Bjn 
 
 ^ ' 
 
 ^►^^'^a. 
 
 ^.^. 
 
 ^. 
 
 
 IMAGE EVALUATION 
 TEST TARGET (MT-3) 
 
 5* 
 
 (./ 
 
 
 
 A 
 
 fe 
 
 # 
 
 &, 
 ^ 
 
 1.0 
 
 II I.I 
 
 1^ 12 
 
 :^ lis. 
 
 1^ |2.5 
 2.0 
 
 18 
 
 lUS IIIIIM ill 1.6 
 
 
 ?.■« 
 
 \ 
 
 Va 
 
 
 Photographic 
 _,Sciences 
 Corporation 
 
 23 WEST MAIN STREET 
 
 WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 
 
 (716) S73-4!>03 
 
 
 ^><^"0 
 
 '"""^^t^^ 
 
 ^^_^^ 
 
 '<^ 
 
 Wi 
 

 ii 
 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 
 Microfiche 
 
 Series. 
 
 CIHM/ICMH 
 Collection de 
 microfiches. 
 
 Canadian Institute for Historical ly/licroreproductions / Institut canadien de microreproductions historiques 
 
 { 
 
Technical and Bibliographic Notes/Notes techniques et bibliographiques 
 
 The Institute has attempted to obtain the best 
 original copy available for filming. Features of this 
 copy which may be bibliographically unique, 
 wliicli m9y alter any of the images in the 
 reproduction, or which may significantly change 
 the usual method of filming, are checked below. 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 D 
 
 Coloured covers/ 
 Couverture de conleur 
 
 I I Covers damaged/ 
 
 Couverture endommagde 
 
 Covers restored and/or laminated/ 
 Couverture restaur^e et/ou pelliculde 
 
 I I Cover title missing/ 
 
 Le titre de couverture manque 
 
 Coloured maps/ 
 
 Cartes gdographiques en couleur 
 
 Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ 
 Encre de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) 
 
 Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ 
 Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur 
 
 Bound with other material/ 
 Relid avec d'autres documents 
 
 Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion 
 along interior margin/ 
 
 La re iiure serrde peut causer de I'ombre ou de la 
 distortion le long de la marge intdrieure 
 
 BJank leaves added during restoration may 
 appear within the text. Whenever possible, these 
 have been omitted from filming/ 
 11 se peut que certaines pages blanches ajout6es 
 lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, 
 mais, lorsque cela 6tait possible, ces pages n'ont 
 pas dt6 film^es. 
 
 Additional comments:/ 
 Commentaires suppl6mentaires; 
 
 L'Institut a microfilmd le meiileur exemplaire 
 qu'il lui a dt6 possible de se procurer. Les details 
 de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du 
 point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier 
 une image reprodulte, ou qui peuvent exiger une 
 modification dans la methods normale de filmage 
 sont indiquds ci-dessous. 
 
 I I Coloured pages/ 
 
 D 
 
 Pages de couleur 
 
 Pages damaged/ 
 Pages sndommagdes 
 
 □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ 
 Pages restauries et/ou pellicul6es 
 
 Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ 
 Pages d6color6es. tachetdes ou piqu( 
 
 Pages d6color6es. tachetdes ou piqudes 
 
 Pages 
 
 Pages d^tachdes 
 
 Showthrough/ 
 Transparence 
 
 Quality of prir 
 
 Qualit6 in^gale de I'impression 
 
 Includes supplementary materii 
 Comprend du materiel suppl^mentaire 
 
 Only edition available/ 
 Seule Edition disponible 
 
 I I Pages detached/ 
 
 I I Showthrough/ 
 
 I I Quality of print varies/ 
 
 I I Includes supplementary material/ 
 
 I — I Only edition available/ 
 
 Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata 
 slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to 
 ensure the best possible image/ 
 Les pages totalement ou partiellement 
 obscurcies par un feuiilet d'errata, une pelure, 
 etc., ont M filmdes d nouveau de fapon d 
 obtenir la meilleura image possible. 
 
