depth of the whole formation, for the strata are liable to "thin out," as geologists term it. Perpendicular sections are unquestionably the only sections upon which reliance can be placed, to ascertain the true depth of these formations. Hence, the secondary formations among mountains are not to be calculated by the height of the mountains, especially if the elevation has been the result of "upheaval," in which case, the real thickness must be far less than the height of the mountain. We repeat our firm conviction, notwithstanding the confident pretensions of some, that no man has any reliable knowledge of the crust of the earth, to the depth of the four thousandth part of the semidiameter of the globe, and we regard all such pretensions as mischievous conceits.

We shall now proceed a step further in our argument, and attempt to show that sufficient time has elapsed since the acknowledged time of man's appearance upon earth, for the production of all these formations which are made the evidence of the doctrine in dispute. And if we succeed in making out the point, the whole question must in all fairness be yielded by our opponents, for they simply claim time upon the ground, that these phenomena could not be produced except in the lapse of interminable ages. We shall now take the geologist upon his own grounds, and reason with him upon his own facts, and we will see how the thing will result. The time of man has been enough for his phenomena according to his own showing. The data of our first argument will be extracted from D. Christy's 18th letter on geology. He has taken one species of fossil shell fish, while there are three thousand. He calculates the increase at five for each, each year for two thousand years, while the increase is greater, perhaps more than twice as great. He has taken one whose shell contains only the tenth of a cubic inch of solid matter, while many far exceed that proportion, and the quantity thus produced surprised the professor himself. The question is this, "suppose one female to bear five young for five years, and then cease bearing, each one of the proginy bearing according to the same law for two thousand years, what will be their number? The answer given by a Prof. of Mathematics of a respectable college, makes the quantity of solid matter to be enough to make as many billions of worlds liks this, as would be expressed by 1,370 places of figures. If any man doubts the truth or correctness of the calculation, let him ask an answer from some able mathematician, and we will have a confirmation of the answer. Now, with such a scientific fact before us, the wonder is, not that we have so much, but that we have so little of these secondary formations. Instead of the time being too short, it is much too long; and it becomes geologists to show why three thousand species have not produced a far greater quantity of depository matter than they have as yet found.

So

much for the contribution of shells to the secondary foundations. We shall in the next place give the sediment from rivers.

Numerous streams flow from our high lands into our lakes and seas; some of these are occasionally, some periodically, and others always, charged with sedimentary matter, all however bearing a portion of the dry land into the lakes, seas, or oceans into which they empty. Calculations have been made to ascertain the quantity of matter carried down by some of the rivers. Mr. Lyell gives us the result of certain experiments upon the waters of the Ganges, in which he sets down the animal deposit of solid matter to be 6,368,077,440 cubic feet; he thinks that the Burrumpooter conveys an equal quantity, and that the Yellow River in China, daily conveys 48,000,000 cubic feet of deposit, or 17,420,000,000 annually. To give us some idea of the quantity of matter carried down by the Ganges, Mr. Lyell says that 2,000 ships of 1,400 tons burden would be daily loaded with the daily deposit, and the yearly sediment would cover about 660 acres of land, 500 feet high. When we remember the numerous rivers which intersect the earth, it is but reasonable to conclude that 100 times as much matter is carried down by the whole of them; we shall then have every year about 33,000 acres covered 100 feet high, or 660,000 acres covered 50 feet high, which in 2,000 years would cover an area of 1,320,000,000 of acres; a result truly astonishing, and perhaps equal in bulk to the whole secondary series of strata. And we shall find equal cause for surprise if we turn our attention to the work of some of the rivers of Europe. So rapidly does the Rhone form land at its mouth, that the tower of Tignaux, erected on the shore so late as 1737, is already more than a mile from it. The ancient town of Adria, was a seaport in the time of Augustus, but it is now twenty miles inland, in consequence of the deposits of the Po and the Adige. From these particular results, we at once see that our general calculation is not too large. We must not forget that the work of denudation and transportation must have been more active during the first two thousand years of the world, than during any subsequent period of time, in consequence of the first condition of our globe, and because also, that natural agents are, upon philosophical principles, more active in the beginning, than in the subsequent progress of their ope

ration.

From the positions which we have taken, and which we think we have sustained by scientific facts, and arguments based upon the authority of the opposing class of authors, it evidently appears, that the real facts and phenomena connected with the earth, do not require such almost infinite lapse of years for their development, as has been contended for by some geologists.

