the great elements of the strata-silex, alumine, lime, potash,
soda, magnesia, and iron-existed originally in the
interior of the earth. The materials were lodged
there on a vast scale, for the formation by their transferrence to the surface of precisely such composite
rocks as those which now constitute the covering of
the globe.
Immense masses of these substances that were
322 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 323
originally deposited in the depths of the interior,
have actually been ejected to the surface, and now
form a part of the earth's rocky vesture.  Thus all
the unstratified rocks-granite, porphyry, greenstone,
serpentine, hypersthene, basalt, and all the varieties
of trap, as well as the lavas and tuff of modern
volcanoes, are universally admitted to be of igneous
origin, and to have been elevated from the interior
of the earth;  and they together constitute a very
considerable part of the crust that rises above the
level of the sea. The Andes of South America, for
example, extending firom the Isthmus to Cape Ilorn,
with a breadth of from 30 or 40 to 500 miles, cover,
it is supposed, about one sixth of that continent, and
rising from three or four thousand to fifteen or eighteen thousand feet, irrespective of the highest peaks,
have undoubtedly-with the ranges that lie eastward
of them in Venezuela, at the sources of the Oronoco,
and in Brazil-several times the bulk of the other
parts of the continent that lie above the line of the
ocean; and they consist mainly of granite, porphyry,
trachyte, andesite, basalt, andI other igneous rocks, of
which silex, alumnine, lime, iron, potash, and soda,
are the chief constituents. All these immense masses
were thrown up to the surface, it should be considered, subsequently to the deposition of the principal
stratified rocks; as is seen from the fact that they bear
on their sides and summits vast bodies of the primary, 
THIE MATERIALS OF THIE STRATA
secondary, and tertiary strata, that, anterior to their
upheaval, were spread over the areas, at the bottom
of the sea, they now occupy.  Their elements existed
in the depths of the earth, therefore, at the period of
the formation of the strata, and constituted probably
but a small portion of the immeasurable stores that
were there treasured up.  They prove, accordingly,
that there was at that epoch an ample stock of them
in the recesses of the earth for the formation of the
strata. Nor have they been exhausted by the vast
quantities that have been transferred to the surface.
They continue to be thrown up by all the active volcanoes, and hold as large a place in the composition
of their lavas, as in those that were ejected ages ago:
and they continue still, there is every reason to suppose, to exist in exhaustless abundance in the interior
of the globe. That a large share of the volcanoes
from which they were once emitted, have sunk iniito
inactivity, is owing to the exhaustion of the combustible or chemical agents in which their fires had their
origin; not to the want of silica, alumine, lime, soda,
and potash, that were, it is to be presumed, the subjects oil which their fires acted, rather than the direct
cause itself of their combustion.
We have the most ample evidence, terefore, that
sufficient stores of them were originally treasured Lup
in the depths of the earth to furnish the materials of
the sedimentary strata. There is enough of them
324 
DERWED FROM TaE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 325
there now-for aught that can be shown or rendered
probable-to furnish a similar rocky covering to a
score of such worlds as ours.
QUESTIONS.
What is the great question on which the conclusion in respect to
the age of the world depends? What condition of the sources from
which the materials of the strata were derived, would prove that a
long series of ages was required for their formation? What condition would show that they might have been formed in a brief period?
Is the structure of the earth in its present form, to be considered as
having been expressly ordained by the Creator and for most important ends?    Has this peculiar constitution and structure of the
earth, exerted a great influence on the condition and life of man?
Show how. Would a different arrangement even in a few leading
features have made the earth a different world, to its population?
Exemplify it in respect to the Alps. Show what effects would have
followed, had the Himalaya been placed between Germany and Russia.
What effects might have resulted, had Africa, instead of projecting
to the South, stretched Westward and joined this continent? What
change in navigation would have been produced, had this continent
extended to the Southern Pole? Has the fact that the strata consist
of such elements as they do, and are thrown up into such positions,
exerted a vast influence on the condition and pursuits of the human
race? Exemplify it in respect to Great Britain. Are these great
features of the globe then, to be regarded as not merely casual, and
of little significance; but as among the most essential in the constitution of the world, in order to fit it to be the residence of such a
race of intelligences?   Are they the work of causes that were especially fitted for their production?   And does the fact that those
causes have long since ceased to act, show that they were commissioned to produce but a limited effect, and that that effect has been
accomplished? 
THIE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA
What is the theory which Werner advanced respecting the formation of the strata? Is that now rejected? What is the theory now
generally held?  Is that also mistaken?   If the materials of the
strata then, were neither originally held in solution by the waters of
the globe, nor drawn from the surface of granite continents by disintegration, and transported to the ocean by streams: from what other
quarter must they have been derived? What then is the view of
their origin which we are to maintain? If we show that the materials may have been thrown up from the interior of the earth, and
with such rapidity that the strata may have been formed, betwixt
the creation recorded in Genesis, and the deluge, or the second and
third century after the event; will that be sufficient to vindicate the
sacred record from the charge of being contradicted by the facts of
the strata?
What then is the first consideration that proves that they might
have been formed in that period? What are the chief substances of
which the strata consist? Which of these enters most largely into
the composition of rocks and strata? Does it exist in inexhaustible
quantities in the interior of the earth? In what proportion does it
enter into the composition of granite?  What other elements are
united with silica in that rock? In what proportion do they exist in
volcanic rocks? Has granite, as well as the volcanic rocks, been
thrown up from the interior of the earth?   Is lime sometimes
thrown up in masses? State instances. Is iron also ejected from the
depths of the earth? Cite examples. Have we then proof that all
the main elements of which the strata consist, are lodged in vast
masses in the recesses of the earth?
What is the second consideration which proves that the strata may
have been derived from that source?  Enumerate the great classes
of rocks that have thus been ejected from the depths of the globe?
What great ranges of mountains on this continent, consist mainly of
these  rocks?   When were  they  thrown  up;  before,  or  subsequently to the deposition of the principal series of the strata? Do
they show that immense masses of the elements of which they consist,
326 
DEEIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 327
must have been created by the Almighty in the deep regions of the
earth, out of which they have been thrown to the surface? Do these
elements continue to be ejected by all the volcanoes that are still
active? Do these facts sufficiently prove that there originally were
ample stores of them there to furnish materials for the construction
of the strata? 
'rie MATERIALS OF THE STRATA~
CIIAPTER XIV.
The Materials of the Strata; derived from the Interior of the Earth.
THERE were chemical and mechanical agents also
in existence and activity at that period, of sufficient
power to transfer those materials from the depths of
the earth to the surface, and unite them in the forms
in which they now subsist in the strata. That such
agents have existed and acted in the deep abysses of
the earth where those substances were deposited, and
with far greater energy and on a far larger scale than
was requisite to that effect, is seen from the fact that
it was by their action that all the mountains of the
globe, and in a great degree the whole mass of the
continents and islands, were raised from beneath the
ocean to their present elevation. And the masses
thus moved that lie beneath the line of the sea, are
probably hundreds of times greater than those that
rise above that line. The base of the mountains or
bottoms of the columns that were upheaved, lie probably many times the distance below the surface that
their sunmits stretch above it. The force that was
exerted in upheaving them was, therefore, immea
328 
DERIVED FRO-i THE INTEIiO  OFS THIE EARTHII. 329
surably greater than was requisite to the elevation to
the surface of the contents of any one of the strata
that can be supposed to have been thrown up at a
single effort. The whole mass of a mountain, however great in weight, was to be lifted at once. Of
the materials of a stratum forced up in a continuous
current, like the waters of a spring or the lava of a
volcano, only a small portion was to be supported at
the same time. The weight at any moment, for
example, of the column of lava borne upwards in the
cavity of Etna or Hiecla, at a period of the most
violent eruption, is but that of a feather to the mountain itself, compared to the vast and inconceivable
weight that was uplifted at the elevation of the Alps
from the fathomless abysses of the earth in which
their massy granites were elaborated.  The lofty pinnacles and mounds of that range are themselves,
indeed, but trifies, probably, in comparison of the
vast bed extending down an immense depth in which
they are rooted, that must have been elevated at the
same moment along with them. AgTents, then, have
in fact been acting in the depths of the planet, and
elevating the substances deposited there to the surface, that were of even greater energy than is ordinarily exceted in volcanoes, and than was necessary to
the gradual ejection of the materials of the strata in
the long series of ages that was occupied in their formation. 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
The forces, however, that are exerted in volcanic
eruptions, and the volume of matter ejected by them
on the surface in brief periods, is sometimes immense.
Thus the current of lava throwvn up in 1783 by Sk6ptar Jokul, one of the principal volcanoes of Iceland,
was like that of a great river, and soon filled up deep
valleys and spread over extensive plains.
"On the 11th of June, Skaptar Jokul threw out a torrent of lava which flowed down into the river Skapta and
completely dried it up.   The channel of the river was
between high rocks, in many places from 400 to 600 feet in
depth, and near 200 in breadth. Not only did the lava fill
up this great defile to the brink, but it overflowed the adjacent fields to a considerable extent. The burning flood, on
issuing from the rocky gorge, was then arrested for some
time by a deep lake which formerly existed in the course of
the river between Skaptardal and Aa, which it entirely
filled....  On the 18th of June, another ejection of
this liquid lava rushed from the volcano, which flowed down
with amazing velocity over the surface of the first stream
By the damming up of the mouths of some of the tributaries of the Skapta, many villages were completely overflowed with water, and thus great destruction of property
was caused.  The lava, after flowing for several days, was
precipitated down a tremendous cataract called Stapafoss,
where it filled a profound abyss, which that great waterfall
had been hollowing out for ages, and after this the fiery
current again continued its course.
330 
DERIVED FROM THiE INTERIOR OF THiE EARTHI. 331
"On the 2d of August, fresh floods of lava still pouring
from the volcano, a new branch was sent off in a new direction; for the channel of the Skapta was now so entirely
choked up, and every opening to the west and north so
obstructed, that the melted matter was forced to take a
new course, so that i,u ran in a southeast direction, and
discharged itself into the bed of the river llaverfisfiiot,
where a scene of destruction scarcely inferior to the former
was occasioned.   These Icelandic lavas-like the ancient
streams that are met with in Auvergne and other provinces
of central France-are stated to have accumulated to a
prodigious depth in narrow rocky gorges; but where they
came to wide alluvial plains, they spread themselves out
into broad burnihg lakes, sometimes from twelve to fifteen
miles wide, and one hundred feet deep.   When the fiery
lake which filled up the lower portion of the valley of the
Skapta had been augmented by new supplies, the lava
flowed up the course of the river to the foot of the hills
from whence the Skapta takes its rise.... The eruption did not entirely cease till the end of two years.
"The extraordinary volume of the melted matter produced
in this eruption, deserves the particular attention of the
geologist. Of the two branches which flowed in nearly
opposite directions, the greater was fifty, and the lesser
forty miles in length.   The extreme breadth which  the
Skapta branch  attained in the low countries, was from
twelve to fifteen miles; that of the other about seven. The
ordinary height of both currents was 100 feet, but in narrow
defiles it sometimes amounted to 600." —Lyell's Principles,
vol. i., pp. 342-344. 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
The matter thrown out of this volcano principally
in a few days of a single season, was thus enough
probably to spread a stratum  ten or twelve feet in
thickness over six or seven thousand square miles.
The eruptions from Kilauea, Itawaii, are also on a
vast scale:
"The discharge from the large lake during the night of
the l1th, must have been equal to fifteen million cubic feet
of melted rock. This undoubtedly found cavities to receive
it on the line of the eruption. It is impossible to calculate
the discharge from the smaller, or Judd's lake, but supposing
it had continued as rapid as it was at the first filling, it
would have thrown out, by the time I was there next day,
upwards of two hundred million cubic feet of lava. It will
readily be perceived, with such a flood, it would be possible
within the lapse of a period comparatively short, geologically speaking, for a mound the size of Mauna Loa to be
heaped up.  However large the above numbers may seem
to be, we have reason to suppose from appearances, that the
'boiling, up' and overflow of the terminal crater of Manna
Loa must have been far greater; so much so, indeed, that
the outpourings of Kilauea cannot bear a comparison with
it. Its whole height of more than six thousand feet above
the plain of lava, appears to be entirely owing to the accumulation of ejected matter."- Wilkes's Narrative of the U.
S. Explori%ng Expedition, vol. iv., p. 178.
In an eruption which commenced on the 30th of
May, 1840, and continued three weeks, a far greater
mass was ejected. ~
332 
DERIVED FROM TIE INTRIOR OF THE EARTTH. 333
"The first appearance of the lava at the surface occurred
in a small crater about six miles from Kilauea. The next
day another outbreak was distinguished farther towards the
coast. Other openings followed, and by Monday, the 1st
of June, the large flow had begun which formed a continuous stream to the sea, where it reached on the 3d of June,
destroying the small village of Nanawale. This flood issued
from several fissures along its whole course, instead of being
an overflow of lavas from a single opening; the lowest being
at an elevation of 1,244 feet, as determined by Captain
Wilkes, at a point twenty-seven miles distant from Kilauea,
twenty-two miles from the first outbreak, and twelve from
the shores...
"The lavas r6lled on sometimes sluggishly and sometimes
violently, receiving at times fresh force from new accessions
to the fiery stream, and then almost ceasing its motion. It
swept away forests in its course, at times parting and
inclosing islets of earth and shrubbery, and at other times
underminiing and bearing away masses of rock and vegetation on its surface.  iFinally, it plunged into the sea with
loud detonations.  The burning lava on meeting the waters
was shivered, like melted glass, into millions of particles,
which were thrown up in clouds that darkened the sky, and
fell like a storm of hail over the surrounding country. Vast
columns of steam and vapors rolled off before the wind,
whirling in ceaseless agitation, and the reflected glare of the
lavas formed a fiery firmament overhead.   For three weeks
this terrific river disgorged itself into the sea with little
abatement.   Night was converted into day on all eastern 
THE   MATERIALS OF THE STRTA,
Hawaii. The light rose and spread like morning upon the
mountains, and its glare was seen on the opposite side of the
island. It was distinctly visible for more than one hundred
miles at sea, and at the distance of forty miles fine print
could be read at midnight....
"From the period, thirty-six hours, which the lava
required to reach the sea, an average velocity of four hundred feet an hour is readily deduced, as stated by Captain
Wilkes. Yet as the lavas issued from various fissures along
the course, the result cannot be correctly compared to an
overflow of fluid; it is rather the rate of progress of the
eruption than of the motion of a flowing liquid.
"The thickness of the stream of lava was estimated by
Dr. Pickering as averaging ten or twelve feet.  In some
places it was not over six feet. The whole area, judging
from the surveys, covers about fifteen square statute miles
and reduced to feet, and multiplying by the depth, 12 feet,
gives, for the amount of ejected lava, 5,018,000,000 cubic
feet; to which, if we add for the previous ejections of the
same eruption, three more square miles, it gives 6,023,000,000
of cubic feet for the whole amount of lavas which reached
the surface.*
"We have a still more accurate means of estimating the
amount of lavas which passed from Kilauea, in the actual
* This calculation, however, if we understand it, respects only the
mass of the lava that remains on the surface between Kilauea and the
shore. It takes no notice of the vast cataract that plunged into the
ocean during the three weeks of the eruption.   If that were taken
into the account, the whole sum that was ejected would be seen to be
immensely greater than this estimate.