 T 
 t( 
 
 T 
 
 P 
 o 
 fi 
 
 O 
 
 b< 
 
 t^ 
 
 si 
 01 
 fi 
 si 
 01 
 
 Tl 
 
 St 
 
 Tl 
 
 w 
 
 M 
 di 
 er 
 be 
 ri£ 
 rei 
 mi 
 
 This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ 
 
 Ce document est filmd au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 
 
 10X 14X 18X 22X 
 
 26X 
 
 30X 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 y 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 12X 
 
 16X 
 
 20X 
 
 24X 
 
 28X 
 
 32X 
 
The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks 
 to the generosity of: 
 
 Library of the Public 
 Archives of Canada 
 
 The images appearing here are the best quality 
 possible considering the condition and legibility 
 of the original copy and in iceepi'ng with the 
 filming contract specifications. 
 
 Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed 
 beginning with the front cover and ending on 
 the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All 
 other original copies are filmed beginning on the 
 first page with a printed or illustrated impres- 
 sion, and ending on the last page with a printed 
 or illustrated impression. 
 
 The last recorded frame on each microfiche 
 shall contain the symbol — 4»> (meaning "CON- 
 TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), 
 whichever applies. 
 
 Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at 
 different reduction ratios. Those too large to be 
 entirely included in one exposure are filmed 
 beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to 
 right and top to bottom, as many frames as 
 required. The following diagrams illustrate the 
 method: 
 
 L'exemplaire film6 fut reproduit grdce d la 
 g6ndrosit6 de: 
 
 La bibliothdque des Archives 
 publiques du Canada 
 
 Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le 
 plus grand soin, compto tenu de la condition et 
 de la nettet6 de l'exemplaire film6, et en 
 conformity avec les conditions du contrat de 
 filmage. 
 
 Les exeniplaires originaux dont la couverture en 
 papier est imprimde sont filmds en commenqant 
 par le premier plat et en termincnt soit par la 
 dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second 
 plat, selon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires 
 originaux sont film6s en commengant par la 
 premiere page qui comporte une empreinte 
 d'impression ou d'illustratiun et en terminant par 
 la dernidre page qui comporte une telle 
 empreinte. 
 
 Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur la 
 dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le 
 cas: le symbols — ► signifie "A SUIVRE ", le 
 symbols V signifie "FIN ". 
 
 Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre 
 filmds d des taux de reduction diffirents. 
 Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre 
 reproduit en un seul clich6, il est filmd A partir 
 de Tangle supdrieur gauche, de gauche d droite, 
 et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre 
 d'images ndcessaira. Les diagrammes suivants 
 illustrent la m6thode. 
 
 1 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 1 2 3 
 
 4 6 6 
 
I 
 
'^^> 
 
 
 SCEPTICISM A FOLLY: 
 
 FIVE LETTERS, 
 
 n 
 
 OCCASIONED BY A 
 
 GEOLOGICAL ARTICLE 
 
 IN THK 
 
 WESTMINSTER REVIEW 
 
 FOR JULY, 1857. 
 
 " They are vanity and the work of errors ; in the 
 time of their visitation they shrll perish." — 
 
 Jeremiah x 15. 
 
 BY ADAM TOWNLEY, D. D., 
 
 INCUMBENT OF TARIS, C. W. 
 
 [Oriyinally written for the Toronto Colonist.) 
 
 * 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 rUBLlSllED BY THOMPSON * CO., 52 KING STREET EAST. 
 
 1857. 
 
 Price Seven Pence Half-penny. 
 
^ 
 
SCEPTICISM A FOLLY: 
 FIVE LETTERS, 
 
 OCCASIONED BY A 
 
 GEOLOGICAL ARTICLE 
 
 > IN THE 
 
 WESTMINSTER BE VIEW 
 
 FOR JULY, 1857. 
 
 <* They are vanity and the work of errors ; in the 
 time of their visitation they shall perish." — 
 
 Jeremiah x 15. 
 
 !' 
 
 BY ADAM TOWNLEY, D.D., 
 
 INCUMBENT OF PARIS, C. W. 
 
 [Originally written for the Toronto Colonist.) 
 
 TORONTO : 
 
 PUBLISHED BY THOMPSON & CO,, 52 KING STREET EAST. 
 