We believe that the Bible and the REAL geology are in the most perfect harmony. It is only the "ideal," the "imaginary"

geology, its rash, hasty generalizations-its phantoms and forced conclusions, its speculations and hypotheses, that oppose the teachings of Inspiration. That the dogmas of this speculative geology do conflict with the scriptures is admitted by all parties. This collision confirms the Infidel in his infidelity. The friends of Revelation have attempted to reconcile the discrepancy, but have disagreed about the mode of conciliation. One party have attempted to remove the discrepancy by giving a new interpretation to the Scriptures, but they are sadly at variance among themselves, and their very manner of handling the inspired record, has excited the fears of many friends of religion. The other party adheres to the common interpretation of the Bible as the true one, and reconcile scripture and geology by lopping off the excresences of the science. This we have attempted in the foregoing pages. We deny none of the facts of geology. We deny the conclusions of geologists resting upon mere speculations, theories and hypotheses, or on arguments sophistically drawn from what is only at best negative evidence, when no necessity so demanded the contrary, that the non-appearance involved absolutely the non-existence; and especially we deny that geology can in any way give us the chronology of the creation and history of the world. This is no part of her domain. She has no prerogative here, consequently we resist her usurpations, and would confine her labors to her own proper sphere.

The real questions in debate are simply these: Mr. Miller contends that geology furnishes indubitable evidence that this world has existed myriads of ages previous to the existence of man—we deny that any such evidence is logically or rationally derived from the real phenomena of nature. Mr. Miller contends that the doctrine of the high antiquity of the earth can be reconciled with the teachings of the Bible, but rejects the schemes of reconciliation proposed by Dr. Chalmers and Dr. J. Pye Smith, because they run counter to the evidence of geology, and we have endeavored to show that his own scheme of one chasm of vast duration between the primary and secondary formations, of six subsequent chasms or periods of day followed by periods of night is equally opposed to geology and the Bible. We have shown that what he relied upon as facts are not all facts, some are only "ideal" that the evidence furnished is not indubitable, for different observers have come to opposite conclusions; that there is a wonderful want of uniformity in the phenomena, so much so, as to render null and void all the general conclusions of which they have been made the basis; that this doctrine about the age of the world, is not reached by any of the facts in the science, as we have demonstrated, by calculations that may be tested, that the human period has been sufficiently long for the production of all the real phenomena, after you have deducted all the errors, that

have been grafted upon the science, arbitrary and unnatural, and all the groundless and unphilosophical assumptions; and that the doctrine is not demanded by any exigency of geology, does not forward scientific investigation, and is of no importance to man. Thus a violent presumption is raised against the doctrine, which its advocates are bound to remove at the very threshold of the discussion; which they do not meet with open and manly argument, but only rail, whine or declaim, against those who will not consent to take fogbanks for firm land.

We had intended to devote a portion of our article to a consideration of Mr. Miller's theory in relation to the Deluge, but we have already exceeded the space we allotted to ourselves, and must only make a few passing remarks. Years ago we had attentively studied the theory propounded by Dr. J. Pye Smith, in relation to the Noachian flood, and supposed we had discovered insuperable objections to it; the theory of Mr. Miller is essentially the same, and we had hoped that he would have given, at least one scientific fact to disprove its universality; or at least to give testimony to prove that such marks are left upon the region. of his local flood, as are found no where else, and which would prove that the waters could not have passed beyond the barriers he has proposed, for their restraint. He elsewhere remonstrates against an "expense of miracles," and yet his scheme involves as much miraculous agency as the universal Deluge would require, unless, "mayhap" he intends to teach that the Divine Being had no direct agency in it, that it was solely the result of second causes, fortuitously acting, that it was not punitive, and that Noah was saved by accident rather than by special Povidence. His objections to the size of the Ark, to the numbers of beasts and birds, to the breaking up of centres of distributions, and their reestablishment savors more of the infidel flippancy of Nott and Gliddon than of the sober reasonings of a christian man. If the flood was designed by the Lord to be partial, where was the necessity for the Ark? Why not have allowed Noah to go from the land devoted to destruction into the adjoining regions of safety? Was it not a miracle which prevented the escape of a single member of the human race outside of the Ark? Especially as some would in all probability have been very near the southern borders? Did the descendants of Cain reside in the same country with the other descendants of Adam? Now we say that not one geological fact proves Mr. Miller's theory, which is nothing more nor less than an attempt on the part of these geologists to escape the argument which a universal deluge would furnish against their chronological geology. But we cannot now discuss the question, and leave it for other hands, or for our own at another time, if our life is spared.

The eloquent language of Dr. Kurtz may be made an appropri

ate close of our article by substituting geology for astronomy: "Such, then, has been the position taken by astronomy, or rather the parasite speculation which has attached itself thereto, to feed upon it, and convert all its wholsome lessons into hostile attacks against the christian faith; and that noble science which above all others should be an unceasing song of praise to the glory of the Creator, has been degraded to the purpose of casting into the dust, not only the precious jewel of Divine love, and condescension, his incarnation in the person of Christ, but also, the majestic crown of His greatness and glory, His creative dignity." (The Bible and Astronomy, p. 57.)

83