334: 
DERIYVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 335
cubic contents of the emptied pit.   The area of the lower
pit, as determined by the surveys of the Expedition, is equal
to 38,500,000 square feet. Multiply this by 400 feet, the
depth of the pit after the eruption, we have 15,400,000,000
cubic feet for the solid contents of the space occupied by
lavas before the eruption, and, therefore, the actual amount
of the material which flowed from Kilauea. This is two and
a half times the amount obtained from the estimated extent
of the eruptions. The difference may be accounted for
partly on the ground that fissures were filled as well as surfaces overflowed, and also that there may have been eruptions beneath the sea not estimated.*   This amount is
equivalent to a triangular ridge eight hundred feet high,
* Here there is an omission also from the estimate, of that portion
of the lava that was precipitated into the sea. It is assumed also
that no lava was ejected except what was drawn from Kilauea; and
that no accessions were made to the stock in that reservoir during the
progress of the eruption by fresh emissions from the abysses beneath;
the flyst of which was possible and the last certain, and on a great scale.
The estimate must necessarily be in a large degree conjectural; but
if conformed to the data furnished by Captain Wilkes, must greatly
transcend Mr. Dana's calculation. Captain Wilkes represents the
breadth of the stream at its entrance into the ocean as three-fourths
of a mile, or 3,960 feet; and the rush of the ourrent to the sea as at
the rate of 400 feet an hour. Let us suppose the breadth of the
column precipitated into the sea to have been 3,500 feet, its average
depth 10 feet, and the length of the current that made the plunge in
twenty-four hours, 9,000 feet; the mass, at that rate, precipitated
into the ocean in twenty days, would be 6,300,000,000 cubic feet; to
which, if the mass remaining on the surface, as estimated by Mr.
Dana, 5,018.000,000, be added, they will form  an aggregate  of
11,318,000,000 cubic feet. If to these the proportion he supposes to
have been absorbed by fissures be added, the whole sum will be near
20,000,000,000. 
TRE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
two miles long, and over a mile wide at base."-Dana's
Geology of the U. S. Ex. Expedition, pp.188-192.
The materials of the strata, however, were not
thrown up fromin the interior in the form of lava-as they
exhibit no marks of fusion-but of mud or a liquid
tide, much like that, probably, which is ejected by
the mud volcanoes of Italy, South America, and the
Crimea. It seems probable that the first volcanic
ejections were neither in the form of molten lava, nor
attended with flames or excessive heat. If materials
like those of the granitic masses which now constitute
the general floor on which the stratified and volcanic
rocks rest, originally formed the exterior of the globe,
as their crystallization has taken place since their
creation, they may be supposed to have existed at
first in the form of particles, and were not improbably at the surface promiscuously mingled with each
other, so as to form on the first continents and islands,
a proper soil for the plants which were made to spring
from them. As all the rocks, indeed, of which we
have any knowledge, whether crystalline or stratified,
have been formed since the creation of the elements
of which they consist, we may justly assume that the
surface of the earth to the depth which they now
occupy, whatever that may be, was in its primitive
state, in the form of dust, or without cementation in
hard masses.  If such was its state, the water of the
336 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THiE EARTHI. 33T
ocean would naturally have descended into it, and as
long as it met with no other substances than those
that constitute granite, as it would have excited little
more chemical action than sea water now does on
pulverized granite, its chief effect would have been
simply to moisten and soften the mass, and render it
susceptible of a more easy displacement when subjected to the impulse of a powerful force from beneath. On the supposition, then, that the water
descended to a depth equal to that of the present volcanic fires, which is, probably, at least fifteen or
twenty miles below the surface, ere it came in contact with elements like iron, for example, and sulphur,
which it could excite to powerful chemical action,
and that it was then decomposed, a violent heat developed, and vast volumes of expansive gases generated; the effect would have been an upheaval of the
softened mass at the points where that action became
energetic, and at length the opening of a passage to
the surface, by chasms extending, perhaps, long distances, thlrough which the imprisoned forces beneath
would have found vents; and the main discharges
firom wmhichl, at first, would obviously not have been
molten lava, nor' mud raised to a great heat, but the
softened earth itself nearest the surface, and s ubseqlueitly from greater depthls.  All the force of a powerful volcano may thus be supposed to have been
employed for a long, time in the seasons of its activity,
15 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
in the propulsion to the surface of such unfused materials as form the great elements of the strata, ere burning lava began to be ejected; and this supposition is
corroborated by the fiact, that it was not till the primary and secondary strata had been formed that the
igneous rocks began to appear on the surface.
Another important effect of such a process would
have been, that that portion of the earth's surface
which was expanded upwards beneath the ocean,
would have been exposed by its elevation to the violent action of waves and tides, and currents, and
swept off and spread, like that ejected from the
depths below, over the surrounding surface. On the
intermission of such an eruption, the chasm would
speedily have been obliterated by the action of the
waters onl the softened mass, and soon, perhaps, no
other indications of it remained, than the greater
thickness near it of the stratum it had formed, than
at a distance; as strata usually thin out regularly
fromn the point or line where they attain their greatest
deptli.
Views very similar to these were several years
since sugg,ested by Mr. Bakewell, an eminent En,glish geologist, for the purpose especially of accounting
for the limestone and chalc fotrmations.  Thus, lihe
says:
"In referring to the vast magnitude of ancient volcanoes,
338 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTIH. 339
I have stated that they had, doubtless, anil important office
to perform in nature; and can it be unreasonable to believe
that the earth ilself is the great storehouse where the materials
thaot form its surface were prepared, anid from whence they
were thrown outt upoon the surface in an igneous, aqueous, or
gaseous state, either as melted lava, or in aqueous solution, or
ii mechanical admixture with water in the form of mad, or in
the comminuted state of powder or sand? Inflamrmable and
mnoro volatile substances may have been emitted in a gaseous
state, and become concrete onl the surface.
"These primeval eruptions, judging from the size of the
ancient fissures and craters, may have been sufficient to cover
a large portrion of the globe. Nor can it be deemed improbable that still larger and more ancient craters have been
entirely covered by succeeding eruptions. In proportion as
the formation of the surface advanced, these eruptions might
decline and be more and more limited in their operation.
"It is not necessary to suppose that these subterranean
eruptions consisted only of lava in a state of fusion.  The
largest active volcanoes at present existing, throw out the
different earths intermixed with water in the form of mud.
Nor should we limit the eruptions of earthy matter in solution or suspension to volcanic craters; the vast fissures or
rents which intersect the different rocks, may have served
for the passage of silicious solutions to the surface. We
know of 1no instance in nature of silicious earth being held
in aqueous solution, except in the waters of hot or boiling
springs; and hence it seems reasonable to infer that many
silicious rocks and veins have been deposited from subterra 
THIE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
nean craters at a high temperature.   Calcareous or cretaceous matter is also ejected during aqueous volcanic eruptions.  According to Ferrara, streams of liquid chalk, or
chalk in the state of mud, were ejected from the mud volcano of Macaluba, in Sicily, in 1I7, which in a short space
formed a bed-several feet in thickness. Beds of limestone
may have been formed by similar calcareous eruptions, in
which the lime might be sometimes in solution, and sometimes mechanically suspended; and the numerous remais of
testaceous animals in limestone appear to indicate that the
calcareous solutions were favorable to the growth of animals whose coverings contain so much calcareous matter.
Nor is it necessary to suppose that these aqueous eruptions
were always sudden, and attended with violent convulsions,
for when a passage was once opened they may have risen
slowly, and have been diffused in a tranquil state, and by
gradual deposition or condensation, may have enveloped the
most delicate animals or vegetables without injuring their
external form.
"If the geologist can admit such a condition of the ancient world as above described-a condition which on a
smaller scale might be proved to have existed since the
period of authentic history; if he will further admit, that
before the formation of chalk, a great portion of what is now
England and the northern continent of Europe, was covered
by a deep ocean, interspersed with islands and surrounded
by ancient continents-and this few modern geologists will
deny-then if we allow submarine aqueous eruptions of calcareous matter either in solution or mechanical suspension,
3110 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTII. 341
and eruptions of silicious solutions from thermal waters, to
have been poured over the bottom of this deep and ancient
ocean, we shall have all the circumstances required to form
thick beds of chalk, interspersed with layers and nodules of
flint.
"My object in directing the attention of geologists to
this subject, is to show that strata may be formed more
rapidly than they are generally disposed to believe; and
that the feeble operations of natural causes in our own
times, however similar in kind, bear no proportion in their
intensity to the mighty agents that have formed the ancient
crust of the globe."-Bakewell's Geology, pp. 351-355.
A similar suggestion in respect to the origin of
limestone was made by Mr. Featherstonhaugh, in his
Report in 1835.
" The general deposits of calcareous matter on the globe
have been by some persons attributed to the exuvie of
animals, without stopping to inquire whence those animals
derived the solid parts they have left behind them. As we
know not that animals have the power of forming lime from
other mineral elements, we are compelled to suppose that the
calcareous matter forming their osseous structure, their
testaceous and crustaceous coverings, preceded them.   In
considering the primitive rocks, we have perceived that
forces of great power, and unknown in modern times, have
been in action in the earlier periods of the planet-forces
which even now continue occasionally to act, though feebly 
THiE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.
and rarely. As to the manner in which the statuary limestones were produced, there is much ambiguity. We know,
however, that mineral springs, both thermal and cold, deposit
carbonate of lime in great quantities, as they come in contact with the atmosphere. The prodigious deposits of this
character form a cold mineral water in the Sweet Springs
valley in Virginia, which presents one of the most rare geological phenomena; the no less interesting travertine deposited
by the Hot Springs of the Washita in Arkansas, both of which
localities I visited this last year; and similar phenomena in
various parts of the world, render it quite possible that
some extraneous calcareous deposits, lying amidst the primitive rocks, have come from the central parts of the earth in -a
state of aqueous solution, and have subsequently received
their high crystalline character from being in contact with
ignigenous rocks in an incandescent state. With springs
of such a character in action, the animals of those times
could be at no loss for calcareous matter in favored localities.
"In the grauwacke we have beds of limestone, derived,
for aught we know to the contrary, like the statuary limestone in the primitive series, from solutions ejected from
below, alternating with schistose and sandy beds of probabIe
mechanical origin."-Featherstonhav,gh.'s Report, 1835, on the
country between the Missouri and Red Wivers, pp. 20-25.
Such as we have already shown, is the theory in
respect to the origin of limnestone advanced by I).Emmons.  We cite tfromn hiiii uoLhcr p)assage.
342 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 343
"The opinions of geologists in relation to the origin of
limestone have been hitherto unsettled.  From the great
amount of limestone in the strata which may be inspected,
it has been supposed that animals possessed the power of
forming it, or of combining its elements.   This view or
theory seems to be wholly unnecessary; for what reason
have we to infer that it is a material less common in the
interior of the eartht than silex or alumine? And if it is
common, it may find its way to the surface by the same
means as the materials composing other rocks.
"Leaving here the opinions of other geologists, I will
state that there are two points which it will be my object
to establish: 1st, That it is a rock of igneous origin; and
2d, That it is unstratified, which follows from the establishmnent of the first point: or, if the last proposition is placed
first-viz. that the rock is unstratified, its igneous origin
seems to follow with equal certainty; so that the points to
be proved are really reduced to one."' —Emmons's Geology
of the Secotdd District of New  York, p. 38
He proceeds, accordingly, to establish these points
by proofs drawn firom the rock in a great number of
localities.
hir. Hall adopts the same theory to account for the
formation of some of the sandstones of the western
district of this State. 
"If we might be permitted to hazard a conjecture as to
the changes and their causes going on at the time of the
deposition of these different divisions of the Medina sand 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
stone-we should incline to the belief that the lower shaly
deposit was the product of a inud volcaio, rapidly ejected
and spread over the surface, rendering the sea turbid and
discolored to such a degree as to prevent the existence
of any organic forms.   Afterwards the cessation of the
volcanic action allowed the deposition of the grey quartzose mass; the materials having perhaps the same origin
as the grey sandstone which was formed previous to the
commencement of the Medina. Although at this period
there was no matter ejected from the volcano, still it may
have produced oscillations of the surface, causing alternate
deep and shallow water, or deep water in some places and
shallow in others. Subsequently, towards the close of the
grey deposit, the volcano broke forth again with renewed
energy, destroying all the organic forms which had come
into existence during this comparatively quiescent period,
and overwhelming the whole with another deposit of mud
like that below.   Again, after a time the subterranean
action appears to have become more quiet, gradually subsiding, and allowing an increase of sandy matter from some
other source.   Lastly, towards  the termination of the
deposit of mud. and when the sand had increased considerably, we find an abundance of vegetable forms,.. and the
whole series terminating with the grey division, mairked by
that singular fossil, the Dictuolites."-J. Halls Geology of
JJresterq New York, p. 40.
We have the most decisive evidences, therefore,
, that the great agents that have acted in the depths
344 
DERIVED FROM THiE INTERIOR OF THE EARTi. 345
of the earth where the substances of which the strata
consist were originally deposited, were abundantly
adequate to transfer them to the surface in the state
that was requisite to their conversion into the rocks
into which they were formed.
QUESTIONS.
What is the third fact which shows that the strata may have been
derived from the interior of the earth? What proofs are there of it?
Was the force by which the mountains were upheaved far greater
than was requisite to eject a current of lava or other liquid matter
from the deep recesses of the earth? Is the force, however, exerted
in volcanic eruptions sometimes very great? Give an example of it
in Iceland. Give an example in Hawaii. Were the materials of the
strata however lavas? What was their state, probably, when ejected
into the ocean? Have the crystalline, as well as other rocks, been
formed since the creation? What was the form, probably, of the
earthy matter which originally constituted the exterior of the globe?
Would the water of the ocean, resting on such a bottom, naturally
descend in it to a great depth? If in descending ten, fifteen, or
twenty miles-the supposed depth of the present volcanic fires-it
came in contact with extensive depositories of iron and sulphur,
would it not have excited them to a chemical action that would have
decomposed it, developed intense heat, generated vast volumes of
gas, and thereby caused an upheaval of the soft and pliant mass of
earthy matter above; and at length, by forcing passages to the surface, driven it in torrents and rivers into the ocean? Would that
part of the surface that was upheaved be acted on also by the waves
and currents, and its matter swept off and spread over the bottom of
the surrounding sea? Have views like these of the sources from
which the matter of the strata was drawn, sometimes been presented
by geologists? What is the intimation which Mr. Bakewell presents
15*
I
i 
THE  ATET ALTS OF THE STRATA)
in respect to it? What are Mr. Featherstonhaugh's suggestions
respecting the source from which the treasures of lime were drawn
that form the immense beds of that mineral? What other writers
have presented similar views? Are there ample proofs, then, that
the great agents that have acted in the interior of the earth have
been of adequate strength to force the substances to the surface of
which the strata are constructed?
346 
DERIVED F:ROM THE INTERIOR OF THE FEARTH. 347
CHAPTER XV.
The Materials of the Strata-Derived from the Interior of the Earth.
THESE agents were adequate to the transferrence of
the materials of the strata from the interior to the surface, in the period that is represented in the, losaic
record as having intervened betwixt the creation of
the earth and the remodification of its surface at the
filood. Sixteen hundred, eighteen hundred, or two
thousand years were as ample for the work, as sixteen
or eighteen thousand, or the immeasurable round of
ages which geologists represent as having been occupied in the derivation of the materials of the strata
from granitic mountains and continents that were to
be disintegrated and transported to the ocean by the
feeble agents that are now reducing the rocks to dust,
and conveying their detritus to the sea.  That the
materials for such a process were deposited in the
depths of the earth throughout its whole circuit, is
seen fi'om the fact, that the whole mass of the granite
which is now elevated into the atmosphere, and which
lies beneath the stratified formations, has, in the judgment generally of geologists, been raised to fusion by 
THE MATERIA.S OF THE STRATA)
heat from beneath, and received its present crystalline form since the deposition of the primary strata.