 1857. 
 
 Price Seven Pence Half-Penny. 
 
THE WESTMINSTER REVIEW. 
 
 HUGH MILLER, CHEVALIER BUNSEN, &c. 
 
 [letter L] 
 
 Sir, — The Westminster Review is a periodical which 
 I have much satisfaction in reading. For while it sorely 
 tries my equanimity by its cold-hearted scepticism, its 
 pretentious sneering, audits most deceptive and illogical 
 reasoning, it is, at the same time, exceedingly gratifying 
 to ijee how entirely baseless are those attacks which the 
 keenest wits amongst the sceptics of Europe are con- 
 tinually making upon the glorious aud invulnerable 
 citadel of our Holy Catholic Faith. 
 
 I have sometimes begun to read, almost trembling, 
 their vindications of German Rationalism, or their an- 
 tagonistic Biblical criticisms, or their laboured attempts 
 to invalidate the credibility of Sacred History, or their 
 unhallowed pocans when any apparent Mosaic difficul- 
 ties are raised by modern Geological discoveries; — but 
 in every case have I been compelled to admit with re- 
 newed thankfulness how completely the wisdom of man 
 is foolishness with God, and to understand with in- 
 creased awe the literal character of the fact, that when 
 men do *' not like to retain God in their knowledge" 
 they " become vain in their imaginations, and their foolish 
 hearts are darkened." 
 
 Of course the Westminster Revieio is a clever publi- 
 cation, but its reasoning is so transparently shallow, and 
 it8principU^ are so glaringly false and self-contradictory, 
 that 1 can only account for men of learning and talent 
 thus committing themselves, on the supposition that 
 their unhallowed attacks upon revealed truth have sub- 
 jected them to the curse of judicial blindness. Nor let 
 this idea be scouted as the ravings of mere puritanic 
 
II 
 
 illiberality and superstition. For if you once admit that 
 God has given an inspired revelation of His doings and 
 His will, is it not then even reason to suppose, — nay, 
 has He not declared, — that He will " darken the hearts" 
 (minds, intellects,) of those who set themselves in de- 
 termined opposition to such Revelation? Besides, if 
 intellect did share in the ruin of the Fall, then before it 
 can reasonably be expected to comprehend the high 
 things of God, it must again be illuminated by the Spirit 
 of God; but such illumination the salf-idolizing sceptic 
 scornfully, and yet idiotically, rejects. Further, if 
 there be a mighty fallen intellect, who is the Prince of 
 the Power of the Air, upon whom are his subtle influ" 
 ences likely to be so earnestly and successfully exerted as 
 upon those of the learned, who share in his scorn o^ 
 heavenly light and purity ? Especially, since such men 
 are amongst his ablest auxiliaries in carrying on his ma- 
 lignant warfare against God and man. 
 
 Hi 
 
 
 It will not do for sceptical sarins to assume a tone of 
 perfect indifference to the truth or falsehood of Revela- 
 tion in their professed researches, literary or scientific, 
 after truth. In so doing they beg the \e>ry question 
 at issue; since nothing can be more certain than that 
 if there be two antagonistic powers of good and evil, 
 seeking to influence every individual of our race, each 
 one of us must have, in a greater or less degree, a distinct 
 tendency to love or hate the revealed things of God. — 
 Indeed, what but the latter feeling could cause the scep- 
 tic to endeavor to propagate his doubts, even although 
 himself were /toncsiZj/, if such a thing be possible, their 
 victim ? What does scepticism offer us in the place of 
 Christianity, that its votaries should so eag^3rly endeavor 
 to diffuse their negation of faith ? The very sin of 
 Chri^tianii;y, so to speak, in the eyes of its opponents, is 
 that it seeks to impart a purity too intense, a love too 
 unselfishly deep, a di^'nity too divinely awful, and an 
 immortality too lofty inits thrilling enjoyments, fortheir 
 earth-bound intellects to compass, or their fleshly hearts 
 
[nit that 
 ngg and 
 ,— nay, 
 hearts" 
 B in de- 
 sides, if 
 I e fore it 
 he high 
 ,6 Spirit 
 [ sceptic 
 rther, if 
 rince of 
 tie influ" 
 terted as 
 scorn o* 
 uch men 
 n his ma- 
 
 i tone of 
 ["Revela- 
 icientific, 
 question 
 than that 
 and evil, 
 ace, each 
 a distinct 
 f God.— 
 the scep- 
 although 
 ble, their 
 
 place of 
 endeavor 
 ry sin of 
 ments, is^ 
 
 love too 
 1, and an 
 
 , for their 
 ily hearts 
 
 ">: 
 
 ; 
 
 'I 
 
 to desire. " Beloved, now are we the Sons of God, and 
 it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know 
 that when He shall appear, vv£ shall be like Him, 
 for we shall see Him," (that is, and dwell with Him in 
 eternal felicity,) " as He is." Such is the present, 
 ench the future of Christianity ! Now, what do 
 the JVestminster and its idol, — a sceptical philo- 
 sophy, offer us in exchange for dignity so grand 
 bliss so boundless? What, buta vast waste of agoniz- 
 ing doubt ! In robbing us of our divinity, ihey trample 
 our very manhood in the dust, and leave us to the death 
 of a dog, or at least to the unkuown future of an atom 
 too mean to share its Maker's care ! In the name, then, 
 of our common humanity we ask, what are the motives 
 which induce the issumg of publications like the West- 
 minster 1 Must there not be, in the hearts of their wri- 
 ters, a bitter hatred, though it may be even partially 
 shrouded to themselves, of all that is called holy, before 
 they can thus "cast about fire-brands and death" for 
 the purpose of blasting our only joy in life, our only hope 
 in death ? Suiely Solomon was wise when he declared 
 such to be the conduct of a " madman." 
 
 My thoughts have been more immediately directed into 
 this channel by an article or two in the last (July) num- 
 ber of the Westminster. The Reviewer thus speaks of poor 
 HughMiller's efforts to reconcile geology with revelation: 
 " Is it not melancholy? — an ingenious and naturally ear- 
 nest and upright mind thus twisting and twisted ! and 
 through such a cause lost to truer and better ends!" Now, 
 although no geologist, I am not satisfied with the method 
 Mr. Miller adopts in reconciling the difficulties 
 he met with. Still, cold must be the heart, aye, degraded 
 the very soul of the man, who could treat with contempt, 
 as the reviewer does all through, Mr. Miller's laborious 
 efforts to save the truth of revelation. He trembled, I 
 can imagine, for the hopes of a world ! He feared lest 
 the very science ho had idolized should quench the 
 beams of the sun of righteousness! A too absorbing 
 
6 
 
 devoticn to science had, perhaps, dimmed his faith, 
 until reason reeled as he looked into the awful gloom 
 of a hopeless eternity. And yet the sceptic sneers at 
 such emotions — the ruin of a world but serves to point 
 a jest with him! Verily, "the tender mercies of the 
 wicked are cruel." 
 
 [letter II.] 
 
 Sir, — It may at first sight seem somewhat strange that 
 one, who acknowledges himself to be no geologist, 
 should attempt to offer any strictures upon a review of 
 a geological treatise. But concerning the science of geo- 
 logy, as I know little, so I have little to say; it is of 
 that ignorance of the true fads of nature, which causes 
 presumptuous men to endeavour to make them appear 
 antagonistic to Revelation, that I speak. The very basis 
 of such antagonism is as illogical as it is impious. 
 
 It is an acknowledged axiom that it is unnecessary, 
 in order to the establishing of any truth, to be able to 
 meet, or satisfactorily to explain every objection that 
 may be brought against it : that is the prerogative of 
 Omniscience alone, until in eternity He shall be pleased 
 to reveal His " secret things" to us also. At present 
 it ought to be sufficient for us that the objective 
 arguments and facts in its support are clearly and un- 
 answerably proved ; thenceforward no one of rightly 
 constituted mind, or clear intellect, will permit his be- 
 lief in such truth to be shaken, however plausible the 
 mere objections brought against it may appear. More 
 especially will this be so, where the objections are of 
 such a character, that concerning their force or applica- 
 bility, as opposed to the truth in question, the opponent 
 himself can only make a plausible gue-s. 
 