There is no reason to suppose that a particle of
that rock was brought into existence in its present
state by the creative fiat.  It is the work of powerful
chemical and mechanical forces that have since acted
on the silex, alumine, potash, soda, lime, iron, magnesia, and other ingredients of which it is constructed.
But if that took place in the manner we have supposed, by the evolution of heat.in the depths of the
earth, the first effect of which was the propulsion to
the surface of vast masses of silex, alumine, lime, potash, soda, magnesia, iron, and other elements that
enter into the composition of the strata, in the form
of minute particles, moistened or rendered liquid by
water, then, manifestly, the causes of the propulsion
of these materials to the exterior existed beneath
every point of the surface, and were as universal as
the strata themselves are that have been formed from
them.  They were undoubtedly, therefore, at least as
adequate to the production of the latter effect as they
were of the former. Indeed, if the views we have
presented of the process are correct, the fusion of the
granitic elements, which originally lay at the surface,
could not have been produced by the evolution of
heat in the abysses beneath, without first producing
chasms and vents at innumerable points, and forcing
up into the superincumbent oceans immense volumes
0148 
DERIVED FROM TIIE INTERIOR OF TIE EARTHI. 349
of the moistened materials that lay between the surface and the great subterranean laboratory friom
which the heat and the explosive forces generated by
it proceeded.
Let us suppose the waters of Lake Superior to be
drained, and its bed scooped down through the whole
series of stratified and crystallized rocks that lie beneath it, till a region were reached at a depth perhlaps of fifteen or twenty miles, where, let it be
assumed, a vast magazine is treasured up of volcanic
materials. Let us then suppose the chasm to be filled
by successive layers, each hundreds or thousands of
feet in thickness, of silex, alumine, lime, potash, soda,
iron, magnesia, and a proportionate share of the other
elements that entered into the composition of the
strata, in minute primitive particles. Let us suppose
the waters of the lake then to be readmitted to its
bed, and gradually to descend through it till they
reached the magazine of volcanic matter, and generated an expansive force by which the superincumbent mass should be pushed upwards; it is manifest
that that portion of the upper layer, at the points
where the impulse from below was the greatest,
would be the first that would be raised above the
general level and mixed with the waters of the lake;
and that if it were silex, it would, on being subjected
to the proper agencies, form quartz rock or sandstone;
if alumine, with an intermixture of silex, it would
form marl, or some species of schist; and if lime, lime 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
stone.  The effect of the impelling force from beneath,
however, especially if large volumes of gas were
driven lrpwards, would soon be to open a passage to
the surface by a vein or chasm, through which a current of the moistened or liquid matter would be driven
up into the waters of the lake, and diffused over its
bottom; and if that process were continued, a portion
of each layer in the series would be raised to the surface and spread in a stratum over the bed of the lake
-before a stream of melted  lava would  mount
through the passage and pass into the waters, or shoot
into the atmosphere. But such a stupendous enginery
acting, with slight intervals, at innumerable points
throughout the circuit of the globe, would have been
amply adequate to throw the whole materials of the
strata on the surface in the lapse of fifteen, sixteen, or
eighteen hundred years.  Such a period would, indeed, seem excessive rather than too short for such a
work. Such powerful agents, acting at points not
more numerous than those at which igneous rocks and
lavas have been driven to the surface, would undoubtedly have been sufficient for that effect.
We have thus the most ample evidence of the
existence at that period of the requisite materials and
agents in the proper conditions for the accomplishment
of that work.  We shall now proceed to show that
this view of the origin of the strata is corroborated
and verified by a variety of considerations.
It is confirmed by the great number of the points
350 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 351
at which igneous rocks and lavas have been forced up
to the surface.  The number of volcanoes that burned
during the foirmation of the secondary and tertiary
strata was not only far greater than at present, but in
the ratio probably of hundreds to one. Their traces
are seen on a vast scale in many regions where no
eruptions have taken place for centuries.  Thus they
are very numerous in Central and Southern France,
sixty cones being distinguishable in the single province of Auvergne.  They exist in great numbers in
Germany,  Ilungary, Transylvania, and Styria.  In
Northern, Central, and Southern Italy they are very
frequent; in Sicily, also, Sardinia, and the neighboring islands.  Traces of them are seen in Spain and
Portugal. Their relics exist on a great scale in the
islands of the Grecian Archipelago, and throughout
Asia Minor. They are seen also in Syria, Southern
Arabia, Persia, Northern and Eastern Asia, and the
islands of the Chinese seas. Most of the islands of
the Atlantic, and-except those of coral-nearly the
whole of the vast crowd that stud the Indian and Pacific oceans, have been the seat of volcanoes; and
craters that no longer burn are found in great nunibers along the whole line of the mountains that skirt
the Pacific coast, from the Arctic ocean to Cape Horn.
If the number still active in different parts of the
globe is, as is supposed, from one hundred and seventy-five to two hundred, the whole series that have 
THIE MATERIALS OF TIHE STRATA 
burned at successive periods must undoubtedly
amount to many thousands.
But the number of points at which igneous rocksgranite, porphyry, basalt, and trap-have been forced
up to the surface, is immensely greater. Some, or all
of them, aile found in almost every considerable district of the globe.  Though there are no traces in the
British islands of modern volcanoes, granite, porphyry,
greenstone, hypersthene, basalt, and trap form the
crust, or lie immediately beneath the soil in England,
Scotland, Ireland and the Hebrides and Orkneys, in
thousands of places, indicating that there has been at
least an equal number of passages from the molten
abyss beneath, through which first the materials that
lay above it, and then a portion of its own contents,
have been driven up to the surface.  In this country
no lavas occur throughout the wide space betwixt the
Mississippi and New Brunswick, or the great lakes
and the Atlantic; yet granite, porphyry, hypersthene,
hornblende, greenstone, serpentine, basalt, and trap,
rise to the surface, or tower into the atmosphere in
myriads and perhaps hundreds of thousands of places,
so distinct from each other as to 3show that the passages through which they generally made their way
to the surface were separate from each other. They
are equally numerous also on other portions of the
globe. Half as many channels of ejection from below,
and probably a much smaller number, would have
352 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF TIlE EARTH. 353
been adequate for the transfer to the surface, in a very
few centuries, of a sufficient mass of materials for the
formation of the strata. That such a vast number of
openings have been formed from the interior, through
which immense volumes of matter have been thrown
up and incorporated in the crust of the globe, demonstrates, at least, the possibility and probability that
it was through them or others of a like nature that
the silex, alumine, lime, soda, iron, potash, and other
elements of which the strata are built, were forced up
into the oceans and seas from which they were deposited.
It is corroborated by the deposition of the great
elements-silex, alumine, and lime-of which the
strata consist, in separate layers, instead of a promiscuous mixture;-silex constituting sandstone chiefly;
lime forming limestone and chalk;  and alumine,
potash, and soda, which are conspicuous ingredients
of felspar, entering, in a large measure, into the
composition of shales, clays, and marls.   That the
ingredients of the strata are treasured lp in masses
separately from each other in the depths of the earth,
is demonstrated, as we have already shown, by their
being often separately ejected and embodied in the
igneous rocks. Their distribution into separate strata
is explicable, therefore, on the supposition that they
were drawn from such depositories, and not on any
other theory of their origin.  Had they been formed, 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
as geologists generally maintain, from the detritus of
granitic mountains and continents that was transported by rivers to the sea, instead of being separated
from each other and arranged in distinct layers, they
would have been deposited in a confused mass together.   But if ejected successively from  different
depositories in the recesses of the earth, they would
naturally continue separate, in a great degree, on
their transfusion into the waters of the sea, and be
deposited  in  beds  by  themselves.   They would
receive that disposition, whether they' were drawn
from repositories placed in a series beneath each
other, like that in which they are arranged in the
strata, and thence had egress in succession at the
same channel, or whether each one, descending in a
column into the depths of the earth, was thrown up
through a passage that was lilmited to itself.  Either
of these hypotheses furnishes a solution also of the
partial intermixture of the strata sometimes seen at
their juncture, or the passage of one into another, of
which the common theory presents no explanation.
The ejection of their elements through the same or
different passages, in immediate succession, would
naturally cause a mixture of those of their particles
that were held in suspension in the waters of the
ocean at the same time, or in close succession to each
other. That this view of their origin tihus naturally
accounts for these conspicuous characteristics of the
354 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 355
strata, that are inexplicable on any other theory, is a
strong proof of its truth.
It is confirmed by the solution it furnishes of the
diffusion of the strata over wide spaces.   On the
theory held by geologists, the spread of a stratum of
gneiss, quartz, sandstone, arenaceous limestone, or any
other similar deposit over a large area, is wholly ilnexplicable.  It is inconsistent with the iforces that govern the transportation and deposition of pebbles,
gravel, and sand in water, that, being borne down to
the sea by streams and rivers, they should be transfused tlhrough its mass  and deposited equally over
hundreds, and even thousands of square miles. As
the currents by which they are supposed to be borne
forward are chlecked by the resistance they meet on
entering the ocean, gravel and sand of every description are immediately carried by their weight to the
bottom, and are no more subject afterwards to be
transferred to other places than any other parts of the
shore or bed of the sea. That the waves, currents,
and tides should remove them and spread them into
strata over regions scores and hundreds of miles in
lengthli and breadth, is physically impossible.  If,
however, the materials of the strata were thrown up
from the depths of the earth into the waters of the
ocean in the form of the primitive minute particles
in which Newton and other philosophers regard
matter as originally created, their diffusion over wide 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
spaces would naturally result from their lightness and
mobility under the action of the tides, currents, and
waves of the sea.  Driven up into the mass of the
waters by the impulse that forced them from below,
they would be borne off by the current the stream in
which they entered created, and continue for a period
to float, like the impalpable particles that are held in
solution or suspension by the Mississippi, Ganges,
and other great rivers; and when thrown to the
bottom, would form at first a liquid mud that would,
by its own gravity, spread on every side and seek a
level, as water at the surface, though partially thickened with light maud, flows in every direction till it
finds a level. Silex or limnle forced up in that form
through numerous channels, widely distributed, into
the ocean that spread from Vermont to the Rocky
Mountains, would naturally have been diffused, by
the forces to which it would have been subjected,
over as large an area as is occupied by any of the
sandstones or limestones of that region; and the layers
in which it would at length have been deposited,
would naturally have thinned out also from the centres firom which they were spread, so as to vary at
different points in thickness, as the sandstones, limestones, and shales of that region vary.
The union of their particles in granules and grains
took place probably at their deposition.  The causes
that determined them to assume those forms are not
356 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 357
known. That they were peculiar, however, to that
era, is seen from the fact that grains of silex and felspar are no longer formed where those substances are
deposited from water.   The supposition that they
assumed the shapes in which they now exist in the
strata, at the time of their deposition, or cementation
into solid rock, is as compatible, for aught  that is
known, with the laws of their formation, as the supposition that their concretion into grains took place
at an earlier period.
These views are confirmed by the explanations
they furnish of the elevations and subsidences of portions of the crust of the globe, which appear to have
taken place during the formation of the strata, and
that occasionally occur still.
IlId the earth been, as is very generally maintained by geologists, in a state of  "fusion from
intense heat" whlen it began to be overspread with
its solid crust; and if, as they hold, its interior (with
the exception of a stratum of a few miles' thickness
on its surface) has continued in that condition, no
such elevation or depression of parts of its rocky
covering could have taken place; nor could there
have been an ejection of any of its liquid elements to
the surface by volcanic forces. In order to an elevationl of any portioni of its solid crust, or propulsion of
a part of its interior matter to the surface, a fresh
evolution of heat and generation of gases, creating a 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
pressure ontward, would be necessary.  But such a
molten condition of the interior would preclude the
possibility of either of those processes.   A fresh evolution of heat and generation of expansive gases
could only take place by a fresh and powerful action
on each other of chemical substances and agents, by
which portions of their elements Would assume new
forms, enter into new combinations, and release, in
the process, vast volumes of heat that had before
remained latent.  But in such an oceian of molten
lava no substances or agents of that niature would
exist.   Every particle of its matter being-by the
supposition-alleady in intense fusion, it would have
reached the maximum of the chemical agency in that
formn of which it was capable, and given out all the
latent heat and discharged all the gases which it
could yield.   The chemical action accordin,gly of
its several parts on each other hleaving terminated,
they would have sutink into repose and been incapable
of any fuirtier change by virtue of their own powers,
than a gradual loss of their calorie by conduction
thlrough their rocky envelope to the ocean and atmosphiere without.  All elevation of any part of the crust
of the globe, or a propulsion of lava to the surface by
the ag,ency of such a molten ocean, would consequently be impossible.   How  could forces of such
vast energy as would be requisite to lift a portion of
the earth's crust, thirty, forty, or fifty miles in thick
358 
DERIVED FROM TRE INTERIOR OF THlE EATTH. 359
ness, and extending through several degrees in length
and breadth, be generated by a chemical agency,
when there were no chemical substances or agents
within the globe capable of acting on each other in
such a mananer as to develop an additional measure
of heat, and expand the matter of which they consisted into larger dimensions? How could passages
be forced outward to the surface, and immense
volumes of gas and melted matter be driven with
resistless violence to the surface, when the mass
within was necessarily in a state of absolute repose,
and no elements existed in it that Were capable of
yielding a fresh expansive force?  A volcano ejecting a fiery flood from such a world would be as
impossible as it would from a vacuum.
That theory, therefore, not only furnishes no solution of the elevations and depressions to which the
crust of the earth has been subjected; but it exhibits
those and all other processes of the kind as impossible. No volcanoes could have existed, no earthquakes
could have taken place, no elevation of mountains,
no dislocation of the strata could have been wrought
by the action of forces from within had its constitution and conditions been what that hypothesis represents.  That none of the great number of practical
and speculative geologists and chemists lwho have
advocated that view have caught a glimpse of consequences that would result with such certainty from 
TIUE MATERIAlS OF THE STRATA)
the condition of the earth which they suppose, and
the laws of chemical action, is truly surprising. They
appear to have adopted the theory without looking at
the implications which it involves.
On the view, however, of the earth's structure
which we have advanced, all the phenomena of earthquakes and volcanoes, and the upheaval, depression,
and dislocation of the surface, are naturally explainable. If vast masses of chemical substances were
placed in separate repositories in the depths of the
earth, that were susceptible, on being acted on by
water, electricity, or other agents, of giving out immense measures of heat, generating vast volumes of
gas, and exciting a combustion, by which the matter
with which they were in contact would be raised to
intense fusion, the expansion their action on a large
scale would create, would, of necessity, either upheave
the crust of the globe that rested on them, or force a
passage through the crust, and relieve itself by an
expulsion of the imprisoned matter till an equilibrium
were restored.  If the materials by which that heat
and combustion were excited, were at length exlhausted, and the temperature subsided to its original
point, a space would then be left vacant in the interior commensurate with that which was originally
occupied by the volume of matter that had been
ejected to the surface; and if that space, instead of a
great depth, were spread like a stratum over a wide
360 
DERiVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 361
level, the weight of the incumbent mass might, from
the distance of the points on which it rested, force it
to descend and fill up the vacuum.  An elevation,
a depression, and a dislocation of the surface, would
thus naturally result from sulch an action of those
causes; and there is no other view on which an uplheaval or depression of a part of the earth's crust can
be accounted for. As an upheaval and expulsion of
matter to the surface could only result from a fresh
evolution of heat producing an expansion of the substances on which it acted; so a subsidence could only
result from a diminution or discontinuance of that
expansion, by a diminution or cessation of the evolution of heat, in consequence of which, the upward
pressure ceasing, a vacancy would be created, and the
superincumbent crust, deprived in a measure of its
support, would sink under the force of gravity till it
met a firm basis. Hiow could an area of the surface
sink down a distance towards the centre, unless the
space into which it descended had become vacant?