 Now, this appears to me to be exactly the state of| 
 things with respect to Divine Rbvelation and the objec- 
 tions brought against its reality on the ground of its ap- 1 
 
 
parent incompatibility with modern geological discove- 
 ries. The former has been proved to be genuine, both 
 by facts and reason, with a power of unanHwerable de- 
 monstration unexampled in the case of any other his- 
 torical or mental truth connected with man. Evident- 
 ly, then, the only consistent, or, indeed possible method 
 of shaking the credibility of Revelation is by disproving 
 the facts, and exposing the fallacy of the reasoning upon 
 which our faith therein is grounded. So long as these 
 remain firm and intact, geologic.il discoveries may pre- 
 sent dilHculties, but, in the nature of things, they can 
 afibrd no real arguments against the truth of the Bible. 
 Thus, for instance, I may raise a score of apparently 
 unanswerable objections against the possibility of a 
 aviu of Louis Napoleon's youthful absurdities, rowdy- 
 ism, and undistinguij-'hed early mental character, tver 
 succeeding to the empire, or manifesting any talent for 
 governing, if on its throne ; but the fact of his being there 
 and proving himself one of the cleverest men in Eu- 
 rope, will, alas for the credit of my intellectu;il acumen ! 
 scatter all my powerful iinpos.sibilitiea to the winds. 
 Precisely so is it with the geological, and other modern 
 puff-ball artillery, with which the impregnable citadel of 
 Christianity is assniied. So long as the objective de- 
 monstrations of its truth are, as they ever must remain, 
 unanswered by its assailants, our hopes continue firm and 
 unshaken as the Eternal Rock upon which they are 
 built. 
 
 But my principal object in this letter is to oifer a sug* 
 gestion or two upon the pecuhur arrogance, and the 
 shameful want of coi rect princip les of ratiocination, mani- 
 fested in geological scepticism. Geology is avowedly in 
 its infancy as a science, and indeed, must evidently re 
 main soj until that day when we shall know as we are 
 known. For, in very truth, notwithstanding the rapid 
 progress of our age in the material application of the 
 dlffeient sciences, with respect to the secret, almost 
 sacred, principles of them all, we may literally use the 
 words of the Apostle and confess that we " now see 
 
I 
 
 t 
 
 
 m 
 
 I" 
 P 
 
 ml 
 
 8 
 
 through a glass darkly." And concerning none of the 
 sciences ii this more entirely true than of geology. How 
 absurd, then, is it to bring forward our twilight glimmer- 
 ings concerning a very small portion of its facts, in the 
 expectation that they will extinguish the clear torch-like 
 blaze of Revelation ! 
 
 It is without doubt our want of geological know- 
 ledge, rather than its superabundance, that causes geo- 
 ology to present us with so many difficulties. And 
 these difficulties are, I cannot but think, great- 
 ly increased by the eiTorts of some well-intention- 
 ed geologists, whoj like the late talented and pious Hugh 
 Miller, endeavor to interpret the Mosaic account of the 
 commencement of the present orrfier of creation by the 
 very little which geology has yet revealed, or perhaps 
 ever will reveal, concerning the pre- Adamite history of 
 our globe. It is clearly a trial of our faith, and reason- 
 ably so, since we are only required to be content to let 
 *' secret things belong unto the Lord ;" for, be it re- 
 membered, geology brings no facts against the facts of 
 the inspired Mosaic account. !t is only the conjectural 
 reasoning of men upon the facts of geology that makes 
 the difficulty. To me, therefore, it is a matter of great 
 regret that the excellent and gifted Mr. Miller should 
 in his " Testimony of the Rocks," have given a non- 
 natural interpretation to the Mosaic Week in order that, 
 by stretching it over an unlimited series of ages, he 
 might make it take in what appeared to him to have 
 been the order of creation. By so doing, I think hs 
 has fairly laid himself open to the rejoicing sneer of the 
 infidel-hearted Westminster Revieiver, who asks if the 
 Bible is to be subjected, in its plainest statements, to 
 such forced interpretations — " What, in such circum- 
 stances, is the u^e of the book? In its declarations on 
 the most iraporttiut points it may be meaning something 
 totally different," (to its apparent meaning,) '' and of 
 which mankind will get no inkling for thousands ». *" 
 years." 
 