If the support that had always upheld it remained
unaltered, to what cause would it owve its depression?
But how could a cavity of dimensions adequate for
such a movement be produced in the depths of the
earth, except by a transferrence of the materials, that
originally occupied it, to the surface?  And  how
could they be transferred to the exterior, except by
an expansion of the matter that lay beneath or behind
16 
THE MATERIALS OF THlE STRATA,
them, and occupation of the space from which they
were expelled? How, on the other hand, could that
expansion cease, and the matter that had last filled
the recess it had created, subside into its original
dimensions, except by a discontinuance of the chemical action of which that expansion was the effect?
And what could occasion  such a discontinuance,
except the exhaustion of the chemical substances in
which that action and the evolution of heat it had
caused, had their origin? There are no other known
causes and processes from which those results could
spring?  As then, wherever a subsidence has taken
place, the vacancy into which the depressed crust
descended must have been created by the expulsion to
the surface of the substances that had originally occupied it, wherever those ejected substances were not,
in some measure at least, in the form of lava, they
must-so far as they were not purely gaseous —have
been unfused, and consisted, therefore, either of dry
or moistened particles, or been held in suspension or
solution in water. But there are many localities in
which elevations and subsidences appear  to have
taken place where no traces are seen of lava, or any
species of igneous rockl.  The substances, therefore,
which at those localities have been thlrown up to the
surface from the space into which the subsiding crust
descended, must have been qz,ft(se, and entered, in
the manner we have supposed, into th,e comnpositiotn of
362 
DEP1IVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 363
the strata. In what other form can they have been
ejected? or what other disposition can hlave been
made  of them?  No  unfulsed silex, alimine, lime
magnesia, soda, or potash, are found on the surface,
except that which is incorporated in the sedimentary
strata and the loose soils that rest on them.
This view of the causes of the elevation and depres
sion of the earth's crust admits of their occurrence as
often during the formation of the strata as appearances indicate that they have taken place, and sutgests the reason that subsidences have been followed
by upheavals, as well as upheavals by subsidences.
If the chemical and combustible elements in which a
volcano has its origin, are distributed in layers so varying in breadth and thickness that the quantity exposed to the action of the fire is at sometimes far greater
than at others, or the layers or masses in which they
are arranged are separated by barriers that for a time
intercept the progress of combustion, variations will
naturally occur, like those which actually take pl]ace
in its activity, and transitions at times from violent
ebullition to repose and apparent extinction, and from
repose to sudden and violent eruption. It would give
rise also to such alternate elevations and depressions
as portions of the earth's crust appear to have undergone.  An exhaustion of the materials to which the
fire had access, would be followed by a season of inaction, a discontinuance of the upward pressure, and
lb 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
thence a descent of the mass above, from the loss of
its support, into the vacant recess; but the fires reaching a new depository of combustibles, perhaps by a
slight train, perhaps by the shock of an earthquake
breaking down barriers, or opening firesh chasms, it
would burst out afresh, rage with its primitive violence, and produce a new upheaval of the crust that
lay between it and the atmosphere.  But how could
such alternations of activity and repose take place if
the whole interior of the globe were maintained uniformly at the same point of intense fusion?. How
could a second upheaval occur, if, instead of an occasional augmentation, a perpetual diminution of heat
took place-as must, were the common theory trueby conduction to the ocean or air through the surrounding strata?
That these and other kindred processes to which
the earth has been subjected, which are wholly inexplicable on the theory generally held by geologists, thus admit of a satisfactory explanation on the
view we have advanced of the earth's structure and
the derivation of the strata, is a decisive proof that
that view is correct.
This view of the origin of the materials of the strata,
and the consequent subsidence of the crust of the
earth into the vacuum their removal had created,
suggests an explanation of the accumulation of the
vast mass of tree-ferns and other vegetables in the
I
364: 
DmRIVED FROM THiE INTERIOR OF TIE EARTII. 365
localities where they have been converted into coal.
That the materials from which the coal was formed
did not in the main grow where the coal lies, is apparent from the immense bulk that was required for
beds that are of any considerable thickness; and from
the fact that that of which the bottom of the strata
was formed, exhibits no more marks of having undergone decomposition or decay than that which lay at
the top. The traces of stems, branches, and leaves,
are as distinct and perfect in the lower divisions of
the strata, as at the centre or surface. The whole,
therefore, of which a layer was constituted, must
have been deposited at once. Hiow, then, were they
conveyed thither? H iow, for example, was the immeasurable mass of which the principal stratum was
formed extending from the Delaware to the MIississippi, and from the Appalachians nearly to the lakes,
and of a depth in many places of ten, twelve, or fourteen feet, conveyed to that area? Not by rivers. All
the vegetable matter that was ever borne on the
streams of the continent, multiplied thousands and millions of times, would be inadequate to constitute such
an immiense bed. All the trees and plants that grow
in the line of the rivers of a continent, in such positions as to expose them to be uprooted and borne off
by floods, is but an inappreciable fraction compared
to the whole that springs from the vales, plains, and
mountains; and would never in the lapse of ages 
'.'I'IE MATERIALS OF THE STRATAI
amount to enough, could they be concentrated at one
point, to form a coal bed of any considerable thickness and extent.  But that those of which the strata
were formed were not transported to the places of
their deposition by the agency of rivers, is apparent
fiom the absence from the coal of all earthy sediment. Had rivers at periods of flood been the agents
of their transportation, they would have been intermixed, like the trees that are carried by the Mississippi to its mouth, with a mass of mud, that would
have precluded their conversion into a stratum of
pure coal. The only force that could have swept
them together in such an immeasurable mass unmixed
with other matter, was that of the ocean rushing over
a vast tract of fern-forests, and other vegetables, that
was rapidly sinking beneath it.  And that might
have accomplished it. Let us suppose, for example,
that immediately antecedent to the deposition of tihe
principal stratum of the great bed of Pennsylvania,
Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana, the continent eastward
to the Atlantic, and westward to the Rocky Meountains, stood above the ocean and was covered withi a
rich vegetable growth.  As none of the mountains
that now stretch across it had then risen above the
surface, had it suddenly sunk a half mile or mlile
beneath the line of the sea, the waters rushing over it
with resistless force, would have uprooted or wrenched off all trees and vegetables of any considerable
366 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTI  367
size; and bearing them forward in a confused mass,
accumulated them chiefly on a line where the waters
of the two oceans met. If the subsidence began so
much earlier on the Pacific than the Atlantic side,
that their waves met or finally sank to repose on the
line of that coal bed, the relics with which they were
charged would have centered there. As they would
naturally have been much entangled, that part which
lay lowest would, on being saturated with water by
the pressure to which it was subjected, have become
so heavy as to have sunk, and dragged down such as
was bound with it; the next tier would soon have
followed, and the whole at length have reached the
bottom, where its own weight, increased by the water
with which its cells would have become filled, and
the vast pressure of the ocean, would speedily have
reduced it to a solid mass.  Such processes are certainly adequate to the production of such effects, and
they are processes which all geologists admit have
indisputably taken place. Why, then, should not the
solution which they furnish of the accumulation of
the materials of the coal strata, which is inexplicable
on the prevailing theory, be accepted as legitimate.
The causes to which we thus refer the transportation of the materials of the principal strata-silex,
alumine, lime, and vegetables-to their places of
deposit, are certainly of sufficient energy to have
accomplished their formation with great celerity. 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
And a variety of proofs indicate that they were, in
fact, formed in a very rapid manner.
Thus, that the vegetables which were converted into
coal, were deposited and buried by the strata that lie
above them within a short space, is seen from the
fact, already stated, that the outlines of the stocks,
branches, and most delicate leaves, are preserved in
every part of the bituminized mass unobliterated;
which could not have occurred had they been exposed for long periods to the wear of the restless
waters, and the action of decomposing forces.
That the strata, also, above them were deposited
almost immediately, is shown by the trees, trunks,
and branches that project out of the coal, and are
imbedded in the sandstone, shale, and limestone that
lie above. Many of them rise to such a height as to
pass through six, eight, or ten strata, and show by
the perfect preservation of their forms, that they were
enveloped to their tops before they had begun to
undergo decay. The wood is usually silicified, while
the bark is converted into coal. In some localities
large fields, or forests of trees and stems standing
erect in the places in which they grew, are found
enveloped in a series of sandstones, shales, and limestones; indicating that five, six, or seven of those
strata were deposited in very quick succession; as
otherwise those trees would exhibit marks of decay.
How could they have been thus preserved, if, as the
368 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF TIE EARTH. 369
common theory represents, hundreds, and perhaps
thousands of years were employed in their burial,
and they were during that period exposed to the
action of destructive agents, sufficiently powerful, as
is held, to disintegrate solid rocks and convert them
into the strata? Six, eight, or ten of the layers were
sometimes formed, not improbably, in half the number of years.   The rapidity with which they were
deposited in those instances was, at least, such, that
if it were the ordinary rate, sixteen or eighteen hundred years would be ample for the deposition of the
whole series.
The condition of the fossilized animal relics indicates also that the strata in which they are entombed
were deposited with rapidity. The perfect preservation, in many localities, of the forms of fish, shows that
they were covered by the strata in which they are
imbedded before decomposition had begun, or they
had been exposed to mutilation by other fish.
"The perfect condition in which the impressions of fish
are found in the rock of Alonte Bolca, and their extraordinary abundance, seem to show that the catastrophe which
destroyed them was a sudden one, such as might have been
brought about by the evolution of some of the noxious
gases exhaled from volcanoes. I have myself observed the
speedy extinction of life which takes place when carbonic
acid is introduced into a vessel in which fish of several dif
16* 
THE  ATERIATlS OF THE STRATA,
ferent kinds are collected; the first operation of the gas
causing them to leap out of the water with convulsive
energy, but in a few seconds, all muscular energy being suspended, all the fish without any further effort sinking lifeless to the bottom of the tub."-Daubney's Description of
Active and BExtinct Volcanoes, p. 146.
The skeletons of those of considerable size are often
unmutilated, and dispersed through strata that cover
extensive areas. That would naturally happen, if the
clay or lime that enveloped them was thrown down
in a few hours, or even a few days; but could not,
had scores, and, perhaps, hundreds of years, as the
common theory represents, been occupied in their
deposition. Do dead fish now float in the ocean, or
welter at the bottom, months and years without
decay, and without mutilation by the living? Do
their skeletons long remain unbroken, if exposed to
the dash of breakers, and the wear of powerful waves,
currents, and tides? If not, why should it any more,
in contravention of the most certain physical laws, be
supposed that they did then?
The condition in which the solid parts of testaceous
and other similar animals are found, indicates with
equal clearness that they were rapidly inclosed in
the mass in which they are imbedded.  Shells and
corals, in infinite numbers, are found wholly unbroken.
370 
DERIVED FROM THIE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 371
"The old fresh-water and sea-bottoms present us with
the occurrence of animal remains so preserved, and amid
such substances, that the sudden influx of waters charged
with much fine matter in mechanical suspension may have
destroyed multitudes of aqueous animals in some given
area.  At least their remains are so entangled amid this
matter as to lead to this inference. That fixed creatures or
others of slow movements could thus readily be overwhelmed, would be expected under such conditions at all
geological periods. When, for example, in the vicinity of
Bradford, the Apiocrinites of that locality is found rooted
upon a subjacent calcareous bed, one of the oolitic series,
and entangled in a seam of clay, its parts sometimes beautifully preserved, it may be inferred that it was destroyed
by an influx of mud from which it could not escape. In
like manner, also, the preservation of long uninjured stems
of various encrinites found amid the Silurian and other older
deposits, on the surfaces of limestone and other rocks, and
having had a covering of fine sediment, would appear to be
explained.   Sometimes, as in the Lias of Golden  Cope,
near Lyme Regis, multitudes of belemnites, some with even
the ink-bag of these molluscs preserved, so form a seam of
organic remains, that the observer is led to infer a sudden
destruction of thousands of them over a moderate area.
Ammonites are also sometimes found in great numbers,
distributed in a depth of only a few inches, over areas of a
square mile or more, as if suddenly destroyed....  It
sometimes happens that the shells of molluscs show that
when their animals were entombed, the space occupied by 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
their bodies prevented the entrance of the sediment which
enveloped them...    Multitudes of examples are
found in certain areas and deposits where the presence of
the animals in their shells should seem required. When we
consider the probable voracity of numerous creatures in
fresh and sea waters, and the multitudes of scavenger animals consuming decayed animal matters at all geological
times, the discovery of certain aqueous reptiles preserved
entire amid rocks, even with the contents of their intestines
preserved, leads us to infer that their entombment, if not
also their death, was sudden. And this appears the more
probable when we find, as often happens, that in the same
deposits the same kinds of aqueous reptiles are dismembered,
as if by predaceous animals feeding upon them. While, at
times, in the lias of Western England, the skeletons of
Ichthyosauri and Plesiosauri, are so well preserved, that all
or nearly all the bones are in their proper places; at others
the bones of these reptiles are dispersed, though not always
far removed from the place where the animals died. In
fact the appearances presented are precisely those of decomposition having been so far advanced, that the scavenger
animals could feed upon the carcases, and drag the bones
short distances, so as somewhat to scatter them."-De La
Beche's Geological Observer, pp. 515, 516.
The preservation of such multitudes of animals of
all orders unmutilated, which admits of no solution,
except on the supposition that they were suddenly
destroyed and immediately buried, thus indicates
.372 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 373
decisively that the strata in which they are enveloped
were deposited with rapidity. Is there any reason to
believe that the unfossiliferous strata were not constructed with equal expedition?   None whatever.
All their features indicate that they had their origin
in the same causes, and were formed under the same
conditions.
QUESTIONS.
But were these agents of sufficient energy to transfer those substances to the surface in the period that is represented in Genesis, to
have passed between the creation and the modification of the earth's
surface at the flood? Was that period as adequate, as any greater
one? Is it clear that the requisite materials existed within the globe
at every point where they were needed, to be ejected for the construction of the strata? What is the proof of it? Is it clear that
where those substances were deposited, expulsive forces must have
been generated and thrown them out in vast masses on the surface?
Give the proof of it. By what supposition in respect to Lake Superior, can this be illustrated?
These facts show that the materials of the strata lay have thus
been ejected from the interior of the earth: are there any considerations which indicate that they were in fact derived from that quarter?
What is the first?  Are volcanic rocks found in almost every part
of the globe?  Mention some of the principal countries.   Have
igneous rocks been driven up to the surface in still more numerous
places? Do these facts show that such agents have been at work in
the depths of the planet in every considerable region, as might have
ejected the materials of the strata, and spread them by the waters of
the ocean wherever they are found? What is the next fact by which
this is corroborated? Can the distribution of the different substances
of which the strata consist into separate layers and groups, be
accounted for on any other supposition, than that they were separated 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
from each other in the depositories from which they were drawn?
If thrown up successively from separate repositories, would they
naturally be deposited from the waters of the ocean in separate
layers? If introduced into the ocean in that manner, would the
slight intermixture of them naturally take place, that is now seen in
the strata? What is the third fact which gives confirmation to this
view? Show how, if injected into the waters of the sea in the manner
we have supposed, they would be diffused over wide areas. What
may be presumed to have been their form when ejected into the
ocean? Did their union in granules and larger bodies take place
then probably or at a later period?
What explanations of important phenomena are furnished by these
views that corroborate their truth?  Could such  elevations and
depressions of the rocky surface of the earth as exist, have taken
place, had the globe been as many geologists hold it once was, in
a state of fusion? State the reason. How is it that heat and expansive gases are generated?  Is all the latent heat evolved in matter
that is in a state of perfect fusion? Were the interior of the globe
in a state of fusion, would it necessarily be in a state of repose, so far
as the generation of gases is concerned?   Would volcanoes, be
impossible in such a globe?   Is this consideration overlooked by
the geologists, who hold that the earth is now a molten ocean, except
a thin rocky crust which forms its surface?  Are the phenomena of
earthquakes, volcanoes, and the elevation and dislocation of the
surface, explicable on the views we have advanced? Show how these
great processes may have been produced. Does this view of the
causes of these great movements allow of their repetition as often
as the strata indicate that they have taken place? Show how.
Do these views suggest an explanation of the great accumulation
of vegetable matter in the localities where coal exists? Is it apparent that the materials generally, of which coal beds are formed, did
not grow in the places where the coal lies? What is the proof of
that fact? Is it clear also that the whole materials of a bed, must
have been deposited at once, not slowly accumulated?  What is the
374 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 375
proof of that fact?   Can they have been borne to the places where
they were buried, by rivers? Why not? What then is the only
force that could have swept them together? State in what manner
it might happen. How does it appear that the materials of the coal
beds were deposited in a short space?  How dqes it appear that the
strata which lie next above the coal, were immediately formed over
them? What indicates that the strata in which the relics of animals
are buried, were deposited with rapidity? What is the testimony of
Mr. Daubney respecting it? Would the larger animals have decayed
if they had not been immediately involved in the earthy and mineral
matter in which their remains are preserved? Does the condition
also of shells indicate that they were buried suddenly in the beds of
mud which were their birth-place and residence; not swept from
them by violent currents and long exposed to erosion and fractures
before being interred in the strata in which they are now found?
What is the testimony of Sir T. H. De La Beche respecting it? Do
all these facts confirm the view we have advanced, by showing that
the strata were formed with rapidity? 
THE ]MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
CHAPTER XVI.
The Materials of the Strata derived from the Interior of the Eartb.
THIS view of the mode in which the materials of the
strata were introduced into the oceans and seas, suggests the probable reason that those animals that were
invested with a covering of silex or lime, swarmed at
periods in certain localities, in infinite numbers. The
infusion into the waters of the ocean at those points,
of the elements of which their shells are formed, perhaps at a temperature equal to or above that of the
equatorial seas, and that rendered their propagation
practicable through the whole year, may have been
the cause of their extraordinary multiplication. The
slight animalcula whose silicious sheaths are in a few
places accumulated in vast masses, cast their coverings periodically, and, like other creatures of that
order, multiplied with a rapidity in an inverse ratio
to their minuteness. The bulk of their relics is not
greater, perhaps, in proportion to their power of
increase, than that of some larger animals. There is,
at least, no satisfactory explanation of their infinite
multitude on any other theory. The supposition of
vast ages during which they existed, is altogether
376
0 
DERIVED FROM TIHE IX'rTErIOR OF THE EARTH. 37'7
inadmissible; for they are not common to all geological times, but confined to periods of comparatively
slight length; and there are no indications that the
strata formed contemporaneously with them, occupied
a long round of ages. Myriads as innumnerable as
those of the infusoria that sometimes now animate
every drop of the ocean through hundreds of cubic
miles, casting their sheaths at slight intervals, would
in a few years accumulate masses as great as those
imbedded in the strata.
It suggests a more probable solution than any other
of the origin of rock salt, and the saliferous marls
from which salt springs arise. Those marls were undoubtedly ejected, like all others, from the interior of
the earth; and why should not the salt with which
they are saturated have been ejected along with
them? We know that soda exists in the depths of
the earth, as it is a conspicuous element in many of
the volcanic rocks; and chloride also, as it is an element of muriatic acid, which is one of the most comaon and abundant of the gases emitted from volcanoes.
"Muriatic acid seems to be generated during almost all
the phases of volcanic action; for  although some have
attempted to establish a class of volcanoes to which the production of muriatic acid was peculiar, yet it would appear
that there were none from which this gas is not ia greater
or less quantity disengaged."-Daubney's  Description of
Volcanoes, p. 607. 
TTVE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
Their ejection in combination, and in such conditions as to form rock salt, however it may transcend
our comprehension, is no more incredible than many
other processes, of the occurrence of which we have
ample evidence. There is no other theory of its origin that is not perplexed with insuperable objections.
This view of the rapidity with which the strata
were formed, is confirmed by the softness and pliancy
which they appear universally to have retained, till
the time of their upheaval. That they were so soft
when elevated as to be susceptible of flexion without
breaking, is seen from the curvatures and contortions
to which those of every species, especially from gneiss
up to the last of the shales, sandstones, limestones
and coal beds of the carboniferous system, have been
subjected.
"Contorted strata are common on the skirts or flanks of
many mountain chains, appearing to show that before the
latter attained their existing forms, there was a pressure
from the central parts outward, causing the lateral contortions.
"To produce this effect-as in the Alps, between Rigi
and the Hospice of St. Gothard-we seem compelled to
suppose the whole mass of the calcareous Alps-a series of
mixed strata of limestone, argillaceous slates, shales, and
sandstone, t,he former predomrninating —to have been in a
yielding or comparatively soft state. We can scarcely suppose with any approach to probability, that the soft, yielding condition of this mass should have continued sufficiently
378 
DERIVED FROM TtIE INTERIOt OFl TTIE   EARiTH. 379
long to enable a succession of small shocks, of no greater
intensity than those of a modlerni earthquake, to have acted
upon it.  The whole strongly impresses us with the idea of
a powerful exertion, forcing the limestone and associated
beds outwards."-H. T. De La Beche's 7heoret. Geolog,y, pp.
113, 114.
In some instances they form a simple curve; in
others a series of curves, like so many waves; in
others still they are folded over like a half dozen of
the letter S joined inii a continuous line. The folding,
in some localities, is on so great a scale, that the strata
must either have been drawn from a distance, or else
greatly expanded in length and breadth.  In some
parts of the Alleghanies the coal series within a half
dozen square miles, would, if spread out on a level,
cover two or three times that space.
"The most probable condition of contortion appears to
be pressure of solid matter on yielding stratified substances,
which, while they bend, also slide to a certain extent on the
planes of stratification." —I/. T. De La Beche's Thieoretical
Geology, p. 121.
No such softness and pliancy are retained by the
stratified or crystallized rocks that now lie beneath
the surface; however far they may be below the line
of thie sea.   Though permeated by moisture, and,
when first raised to the atmosphere, far more easily
sawn or wrought with the chisel than after the water 
THE IMATERIALS OF THE STRATAY
with which they are charged has evaporated, they yet
are not sufficiently flexible to be bent without fiacture.  As, then, they must have continued in a pliant
state till their upheaval was completed and they were
mnoulded into their present form, it is manifest that
their elevation must have taken place rapidly. It
cannot have proceeded, as many geologists maintain,
by such slow stages, as to have been prolonged
through a series of ages. If protracted after emerging from the ocean through even a few years, the heat
beneath of the molten mass of granite by which they
were forced upwards, and the action of the sun and
atmosphere, would have desiccated and hardened
them to such a degree as to have rendered them incapable of being bent into curves and folds without
breaking into fragments.  We have the most decisive
evidence, therefore, that their upheaval was accomplishlied in a brief period; and that the vast round of
years which geologists have regarded as requisite to
that process, is wholly imaginary.
Their upheaval and subjection in that pliant state
to the powerful breakers, waves, and currents of the
ocean, explain the denudations which they have undergone. Had they possessed their present hardness
when rising through the ocean into the atmosphere,
no such immense wearing away and such vast excavations as have been wrought in them would have been
possible.
380 
DERIVED FROM TIHE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 381
"Of the formations comprising the rocks of this portion
of the State, II. and III., are a limestone and slate stratum,
which are at all times more destructible than sandstone;
but especially so must they have been in their soft and
pulpy state at the time of their elevation from the bed of
the ocean in which they were deposited. Hlence they have
been more deeply excavated than the harder ponderous beds
of sandstone, of which formation iv. consists. We accordingly find formations II. and iii. always in the deep and
nearly level valleys, and iv. in the high and steep mountain
ridges. Of the other rocks, formation v. consists chiefly of
soft slates and calcareous slates.   Formation vi., of limestone, which, like II., was evidently of a very soft consistence
when first uplifted, and formation viii. of a mass of slate
and argillaceous rocks. This would all be liable to very
extensive destruction whenever subterraneous uplifting forces
should bring them within the reach of those tremendous
currents, which those same uplifting actions set in motion."
-H  D.  ]?Rodgers's Report on the Geology of Pennsylvania,
1838, p. 41.
The sea does not now wear the solid rocks that lie
embosomed in it, or rise from its surface, except in a
few positions where exposed to the most powerful
breakers and currents; and there what it rends and
wears away is scarcely appreciable, compared to the
masses that meet the shock of its powerful enginery
century after century without yielding. Myriads of
ages would have contributed little towards grind 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
ing down strata of such hardness, scores, hundreds,
and even thousands of feet in thickness, over wide
areas, scooping out valleys, and ploughing, the broad
passages betwixt the hills, in the bottom of which
rivers cut their channels.  But that immense rending
and denudation was the natural  result of the rapid
upheaval of the strata from a level beneath the sea,
in a condition so pliant as to yield to the violent currents and waves which that process itself miust have
created, and the resistless sweep and dash of oceantempests and storms. Under the impulse of those
powerful agents, the parts most elevated would at
many points be instantly swept away, and where a
whole continent, like that of South America, rose at
the same time, so as to cause the ocean to recede with
a resistless rush hundreds and thousands of miles, its
currents would necessarily tear up and bear off the
strata over extensive regions. Instead of vast ages
and incalculable periods, a very brief time, therefore,
would be ample for tle accomplishment of all the
great modifications of that class to which the strata
have been subjected.   The cuttings, accordingly,
through hills, the excavations of valleys, and the
removal of strata from large districts, and deposit of
the detritus in others, are precisely sucl  as would
naturally result from the vehlement conimmotion and
violent currents of the ocean acting on such  susceptible materials. On the prevalent theory, however,
382 
DEPR,IVED FROMI TIlE INTERIOR OF T'HE EARTHI. 383
they are wholly inexplicable. If the strata onil the
tops and sides of the mountains and hills, and on the
plains and depressed surfaces, were as hard at their
upheaval from the ocean as they now are, no solution
could be given of the vast degradation that has taken
place at many points in rocky ranges and plateaus,
the abrasion of solid masses frolm wide plains, and the
scooping out of deep channels and valleys between
the hills, arranged in the same relations to each other,
and exhibiting the same outlines as those that are
now wrought in yielding soils by deluges and floods
that sweep over them.
The soft condition of the strata at their upheaval
into the atmosphere, indicates the reasons also of the
excavations within a brief period by rivers of their
deep channels for miles through rocky strata. Thus
the Niagara must naturally have cut its passage back
from Lake Ontario to near its present fall in the
lapse of a few years; inasnmuch as the strata over
which it passed were at first so pliant as easily to
yield to the powerful impulse of the current and cataract. That that was their state, is indisputable. not
only from the fact that the strata generally were unhardened at their upheaval, but that the same formations on the Helderberg and the Appalachians were
actually subjected to curvatures and contortions, that
show that under the surge and dash of such a mass
of waters as the Niagara, they would have given way 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA.
in a moment, and dissolving into their primitive particles, been borne off by the resistless current. To
suppose that a long round of ages, or even a considerable number of years, could have been exhausted in
excavating such a chasm in strata in that condition,
is a consummate solecism. The length and depth of
the channel, instead of proving that a long period elapsed during its excavation, present a resistless demonstration that no more time can have been occupied by
it than passed between the upheaval of the strata and
their acquiring such a measure of hardness as to enable them to resist, as they now do, the impulse of the
waters. It is truly surprising that geologists, though
aware of the evidences that the strata, at their elevation, were tender and plastic, should yet wholly overlook it in their theories of erosion and denudation,
and proceed in their inferences respecting the time
that was required for those processes, on the assumption that the rocks that have been swept off, or cut by
deep gorges, must from the first have had all their
present hardness.
The plastic condition of the rocks at the elevation
of the mountains furnishes an explanation of the formation of the rounded stones, pebbles, and much,
probably, of the gravel that are found in the vicinity
of the great ranges, as the Cordilleras of South America, the Rocky -Iountains, the Appalachians, and the
Alps.   At  their sudden  upheaval, chasms were
384 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF TIlE EARTIH. 385
opened in them doubtless, and explosions of gas, and
not improbably of lava, took place, by which portions
of the rocks through which they forced their way upwards were torn into fragments, and projected with
a rotary motion into the surging and rushing waters
of the ocean, in the whirl of which they were borne
off to a distance ere they reached the bottom, and
stripped in the process of their angles and points, and
reduced to a circular or elliptical form. Their rounding was then soon completed by the ceaseless change
of position and wear to which they continued to be
subjected by the advance and recession of powerful
waves, while the areas on which they lie were upheaving towards the atmosphere, and the ocean
retreating to its present bed. It is noticeable that
these vast bodies of stones, pebbles, and gravel lie at
the eastward of the mountain range from which they
were derived. Thus in Patagonia:
"Here-in Patagonia-in the tertiary formations —along
hundreds of miles of coast, we have one great deposit, including many tertiary shells all apparently extinct. These beds
are covered by others of a peculiar soft white stone, including much gypsum, and resembling chalk, but really of a
pumiceous nature.   It is highly remarkable, from being
composed, to at least one tenth part of its bulk, of infusoria.
This bed extends 500 miles along the coast, and probably
for a considerably greater distance.   At Port Julian its
thickness is more than 800 feet!  These white beds are
17 
THE LMATERIAI,S OF THIE STRATA,
everywhere capped by a mass of gravel, forming, probably,
one of the largest beds of shingle in the world; it certainly
extends from near the Rio Colorado to between 600 and
700 nautical miles southwest; at Santa Cruz, a river a
little north of St. Julian, it reaches to the foot of the Cordillera; half way up the river, its thickness is more than
200 feet; it probably everywhere extends to this great
chain, vwhence the well rounded pebbles of porphyry have been
derived. We may consider its average breadth as 200 miles,
and its average thickness as about fifty feet.  If this great
bed of pebbles, without including the mud necessarily derived
from their attrition, was piled into a mound, it would form
a great mountain chain!"-Darwin's Journal of Researches
in NVatural History and Geology in the Voyage of the Beagle,
pp. 170, 171.
"Near the mouth of the Santa Cruz the bed of gravel is
from twenty to about thirty-four feet in thickness.   The
pebbles vary from minute ones to the size of a hen's egg,
and even to that of half a man's head.  They consist of
paler varieties of porphyry than those found further northward, and there are fewer of the gallstone yellow kind;
pebbles of compact black clay slate were here first observed.
The gravel covers the step-formed plains at the mouth,
head, and on the sides of the great valley of the Santa Cruz.
At the distance of. 110 miles from the coast, the plain has
risen to the height of 1416 feet above the sea, and the
gravel, with the associate great boulder formation, hai
attained a thickness of 212 feet.   The plain, apparently
with its usual gravel covering, slopes up to the foot of the
386 
DERIVED FrOOM TI{E l NTERPIOP OF TIIHE EARTH. 38T
Cordillera to the height of between 3200 and 3300 feet.
In ascending the valley,  the gravel gradually becomes
entirely altered in character; high up we have pebbles of
crystalline felspathic rocks, compact clay-slates, quartzose
schists, and pale-colored porphyries; these rocks, judging
from the gigantic boulders on the surface, and from some
small pebbles imbedded beneath 700 feet in thickness of
tertiary strata, are the prevailing kinds in this part of the
Cordillera: pebbles of basalt from the neighboriiing streams
of basaltic lava are also numerous."