9 
 
 To this, I Cufifess, I have no answer to give, if such 
 contortions are ndmissable, as Mr. Miller, and other 
 timid Christian geologists, have used, in order to recon- 
 cile their nece'sarily crude theories with the Bible. 
 
 No, Sir — I believe that in every case the literal inter- 
 pretation of the Bible, where, according to the ordinary 
 laws of language, it adtnits of a literal interpretation, is 
 the right one. Holy Scripture was not written for 
 geologists, or (ther learned savans, as such ; it was 
 written foi' plain men, in order to aid in making them 
 wise unto salvation. And, for once, I perfectly agree 
 with the Westminster, that if the Bible is to be subjected 
 to the non-natural and forced interpretations of any set 
 of men — I care not whether they be geologists, Ro- 
 manizers, or ultra-Protestants — it becomes, for all prac- 
 tical purposes, useless. 
 
 But what, then, are we to do ? since we must act, not 
 as mere superstitious votaries, but as those whom God 
 Himself invites to reason upon His doings. The West- 
 minster Reviewers, and even many frightened geological 
 Christians, tell us that the facts of geology clearly dis- 
 prove the Mosaic account of the creation according to 
 its literal interpretation. What, then, I ask again, are 
 we to do? Why, simply deny the fact; refuse to 
 acquiesce in the truth of the assertion ! "yea let God 
 be true, and every man a liar:" and certain it is that 
 geology cannot prove one of its anti-Mosaic statements ; 
 it can only offer what it conceives to be plaicsible conjectures 
 in support of its unbelief. Geology, as a science, I fear- 
 lessly repeat, is itself walking in profound darkness, 
 and shall it presume to usurp the place of Revelation? 
 Idiotic folly ! It is verily the blind seeking t > lead the 
 blind; and if men, wilfully forsaking the light of Reve- 
 lation, will be eo foolish as to follow such guidance, 
 need we to marvel if both the guide and his followers 
 fall into the pit of perdition ? 
 
 That geological difEcultios (or rather phenomena) ex- 
 ist, which we, on account of our ignorance, can 
 
k 
 
 10 
 
 not explain, is natural ; the marvel would be if it 
 were not so. I am told, Tor instance, that the world 
 must have existed and been inhabited innumerable ages 
 before the creative week, described in the Book of 
 Genesis, commenced. Well, there is nothing there 
 that contradicts this ; the earth, doubtless, was created 
 and again destroyed. But light, air, a separation of earth 
 and water were, it is also said, all necessary to animal 
 existence, and Moses tells us that the formation of these 
 things did not take place until the first week of our pre- 
 sent creation. Well, what proof have we that all this 
 had not once existed and been destroyed, or thrown into 
 chaos ? But light, if indeed it were needed, might 
 have illumined nature without the sun ; the earth might 
 roll through space unconnected with the present plane- 
 tary system ; animal life, reptile or marine, might exist 
 under an organization altogether different to the present. 
 
 The Reviewer's objection to the above I purpose to 
 notice in my next. 
 
 iB 
 
 iii 
 
 !|! 
 
 LETTER III. 
 
 SiR^ — The theory, and I admit that it is little else, 
 propounded in my last, of a pre-existent state of things 
 which by its entiie destruction made way for the present 
 creation, is declared to be untenable because it has 
 been discovered, " Tliat the organic creation recorded 
 by geology was esgeniiallv connected, by a series of per- 
 sistent foasils, with the present order of things". 
 