*         e          e          e          *         e
"The transportal and origin of this vast bed of pebbles
is an interesting problem.   From the manner in which they
cap the step-formrned plains, worn by the sea within the period
of existing shells, their deposition, at least on the plains up
to a hleight of 400 feet, must have been a recent geological
e.evzt.  From the form of the continent, we  may be sure
they have come from the westward, probably in chief part
from the Cordillera, but perhaps partly from unknown rocky
ridges in the central districts of Patagonia.  That the pebbles have not been transported by rivers from the interior
towards the coast, we may conclude from the fewness and
smallness of the streams of Patagonia....   That
the pebbles in central and northern Patagonia have not
been transported by ice-ag       ency,... we may  conclude from  the absence of all angular fragments in the
gravel, and from the complete contrast in many other respects between the shingle and the neighboring boulder formation. 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
"Looking to the gravel on any one of the step-formed
plains, I cannot doubt,.... that it has been spread
out and levelled by the long continued action of the sea,
probably during the slow rise of the land."-Darwin's Geological Observations o7b South America, pp. 20-22.
Beds of pebbles and gravel, formed of quartz,
gneiss, and primary slate, are strewn in muich tle
same manner on the Atlantic side of the Appalachians in Virginia.
"The loose aggregation and coarse materials of those
beds give them so great a resemblance to the common diluvium of sand and gravel, generally forming the surface
strata in this part of the State, as to render careful observation necessary in order to distinguish between them; and
even the closest inspection in some cases will not suffice for
this purpose.   This obscurity, however, does not apply to
localities in which the tertiary beds are seen resting upon
them, as in such cases the subjacent position of the sandstone or conglomerate determines its true geological character, the diluvial sand or gravel having its place above the
tertiary.
"When the tertiary,.....   having been removed,
has been replaced by diluvial sand and gravel
deposited on the broken surface of the secondary," still, "a
marked difference may be noticed in their composition, especially in the comparatively large amount of white felspathic
earth blended with the coarser matter of the upper second
388 
DERIVED PROM TIHE INTERIOR OF TIIE EARTH. 389
ary. Indeed, at most localities, however large may be the
pebbles imbedded in some of the layers, the intervening
matter will be found to possess the character of a soft felspathie sandstore, and some portions of the mass will display
this character throughout.
"The pebbles thus imbedded in the finer material of these
beds, sometimes in layers of many feet in thickness, but
oftener in narrow courses, are frequently of great size, measuring even as much as eight or ten inches in diameter.
They are of very various origin; some being from the primary
region, and consisting of quartz, gneiss, and primary slates,
while others are from the formations further west, and especially that lying on the valley (west) side of the Blue Ridge,
and which I have designated as the first of the series of
rocks of our great Appalachian system. These fragments
of formation i., remarkable for their bright white color and
their great magnitude, serve to distinguish the mass in
which they occcur from the overlying diluvium, in which
nothing analogous has as yet been discovered.   Forming
thus a part of what may be considered as ancient diluvium
belonging to the secondary era, they point to the extensive
agency of the currents by which the heterogeneous materials
of these upper secondary strata were swept together."Rodgers's Report on the Geology of Virginia, 1839, pp. 36,
37.
See also p. 60 for a description of similar conglomerates and sandstones in the northern district east of
the Blue Ridge.
That these immense masses were thus swept 
THIE MATERIALS OF THE STRATAI
towards the east, indicates that a resistless rush of
the ocean took place in that direction at the upheaval
of the mountains from which they were hurled by
volcanic explosions, or torn by the surge and sweep
of the waters.  This and the transportation of the
pebbles to such a distance, may have arisen in a measure from the elevation of the western side of the
continent first.  If, instead of being raised throughout at the same time, it was elevated first at the
western side, so as to form a slope beneath the sea,
descending one, two, or three miles towards the east,
the sudden upheaval of the Cordilleras to within a
few hundred feet of the atmosphere, would have
thrown the vast mass of waters that before rested on
the plains of Patagonia, Buenos Ayres, and Brazil,
towards the Atlantic, so as to have drawn after them
a current from the Pacific of hundreds of times the
force with which it surges in an ordinary tempests,
and swept the fragments ejected from the interior,
and wrenched from the summit and sides of the
mountain, to the distance of many miles; and its
ceaseless waves would then, at every roll along the
inclining bottom, have borne them still further into
the depths. These stupendous processes, which were
wholly impossible on the prevailing theory, might
thus have been dispatched in a very brief period,
instead of occupying the interminable ages which
geologists assign them.
390 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 391
These views of the period at which the strata were
formed, and of the causes of the submersion of the
land beneath the sea, and the retreat of the sea from
the land, indicate the reason that no human remains
are found fossilized in the strata. Geologists generally allege the fact that no relics of the human race
are buried in the rocks in which so many animals of
the sea and land are entombed, as a decisive proof
that man was not created till after these rocks were
formed. That conclusion, however, is without any
just ground.  There is no reason to suppose that anterior to the flood, any of the human family lived in
this hemisphere, in Europe, or in those parts of Asia
or Africa, in which the strata have been examined.
How, then, could their remains be entombed in the
rocks of those regions? The strata, moreover, that
now form the crust of the continents and islands, in
the main, lay undoubtedly, previous to the deluge,
beneath the sea, and were formed, at least chiefly,
during the interval from the creation to that catastrophe. The primitive earth, occupied by the first
pair and their descendants down to the flood, was
then submerged-and doubtless by its own subsidence-and still continues to lie at the bottom of the
ocean. For how could it have sunk beneath the
waters to so great a depth, unless on the one hand by
its being depressed below the line it had before occupied, and on the other, by a corresponding elevation 
THE MATERIALS OF THIE STRATA,
of the bed of the former sea?  But such a subsidence
of that ancient earth would have caused the ocean to
rush on to it from every side, and carried its population and all other movable things from its exterior
towards its centre, where they would naturally have
sunk along with the wreck of their dwellings, fields,
and forests, and been buried beneath the mud and
sand with which the rushing waters would have
become charged. To suppose that their bodies could
have disentangled themselves from such a complicated mass, and floated off against the current to the
other hemisphere, is to contradict the physical laws
to which they and the movements of the ocean must
have been subject. The total absence from the strata
of this country, of Europe, of Africa, and Asia, of the
relics of those then destroyed, is precisely therefore
what was to be expected from the time and mode of
their destruction.   How  could their remains be
entombed in those strata which had been deposited
before the epoch of the deluge, that swept them to
their watery sepulchre? How could they obtain a
burial in the seas where these strata were formed,
when their distance was so great as to preclude their
being borne to them? How extensive the continent,
or continents and islands, of that world were, we have
no means of judging. It is highly probable that they
were of but moderate dimensions at their elevation
on the third day of the creation; and they may have
392 
DERIVED FROMf THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTHI. 393
been enlarged at subsequent periods, as the race multiplied, and still have been at the time of their submergence, at the deluge, greatly inferior in extent to
the present dry land. On that supposition, portions
of the present continents might have been elevated
into the atmosphere sufficient to have borne the vegetable growths out of which the coal beds were
formed, without rendering the aggregate of the dry
land greater than it is now.
It is highly probable, also, that at the reappearance
of dry land at the close of the deluge, the extent of
the Asiatic continent, raised above the ocean, was
comparatively small; and that the great processes by
which the strata generally were completed, and the
continents and islands elevated to their present positions, were continued through a considerable period
after that event. And it may have been in reference
to such a gradual reconstruction of the crust of the
earth, that animals were preserved in the ark, notwithstanding-as there is reason to believe-there
were to be new creations to stockl the remote regions
of Asia, and other continents and islands which were
to be prepared to be peopled with animals more
rapidly than those from the ark could multiply; or
fromn their distance, the impassable barriers with
which they were surrounded, and their different climates, were to require a creation on their own soil
of peculiar genera and species. While, therefore, the
17* 
1TH  MATERIALS OF THo STRATA,
animals preserved in the ark may have been sufficient in kinds and numbers to supply the wants of
Noah and his family, and stock that part of the earth
that was first raised above the sea; as other countries
became fitted to support the same or other tribes,
those with which they were peopled may have been
called into existence by a new fiat. And on this supposition the existence in Europe, Northern Asia,
Africa, and this continent, of the land animals whose
relics are fossilized in the strata, is rendered consistent with the sacred history of the creation and deluge.
These animals existed undoubtedly after the deluge,
not anterior to it. Some of the species of Europe and
Africa that were the most active, and best adapted to
live in different climes, may have migrated from the
East; but most were probably created in the regions
where they perished.   If during the two or three
hundred years that followed the flood, Northern Asia,
Europe, Africa, and America, emerged from the
ocean, portions of them being gradually drained of
their waters, and portions again submerged, or overflowed by deluges occasioned by the sudden elevation
of other tracts; there was ample space for the life
and destruction of the land animals whose remains
are buried in the upper tertiary strata, gravel, and
soil of these regions that were formed after the elevation, at least in a considerable measure, of their great
mountain ranges.
394 
DERIVED FROM THiE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH.  395
The fact that certain classes of animals appear to
have passed out of existence during the formation of
the strata, and other forms of marine life and land
animals that had not before inhabited the same
regions were called into existence, and in their turn
swept away also, is indeed alleged by some as a decisive proof that vast periods must have been occupied
by these changes. No conclusion, however, could
be more unnatural. Vast periods surely were not
required for the creation of animals.   They  are
instantly called into being by the word of the
Almigltty; and not in single pairs, like the progenitors of the human race, but in crowds, as at the first
creation of the tenants of the air and the water, when
the waters were commanded to " bring forth al~nda~ntly the moving creature that hlath life, and fowl
that may fly above the earth in the open firmament
of heaven;" and the earth was commanded to " bring
forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and
creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind;"
which also, like the fish and fowl, were produced,
doubtless, not solely in one locality, but wherever the
earth was prepared to sustain them. Their creation
shows, therefore, that instead of innumerable ages,
only brief periods were required for their being called
into existence. Nor is the extinction of certain classes
any more a proof of a lapse of long periods; as all
appearances indicate that their destruction took place 
THE iMATERIAlLS OF TIlE STRATA
by causes that were sudden and acted over great
areas; such as the effusion of deadly gases into the
ocean; the eruption of vast masses of silex, alumine,
lime, and other substances from the depths of the
earth, that thickened the waters of the sea, and generated chemical processes that were fatal to animal
life. Nor is there any reason to suppose that there
were long intervals between the extinction of one
series and the creation of its successors. The seas and
lands were again repeopled, doubtless, as soon as they
became fitted to be the residence of the tribes with
which they were next stocked. The change of their
population, therefore, by these rapid processes, instead
of demanding a long round of ages, may have been
accomplished in a short time.
This supposition accounts also for the preservation
of such of the relics of those animals as, instead of
being entombed in the solid strata, were buried in the
gravel or sands deposited above them, where they
hlave been exposed to moisture and other chemical
agents that were adapted to induce their decay. That
bones of any species should be preserved in such conditions, through the vast series of ages which geologists
assign to them-30,000 years, Sir C. Lyell assumes,
have passed since the burial of the Mastodon found
in the gravel near Niagara-is physically impossible.
If the same chemical forces that acted on that skeleton disintegrated during that period immense masses
396 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EAPRTH. 39T
of the most solid rocks, and bore their detritus to the
sea-as that writer holds —how is it that those bones,
which were far more easily decomposed, should have
withstood their destructive agency and survived
almost unimpaired? The two assumptions are incompatible with each other.  Many of the skeletons that
are found buried in low grounds, bogs, and swamps,
are probably of a comparatively recent date. Others
were doubtless of a much earlier age; but four thousand years are probably as long a period as any of
them could have been preserved without undergoing
a greater measure of decay.
Such are the facts and considerations that confirm
the view we have presented of the formation of the
strata. We might add many others; but these are
sufficient on the one hand to demonstrate the total
error of the theory generally entertained by geologists; and on the other, to show that the strata, so
far from offering any contradiction to the Mosaic
record of the creation and deluge, are in entire hliarmony with it, and indicate in all their great features
that they were formed with a rapidity as great as that
history implies.
It will, perhaps, be said that although the views
we have advanced seem to be consistent with the laws
of the physical world, and with the appearances of
the strata; and to show that all the great processes
by which the crust of the earth received its present 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
form, may have been consummated within the period
we have supposed-the 1,800 or 2,000 years that followed the creation-yet we have produced no absolute demonstration that such was the fact; and that,
therefore, there is room to doubt that they were finished in that period, and to suppose that they occupied a far greater series of ages.
To this we reply, that it is not necessary to our
object that we should demonstrate directly and absolutely from the strata theraselves, that they were completed in that period. Our aim is to confute the
representation, that the strata themselves present
resistless evidence that they were formed at a far
earlier epoch than that to which the Scriptures refer
the creation of the world; and thereby to protect the
sacred word from the charge and suspicion of giving
a false history of that event; and that we accomplish
by showing,, in the first place, that the geological theory which ascribes an immeasurable age to the world,
is altogether groundless and mistaken; and in the
next, that the materials of the strata were placed originally in such conditions, and acted on by such
agents as rendered their transfusion into the ocean,
and deposition and upheaval in their present form in
a period of eighteen hundred or two thousand years,
consistent with the great laws of those substances and
agents, and possible therefore; and thirdly, that their
completion with such a rapidity is indicated and con
398 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 399
firmed by their structure and condition. In accomplish'ng that, we do all that is necessary to vindicate
the Scriptures from the charge to which the geological theory of an immeasurable age of the world has
given rise, that they arc convicted by the facts of science of error; and of an error so extraordinary and
stupendous as to show that neither the history of the
creation, nor any of the other professed commLunications firom God, which they contain, can have been
written by inspiration. And these propositions we
have demonstrated. We have shown that the theory
which ascribes a vast age to the world cannot be true,
because it is not supported by any proofs; because if
granted it could not account for the formation of the.
strata; because it is against the laws themselves of
matter; and because it would preclude the occurrence of any of the great processes by which the crust
of the earth has been formed and modified; such as
earthqLuakes, the elevation of mountains, the eruption
of volcanoes, the introduction of the materials of the
strata into the ocean and dispersion over the areas
where they lie, and the upheaval and dislocation of
the strata after they were formed. A theory that
presents such insuperable barriers to the accomplishment of these great processes cannot have any foundation in truth, nor present any solution of the facts
which it is devised to explain. If the advocates of that
theory are to demonstrate or render it probable that 
THE IMIATERIALS OF THE STRATAI
the earth has had a longer existence than is assigned
to it by the Scriptural history of its creation, it must
be by means wholly different from those which they
have hitherto employed for the purpose.
The proofs are decisive also on the other hand, that
the strata may have been formed within the period
of eighteen hundred or two thousand years from the
creation; and all the features of the strata indicate
that they were built with as great a rapidity, and
completed within as recent a date, as that supposes;
and the establishment from the laws of the chemical
and mechanical forces by which the structure and
modification of the earth's erust have been produced,
and from the nature and condition of the strata theinmselves, of the possibility of such a rapid formation, is
all that is requisite to exempt the Scriptures from the
imputation of error in their narrative of the creation
and deluge.  For if such a construction of the crust
of the globe is consistent with the laws of those forces,
and is probable, then neither the extent and thickness of the strata, the substances of which they consist, the relics they imbed, their upheaval and dislocation, nor any other peculiarities which they exhibit,
present any contradiction to the sacred history of
their origin and date; nor furnish any ground for an
inference against the divine authority of that history,
and the other parts of the sacred volume that are
founded on it, and assume and ratify its truth.
400 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF TIlE EARTI. 401
It is not to invalidate this conclusion, to say that
we have not absolutely demonstratedfioom the crntst
of the earth itse,f that it was wrought into its present shape within that period. To set that conclusion
aside, they who dissent from it must prove directly
and absolutely that the strata cannot have been
formed, the igneous rocks thrown on to the surface,
and the mountains upheaved in the manner, nor consummated within the period we have represented.
But that they cannot do, unless they can set aside the
grounds on which we found that conclusion. But in
order to that, they must show, first, that there are no
proofs that any such stores of the various substances
of which the present surface of the globe is construtcted, were originally treasured up in its interior, as
thlat-on the supposition that there were proper agents
for their transferrence to the surface-the strata
might have been formed from them.  But that they
cannot show.  It is against the most palpable facts.
It is against their own admissions.  It were to overturn their own theories of the nature and origin of all
the igneous rocks, vwhllichl they themselves regard as
of immeasurably greater bulk than the sedimentary
strata.  No certainty is more indisputable or holds a
more important place in their speculations, than that
the igneous rocks which were thlrown up from  the
abysses of the planet are formed of identically the
same substances as the sedimentary strata. They
cannot deny, therefore, that all those elements were 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA;
originally stored in repositories in the interior of the
earth, and on a scale sufficiently vast to have supplied all the materials that were requisite for the construction of the sedimentary strata, as well as the
crystallized and volcanic rocks.
As then that is indisputable, if they would set that
conclusion aside, they must show that there were no
agents that had access to those substances of sufficient
power and activity to raise them into the ocean, that
they might be deposited on its bottom and wrought
into the strata ill which they now exist. That, however, they cannot any more prove; as it is indisputable that such agents in fact existed, and actually
raised to the surface the vast masses of those substances of which the igneous rocks are formed.  This
is acknowledged and maintained also by geologists,
and is a conspicuons and important element of their
theory. It is plain, moreover, that the fires of volcanoes, in forcing a passage from the deep recesses in
which they were kindled to the atmosphere, must
have driven up in an unfused state immense volumes
of the substances that lay between'them and the surface; and that those substances must have entered
into the construction of the strata; as otlerwise they
would have formed a separate body;  but no such
masses exist on the surface.  The igneous rocks and
the sedimentary strata constitute the whole crust of
the globe.
As then the requisite materials for the strata inldis
402 
DERIVED FIEOM TIHE LNTEHIOR OF THE EARTH. 403
putably existed, originally, in the depths of the earth,
and the requisite aT,ents have existed and acted to
transfer them  to the waters of the ocean; it cannot
be proved that they were not in fact drawn from
those sources, unless it can be shown that if they had
been introduced into the ocean in that mananer, they
could not have been so diffused tlhrough the waters
and deposited as to have formed the existing strata.
But that cannot be proved. So far firom it, their diffusion and deposition in separate layers, like those of
the strata, is precisely what would naturally and
necessarily take place, firoomn the unfused and uncemented condition of those substances on their infusion
into the ocean, and from the action on them of gravity, and the motions and pressure of the water.  To
this, indeed, geologists cannot hesitate to assent; as
they represent the materials of tlhe strata as having
been transported by the tides and currents from the
circumference of the ocean, where they suppose them
to have been introduced by rivers, or beat off from
rocky shores, into its interior, and thrown down on
the areas where they were formed into the strata.
As, then, neither of these great points of the view
we have advanced ean be disproved, no method
remains of setting it aside, unless it can be shown
that such a construction of the crust of the earth is
inconsistent with or leaves unexplained some of the
other great processes to which it has been subjected; 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA,
such as the upheaval and dislocation of the strata and
the elevation of continents and mountains, or the
incorporation in it of elements, such as the relics of
vegetables and animals, that were not derived from
the interior of the globe.  But neither of these can
any more be proved.  Instead, all these extraordinary
efifects are precisely what would naturally result from
such causes acting, in such conditions, and could not
have been produced by any other forces, nor in ally
other circumstances.   They solve, accordingly, all
-the great processes that have taken place, and account
for all the grleat results; while, on the prevalent
theory of a molten globe invested by a granite crust
-in which no new developments of an expansive
force could take place, and thence no upheavals, no
subsidences, no volcanoes, and no earthquakes-they
are inexplicable and impossible.
As thlen those several positions are thus indisputable, it is clear that there are no means of proving that
the strata were not in fact formed by those agents
and processes.  Instead, their construction in that
manner is not only altogether possible and probable,
but they are the only agents and processes that were
adequate to their production.   All the facts of geology are accordingly in harmony with the history
given in Genesis of the creation and deluge.  No
means, therefore, exist of proving or i'rendering it
probable that the world has existed through a
404 
DERIVED FROM TIHE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 405
longer period than that which is assigned to it by
that inspired history; and the Scriptures conilsequently are vindicated from the charge to which
the speculations of geologists have subjected them,
of a contradiction to the discoveries and deductions
of that science.
The result at which we have aimed is thus established on indisputable and ample grounds. The facts
of geology, in place of contradicting, corroborate the
narrative in Genesis; and the fancy that the Scriptures have been convicted of an error, demonstrating
that they cannot have proceeded from the God of
nature, turns out to be wholly groundless and unjust.
This great fact, free as it is from all rational doubt,
of infinite moment to the credit of the Scriptures, and
flashing an effulgent light over the whole domain of
theology, demands the earnest consideration, especially of the ministers of religion. The inspiration
and authority of the sacred volume are boldly assailed,
on the ground of the theory held by geologists of the
immeasurable age of the world. That theory is undoubtingly and exultingly claimed to be deduced
from the facts of the science " according to the strictest rules of the Baconian philosophy;" and taken to
be so, the conclusion is seen and felt by thousands
and tens of thousands to be inevitable that neither the
Pentateuch nor any other part of the Bible can have
been written by the inspiration of the Almighty.
That theory has been taught in lyceums, lecture 
THE MATERIIALS OF THE STRATA)
rooms, pulpits, and books, almost without obstruction
for half a century, until it has gained the assent very
generally of the press, and acceptance in all ranks of
society. It has become, accordingly, a prolific source
and poweriful auxiliary of scepticism; and, nnfortunately, has been aided in its mischievous influence,
not only by the inconsiderate concessions of many
religious men, but in a still worse mranner by the uinjustifiable and absurd methods by which it has been
attempted to bend the history of the creation in Genesis into harmony with their speculations, which contradict it, and impeach it of fatal error.  lXo duty,
therefore, is more urgent on those in the sacred office,
than the rejection of those lawless perversions of the
word of God, and confutation of the theory which
assails its inspiration and veracity. They should no
longer acquiesce in the seduction of their people-and
especially the young, who are eminently exposed to
the danger-into doubt and unbelief, by the pretences
of a superficial and but half matured science; but
boldly and resolutely point out its palpable fallacies,
its flagrant contradictions to the laws of nature, and
its inconsistency with the principles and faets of goeolog,y; and show, on the other hand, the proofs that the
worls of God are in harmony with his word.:No
task is more incumbent on their profession; none can
be easier or of more interest and benefit to their
people.
And in this they will have the concurrence, we
406 
DERIVED FROM TIIE INTERIOR OF TIlE EARTII. 407
trust, of good men among geologists themselves.
The science manifestly needs a reconstruction. The
completeness to which it has been advanced has been
greatly over-estimated. There needs a clearer discrimination of that which  is practical in it from
that which is speculative-of the phenomena from
the theories that are constructed to account for them.
There needs a specific statement, which geologists
have never yet given, of the axioms on which it is
founded, and the principles by which reasonings and
speculations respecting it are to be governed. There
needs,  especially, a rejection  of unphilosophical
assumptions and groundless hypotheses; and among
them, the theory of a world created ini a state of gas
or of fusion, invested with a granite covering, and
continuing molten in the interior, which is the basis
of the inference of a vast age of the planet, must be
abandoned, as against the constitution of nature, at
war with the facts it is employed to explain, and
involving the science in endless self-contradiction and
error. The results that are to be accounted for must
be contemplated independently of hypotheses, in the
light of the great truths which they themselves reveal
respecting their origin, and of the agents that were
concerned in their production, and such views alone
adopted as are in harmony alike with causes, conditions, and effects. An effort, in short, needs to be
made by its cultivators to free the science from the 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
artificial and unnatural adjuncts with which it is now
disfigured and embarrassed, to define its true principles'more clearly, to ascertain more adequately its
facts, to limit its deductions to such as have a legitimate basis, and to unfold and verify its consistencythe certainty of which will advance proportionally
with the progress that is made in real knowledgewith the revelation which God has given respecting
the creation of the world, and the remodification
through which it passed at the period of the flood.
And in this reconstruction we sincerely hope those
who are devoted to the cultivation of the science in
this country will take an active part. No finer field
either for distinction or usefulness can present itself
to the young men especially who are engaged in the
profession. No superior theatre exists for the observation of the strata.   There is none where they
are found through their whole series on a larger
scale; or yield more ample indications of the great
processes by which they were formed.  Let those,
then, who have chosen the science as a profession, dismiss the unfortunate theories by which it has hitherto
been embarrassed, and aim at a reconstruction of it
under the guidance of the great principles we have
suggested; and its facts will soon be unfolded in their
proper relations, their true import be determined,
and their consistency made apparent with the teachings of revelation.  And this, instead of diminishing
408 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH. 409
the interest and value of the science, will add to its
attractiveness, its dignity, and its usefulness; and, in
place of an enemy, show it to be what it legitimately
is, a natural and efficient auxiliary of religion.
QUESTIONS.
Does this view of the mode, in which the matter of the strata was
introduced into the ocean, suggest the reason that the waters were
so prolific of minute animals that were invested with coverings of
silex and lime?  What is it?  Does this view suggest a solution of
the origin of rock-salt? What is it? Is its origin explicable on the
common theory? What bearing on this view of the rapidity with
which the strata were formed, has the softness which the strata
appear to have retained at the time of their upheaval?  What
proof is there that they were then soft and pliable? What are the
various forms in which the strata are bent?  How is their being
forced into this shape accounted for by De La Beche?  Do their
flexures and contortions show that their upheaval must have been
completed before they lost their pliancy, and therefore, that it must
have taken place rapidly? Does their upheaval while in a soft state
furnish an explanation of the denudations they have undergone?
What is the testimony of Professor Rogers, respecting it?  Would
the rapid elevation of hills and mountain ranges have created violent currents and agitations of the ocean, which would necessarily
have torn the strata up, if soft, and washed them off, from large
areas? Could however, such erosions and denudations as they have
undergone, ever have taken place, if, at the time of their upheaval,
they had possessed their present hardness? Does their softness at
their upheaval suggest the reason that rivers in a brief period cut
their deep channels through rocky strata?  Might the Niagara have
thus excavated its present bed back from Lake Ontario to the falls
in a very brief period? Is there any reason to believe it would ever
18 
THE MATERIALS OF THE STRATA)
have worn the rocks away in such a form, had they not been in a
plastic condition? Does the elevation of the mountains while in a
plastic state, su,ggest an explanation of the formation of the large
masses of rounded stones and pebbles that are found in their vicinity?
Explain the manner in which they may have been formed? Do they
abound on the slopes and at the feet of the Andes? Is it the judgment of geologists that they were derived from those mountains?
State Mr. Darwin's views. Are they found in great masses at the
feet of the Appalachians? Does the distance from the high ranges
of the mountains at which they are lodged, show that the currents
by which they were borne there, must have rushed with great violence?
Do these views indicate the reason that no human remains are
found in the strata? Do geologists allege that as a proof that man
did not exist till after the strata were formed?  Is it a just ground
for that conclusion?   Is there any reason to suppose that Europe
or this country was inhabited by man before the flood? As all our
present mountains, as was shown in a former chapter, were raised
from the ocean since the deluge, and as the strata with which they
and the continents at large are covered, were formed beneath the
ocean, is it not clear that the present continents and islands, all of
which are covered with the strata, must have continued to be buried
in the ocean, at least most of the time till the deluge; and if so, is
not that a sufficient reason that no human relics are found in the
strata? Is it not probable that the lands that were inhabited anterior to the flood, and were submerged at that catastrophe, were
situated at a vast distance from Europe and this continent, and are
now beneath the see,? If so, does not that explain the non-existence
of human remains in the strata of Europe and America? Is it not
clear then, that the fact that no human remains are found in the
strata of Europe or America, is no ground for the inference that man
did not become an inhabitant of the world, till after these strata
were formed?
Is it not supposable that the area of the Asiatic continent at first
410 
DERIVED FROM THE INTERIOR OF THE EARTH.  411
raised above the ocean after the deluge, was of moderate extent, and
that the great processes by which the strata were completed, and
the continents and islands elevated to their present positions, were
continued for a period afterwards?  May it not have been because the
earth was of but a narrow extent at its first emergence, and requiring
but few animals to stock it, that so small a number was preserved in
the ark?  May it not be presumed that as other regions were fitted
for the residence of living creatures, they may have been called into
existence by new creations? Does this supposition render the existence of the land animals whose relics are fossilized consistent with the
sacred history of the creation and the deluge? Did those animals
undoubtedly live after the deluge? Would two, three, or four hundred years after the lands became generally inhabitable, have been
sufficient for the growth of all the large animals, whose period is
proved to have followed the deluge by the fact that their relics are
buried in the upper strata and soil that were formed after the elevation of the great mountain ranges, which took place as was shown in
Chapter VII, after the flood?  Does the fact that certain classes of
animals that once occupied the waters and the land, have disappeared,
and others have taken their place, prove that long periods were
occupied in those changes? May not the destruction of those classes
that have perished, have taken place rapidly? Must not the creation of their successors have taken place instantaneously? Does the
freedom of many of the relics of the bulky animals from decay, indicate also, that their period cannot have been more remote than three
or four thousand years? Is it credible that bones of the Mastodon
buried in the soil near Niagara, could continue there as Sir C. Lyell
supposes, through thirty thousand years, without undergoing more
than a slight decomposition? Does not the perishable nature of those
relics confute the supposition that they can have dated at an earlier
period than the ages that immediately followed the flood? Are these
various facts then sufficient on the one hand, to confute the theory
of the great age of the world; and on the other, to show that the
facts of the strata are consistent with the history in Genesis, of the 
412 THE STRATA FROM TIE INTRIOR OF THE EARTH.
creation and deluge, and vindicate that record from the charge of
error? Should it be said that though we have shown that the great
processes of geology may have taken place in the manner we have
indicated, we yet have not demonstrated that they took place in that
manner; what is the reply that should be made? Is it enough for
our object to show that the strata themselves do not prove the great
age of the world?  What are the points by proving which we have
established that? State how those points have been proved? Is it
enough for geologists to set aside our conclusion, that the facts of the
strata are consistent with the history in Genesis, to say that we have
not demonstrated from the strata themselves that they were formed
since the epoch of the six days creation? What must they prove to
set that conclusion aside? Must they not show that the strata cannot have been formed in the period and in the manner we have indicated? But can they show that the requisite materials did not exist
in the depths of the earth? Can they show that there were no agents
sufficiently powerful and active to raise those materials to the surface?  Can they show that if they had been ejected into the ocean,
they could not have been so diffused and deposited, as to have formed
the existing strata? Or can they show that such a construction of
the crust of the earth, is inconsistent with any of the other processes
to which it has been subjected? If then, they cannot disprove any
of those great facts, is it not manifest that they cannot prove that
the strata were not formed in the manner we have represented? And
if they cannot prove that, is it not clear that they have no ground for
their assumption, that the facts of the strata are irreconcilable with
the Mosaic history of the creation and deluge?
THE END. 
THE
THIIEOLOGICAL AND LITERARY
JOURNAL.
EDITED BY DAVID N. LORD.
Issued quarterly, on 1st of July, October, January and April.
SEVEN VOLUMES COMPLETED, OF 700 PAGES EACH.
Price, $3 a year.
PUBLISIED BY
FRANKLIN KNIGHT,
138 NASSAU STREET, N.Y.
Besides Essays and Reviews on the modern
doctrine of Geologists respecting the age of the
world, there is in the Journal a series of articles
on the principal philosophical and scientific theories of the period, that touch in a measure the 
CONTENTS.
doctrines of theology;-such in metaphysics as
the idealistic atheism of Kant and Coleridge;
the pantheism of Swedenborg, Schleiermacher,
Schelling, and Hegel; the schemes of their disciples, Parker, Newman, Bushnell, Park, and
Nevin; and the development theory of Neander and Schaff.
The Journal treats largely also of the principles of Biblical Interpretation, especially of the
laws of figures and of symbols. A variety of
other topics are likewise discussed in it, as may
be seen from the titles of the articles in the
several volumes.
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
NO. I.
IMPORTANCE OF A JUST UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROPHETIC
SCRIPTURES.  BY THE EDITOR-FALSE METHODS THAT HAVE
PREVAILED OF INTERPRETING THE APOCALYPSE. BY THE
EDITOR-THE LATE REVOLUTION IN EUROPE-DR. CHALMERS'S
SCRIPTURE READINGS-RELIGION TEACHING BY EXAMPLECRITICAL AND LITERARY NOTICES.
-NO. II.
THE LAWS OF SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION.  BY THE EDITOR
-STRAUSS' AND NEANDER'S LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST.  BY THE
EDITOR —MORELL'S HISTORICAL VIEW OF THE SPECULATIVE
PHILOSOPHY OF EUROPE.  BY THE EDITOR-FLEMING'S RISE
AND FALL OF PAPACY-CRITICAL AND LITERARY NOTICES.
NO. III.
ANALYSIS OF THE PRINCIPAL FIGURES OF THE SCRIPTURES
AND STATEMENT OF THEIR LAWS.  BY THE EDITOR-MR. FA.
186 
CONTENTS.
BER'S SACRED CALENDAR OF PROPHECY.  BY THE EDITOR-DR.
SPRING' S POWER OF THE PULPIT.  BY R. W. DICKINSON, D.DTHE RELATION OF THE PRESENT DISPENSATION TO CHRIST S
FUTURE REIGN. BY THE EDITOR-SPRATT AND FORBES'S
TRAVELS IN LYCIA, MILYAS, AND THE CIBYRATIS-MEMOIR OF
MRS. MARY E. VAN LENNEP-JOURNAL OF AN EXPEDITION INTO
THE INTERIOR OF TROPICAL AUSTRALIA-MR. BICKERSTETH S
SIGNS OF THE TIMES IN THE EAST-A WARNING TO THE WEST
-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. IV.
MR. FABER'S SACRED CALENDAR OF PROPHECY.  BY THE
EDITOR —ALEXANDER'S EARLIER AND LATER PROPHECIES OF
ISAIAH. BY THE EDITOR-DESIGNATION AND CLASSIFICATION
OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. I. BY THE EDITOR-COLERIDGE S PHILOSOPHY OF CHRISTIANITY, AN ATHEISTIC IDEALISM.
BY THE EDITOR-TROTTER'S  EXPEDITION TO THE NIGERSMITH'S VOYAGE AND SHIPWRECK OF ST. PAUL-LITERARY AND
CRITICAL NOTICES.
CONTENTS OF VOL. II.
NO. I.
A DESIGNATION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. II. BY
THE EDITOR-THE RESTORATION OF THE ISRAELITES. BY THE
EDITOR-DR. BUSHNELL'S DISSERTATION ON LANGUAGE-THE
CITIES AND CEMETERIES OF ETRURIA-NOEL'S UNION OF CHURCH
AND STATE-HOARE'S HARMONY OF THE APOCALYPSE —LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. II.
DR. BUSHNELL'S DISCOURSES-A DESIGNATION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. II. AND IV.-THE RESTORATION OF THE
ISRAELITES-UNITED STATES EXPEDITION TO THE JORDAN AND
DEAD SEA-THE PRINCIPAL PREDICTED EVENTS THAT ARE TO
PRECEDE CHRIST'S COMING-NARRATIVE OF EVENTS IN BORNEO
AND CELEBES-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES
NO. III.
MORELL'S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION-A DESIGNATION OF THE
FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. V. AND VI.-FABER'S SACRED CA
187
i 
CONTENTS.
LENDAR OF PROPHECY-THE RESTORATION OF THE ISRAELITES
-SWEDENBORG'S THEORY OF SYMBOLS AND LANGUAGE-LAYARD'S NINEVEH-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. IV.
MORELL'S PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION-THE DANGERS AN)
DIFFICULTIES OF THE MINISTRY-OBJECTIONS TO THE LAWS OF
SYMBOLIZATION-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. VII.-A HISTORY OF COLONIZATION ON
THE WESTERN COAST OF AFRICA-BEATTIE'S DISCOURSE ON
THE MILLENNIAL STATE OF THE CHURCH-LITERARY AND
CRITICAL NOTICES.
CONTENTS OF VOL. IIL.
NO. I.
MR. STEELE'S ESSAY ON CHRIST'S XINGDOlM-A DESIGNATION
AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. VIII.-RESEARCHES IN ASIA MINOR, PONTUS, AND ARMENIA-PROF. MCCLELLAND'S RULES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECYOBJECTIONS TO THE LAWS OF FIGURES-CRITICS AND CORRESPONDENTS-MISCELLANIES-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NO
TICES.
NO. II.
PROFESSOR PARK'S THEOLOGIES OF THE INTELLECT AND THE
FEELINGS-MODERN SYSTEMS OF BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICSPROFESSOR CROSBY ON THE SECOND ADVENT-A DESIGNATION
AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. IX.-DR.
KEITH ON THE SIGNS OF THE TIMES-CRITICS AND CORRESPONDENTS-MISCELLANIES-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. III.
PROFESSOR STUART'S COMMENTARY ON DANIEL-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAPTER X.
DOBNEY ON FUTURE PUNISHMENT-PROFESSOR AGASSIZ'S
THEORY OF THE ORIGIN OF THE HUMAN RACE-THE ADVERBMISCELLANIES-CRITICS  AND  CORRESPONDENTS-LITERARY
AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. IV.
BROWN ON CHRIST'S SECOND COMING-A DESIGNATION ANr
iss 
CONTENTS.
EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAPTERS XI. AND XII.
OBJECTIONS TO THE LAWS  OF FIGURATIVE  LANGUAGETHOUGHTS ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROPHECIES-THE
CHIEF CHARACTERISTICS AND LAWS OF PROPHETIC SYMBOLSLITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
CONTENTS OF VOL. IV.
NO. I.
BROWN ON CHRIST'S SECOND COMING-A DESIGNATION AND
EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XIII. AND
XIV.-PHILOLOGICAL CONTRIBUTIONS-THE THEOPHANY CELEBRATED PSALM XVIU. REAL, NOT FIGURATIVE-THE PAPAL
POWER IDENTIFIED WITH THE LITTLE HORN OF THE FOURTH
BEAST.  DANIEL VII.-GOBAT'S THREE YEARS' RESIDENCE IN
ABYSSINIA-CRITICS AND  CORRESPONDENTS-LITERARY AND
CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. II.
BROWN ON CHRIST'S SECOND COMING-A DESIGNATION AND
EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CIIAP. XIV. 28-32.
XV., XVI., AND XVII.-FOREIGN MISSIONS AND MILLENARIANISM,
AN ESSAY FOR THE TIMES-THE HOLY GHOST THE AUTHOR OF
THE ONLY ADVANCEMENT OF MANKIND-TODD S DISCOURSES ON
THE PROPHECIES-FERG USSON'S EASTERN ARCHITECTURELITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. III.
FAIRBAIRN'S TYPOLOGY OF SCRIPTURE-THE ORIGIN OF THE
SABBATH. BY R. W. DICKINSON, D.D.,-THE INTERPRETATION
OF SCRIPTURE. BY E. POND, D.D.,-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XVIII., XIX., AND
XX.-THE FULNESS OF THE TIME. BY JOHN FORSYTH, JUN.,
D.D.-THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL EVENTS THAT ARE TO
PRECEDE CHRIST'S COMING-CRITICS AND CORRESPONDENTSLITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. IV.
GENESIS, AND GEOLOGICAL THEORY OF THE AGE OF THE
EART,h-THE SABBATH AND ITS MODERN ASSAILANTS.  BY R.
189 
CONTENTS.
W. DICKINSON, D.D.,-PROGRESS OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
BY REV. D. INGLIS-METAPHYSICAL AND GOSPEL TRUTH AND
ERROR. BY THE REV. S. D. CLARK-THE FIGURATIVE CHARACTER OF THE SACRED WRITINGS. BY E. POND, D.D.-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
CONTENTS OF VOL. V.
NO. I.
THE THEORY ON WHICH GEOLOGISTS FOUND THEIR DEDUCTION OF THE GREAT AGE OF THE WORLD-A DESIGNATION AND
EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XXI.-THE
TRUE GOD KNOWN ONLY BY FAITH-DR. SPRING'S DISCOURSES
ON THE MILLENNIUM-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. II.
THE SOURCES FROM WHICH THE MATERIALS OF THE PRESENT
CRUST OF THE EARTH WERE DERIVED-A DESIGNATION AND
EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XXII.-THE
EXCELLENCE AND IMPORTANCE OF TRUTH. BY REV. S. D.
CLARK-TENDENCIES OF THE TIMES-CRITICS AND CORRESPONDENTS-ANSWERS TO THE OBJECTIONS OF GEOLOGISTS-THE
SIXTH VIAL-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. III.
DR. HITCHCOCK'S RELIGION OF GEOLOGY-THE NEGLECT OF
THE SACRED SCRIPTURES. BY R. W. DICKINSON, D.D-DR.
WORDSWORTH'S LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE  FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP.
XXIII.-THE FULNESS OF THE TIMES. BY J. FORSYTH, JR., D.D.MR. WILLIAMSON'S LETTERS TO A MILLENARIAN-THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE NAPOLEON DYNASTY-LITERARY AND
CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. IV.
HENRY'S LIFE AND TIMES OF JOHN CALVIN.  BY R. W. DICKINSON, D.D.-DR. J. P. SMITH ON THE GEOLOGICAL THEORYTHE ENGLISH UNIVERSITIES. BY THE REV. W. C. FOWLERTHE DOCTRINES OF DR. NEVIN AND HIS PARTY-CRITICS ANE
CORRESPONDENTS-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
190 
CONTENTS.
CONTENTS OF VOL. VI.
NO. I.
DR. J. P. SMITH ON THE GEOLOGICAL THEORY-THE REV
ALBERT BARNES'S NOTES ON REVELATION XX. 4-6. BY THE
REV. H. CARLETON-THE PRINCETON REVIEW ON MILLENA
RIANISSI-THE DISTASTEFULNESS OF CHRISTIANITY.  BY THE
REV. E. D. SMITH, D.D.-ENGLISII UNIVERSITIES.  BY THE REV.
WV. C. FOWLER-DR. NEVIN S PANTHEISTIC AND DEVELOPMENT
THEORIES-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. II.
LETTERS TO A MILLENARIAN-FALSE TEACHERS: THEIR
CHARACTER AND DOOMI-MERCANTILE MORALS-COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF THE ANCIENT HEBREWS. BY E. POND,
D D.-THE PRESBYTERIAN QUARTERLY REVIEW ON MILLENARIANISM-THE ECLIPSE OF FAITH-THE REVIVAL OF THE
FRENCH EMPERORSHIP-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF
THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIV-THE SYMBOLS OF THE
SIXTHI VIAL-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. III
HIPPOLYTUS AND HIS AGE-THE REV. A. BARNES'S NOTES ON
REVELATION XX. 4-6.  BY THE  REV. H. CARLETON-THE
DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT AS TAUGHT IN ISAIAH LII., LIII.  BY
THE REV. E. C. WINES, D.D.-CHRIST'S SECOND COMING-THE
INSPIRATION OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.  BY THE REV. J. W.
HALL, D.D.-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES
OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XXV. AND XXVI-HENGSTENBERG ON THE SONG
OF SOLOMON. BY THE REV. JOHN FORSYTH, JUN., D.D-THE
FALL OF THE TURKISH EMPIRE-LITERARY AND CRITICAL
NOTICES.
NO. IV.
CHRIST'S SECOND COMING-INQUIRY INTO THE MEANING OF
MATTHEW XXIV. 14.  BY THE REV. JOHN RICHARDS, D.D.BEECHER'S  CONFLICT OF  AGES-INFIDELITY,  ITS ASPECTS,
CAUSES, AND AGENCIES. BY R. W. DICKINSON, D.D-THE PRIEST
AND THE HUGUENOT-HISTORY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCHLITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
191 
CONTENTS.
CONTENTS OF VOL. VII.
NO. I.
CHRIST'S SECOND COMING —THE SYNOD OF DORT.  BY THE
REV. E. POND, D. D.-THE GOVERNMENT OF GOD VINDICATED
FROM DR. BEECHER' S ACCUSATIONS-THE EMBARRASSMENTS
OF THE ORTHODOX IN ASSAILING MILLENARIANISM, BY REV.
H. CARLETON-HUGH MILLER'S LECTURE ON GENESIS AND
GEOLOGY-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES
OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVII.-THE TACTICS OF A CLASS OF
ULTRA ANTI-MILLENARIANS —LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. II.
TEE TRUTH OF THE LAWS OF SYMBOLIZATION, AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THEIR RESULTS-AN EXPOSITION OF ROMANS
XI. 12, 15, 25.  BY J. RICHARDS, D.D.-THE PARABLES OF TIE
NEW TESTAMENT-THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION.  BY REV. J.
HARKNESS-THE PLURALITY OF INHABITED WORLDS-NOTES
ON SCRIPTURE. BY PHILO-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION
OF THE FIGURES IN ISAIAH, CHAP. XXVIII.-HINTS TO ORTHODOX ANTI-MILLENARIANS.  BY A COUNTRY SUBSCRIBER-THE
TACTICS OF A CLASS OF ANTI-MILLENARIANS-LITERARY AND
CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. III.
DR. HIICKOK'S RATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-NOTES ON SCRIPTURE.  BY PHILO-THE LAWS OF SYMBOLIZATION, AND THEIR
RESULTS IN INTERPRETATION-THE PARABLES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT-A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH, CHAP. XXIX.-THE PRIMITIVE PURITANS.  BY
J. FORSYTH, JUN. D.D.-THE RESURRECTION, THE CONFLAGRATION, AND THE JUDGMENT-THIIE WAR OF THE GREAT TATIONS-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
NO. IV.
DR. HICKOX'S RATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY-NOTES ON SCRIPTURE.  BY PHILO-THE LAWS OF SYMBOLIZATION, AND THEIR
RESULTS IN INTERPRETATION-THE PARABLES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT-THE SENTIMENTS OF DR. COTTON MATHER CONCERNING CHRIST'S SECOND COMING.  BY REV. H. CARLETON —
A DESIGNATION AND EXPOSITION OF THE FIGURES OF ISAIAH,
CHAPTERS XXX. AND XXXI.-THE LIFE AND EPISTLES OF
PAUL-THEI ETHICAL SYSTEM OF THE BIBLE-THE WAR OF
THE GREAT NATIONS-LITERARY AND CRITICAL NOTICES.
192