 This is indeed a summary method of cutting the 
 Gordian knot ! For, grant that geology has thus proved 
 the connection of the past with the present, what more 
 likely, — what, in fact, could be more completely in 
 accord with what we know by Revelation of the ordinary 
 methods of the Divine procedure — than that, after 
 having brought one phase of creative energy to its own 
 degree of perfection, he should close it up, in order to 
 
11 
 
 be if it 
 world 
 )le ages 
 ook of 
 g there 
 created 
 of earth 
 animal 
 ofthese 
 ourpre- 
 all this 
 twn into 
 1, might 
 th might 
 It plane- 
 ght exist 
 present. 
 
 rpose to 
 
 ttle else, 
 of things 
 e present 
 se it has 
 rpcorded 
 es of por- 
 ting the 
 j9 proved 
 hat more 
 letely in 
 
 ordinary 
 jat, after 
 its own 
 
 order to 
 
 make way for what appears, from its connection with 
 the spiritual and eternal, to be His noblest form of 
 material organization ? 
 
 In a word, to God all things arc possible. And what 
 were the peculiarities of that former " possible" state 
 of things, or what is its true history, geology neither has 
 revealed nor ever can reveal. 
 
 Geology, as the handmaid of piety, is privileged to un. 
 veil new trophies of the Divine power, fresh wonders of 
 God's inexhaustible wisdom ; but as the opponent of 
 Revelation it is the silliest of dwarfs attacking the grand- 
 est of giants with a sword of bass wood. 
 
 The Noachian Deluge presents difficulties similp./ 
 to those of geology, especially as respects the 
 capability of the Ark to contain the vast variety 
 of species of beasts and birds, which modern 
 science has shewn to exist. The Reviewer, therefore, 
 would weakly deny the fact of the flood, on the ground 
 of his not understanding the how. I say " weakly," for 
 it is the common resort of feebleness of mind to deny, 
 in the face of the clearoat evidence, what it cannot un 
 dersiand. But the way in which Hugh Miller gets over 
 the difiicult^ by supposing, in common with some 
 others, that the deluge was only partial, again lays him 
 open to the sneers of his opponenh Here, again, I must 
 agree with the Reviewer that the language of Scripture, 
 fairly interpreted, allows of no question as to the univer- 
 sality of the Deluge. How then are we to get over the 
 difficulties of the size of the Ark, the distribution of its 
 inmates to their various climates, &c. 1 I see no need 
 of getting over them. The fact of the Deluge and its at- 
 tendant circumstances being proved upon irrefragable 
 evidence, its difficulties belong to Him to Whom " all 
 things are possible." But yet it may admit, I imagine, 
 of a doubt whether it is not quite reasonable to suppose 
 that the variety of species may have greatly increased, 
 from natural causes, since the Flood. 
 
12 
 
 M. 
 
 i! 
 
 
 f 
 
 HI 
 
 ■J ifc' 
 
 ■■f ■«" 
 
 il 
 
 But our sceptical philosophers quite lo^e sight of one 
 great principle of christian ethics, namely, that miracles, 
 — that is the Divine interference with the usual order of 
 His own works, whenever such interference tends to 
 His own glory or to the benefit of His creatures, — are 
 no breach of the Divine economy, but in exact accord- 
 ance with its known, because revealed, principles. 
 Miracles form, indeed, a law of the Uivine procedure, 
 the fitness of which singularly recommends itself to right 
 reason. It is the knowledge of this law of miracidous 
 interference, which greatly aids the consistent believer 
 in trusting the Almighty where He cannot trace His 
 footsteps, or clearly see how to reconcile His word and 
 works. 
 
 For men who have the largest amount of faith, (cre- 
 dulity!) upon the smallest degree of evidence, commend 
 me, not to the Romish devotee, but to the sceptical phi- 
 losopher. Thus, let there be the most shadowy proba- 
 bility of some geological conformation, which apparent- 
 ly tends to throw discredit upon Christianity, and it is 
 immediately pronounced to be a fact, in the presence of 
 which Christianity must fall, like Dagon before the Ark ! 
 I should, for instance, much like to know from those 
 rationally, because Christianly, learned in Geology, 
 whether the assertion that the Trilobites of the Palaeo- 
 zoic period had eyes suited to the present organization 
 of light, be not one of those easy acts of faith or credu< 
 lity to which I have alluded; being adopted because it 
 appears to militate against the Scriptural account of the 
 origin of light. I have already stated that the existence 
 of light, or even of a sun, previoustothe Mosaic creation, 
 would present no difHculty to my reason in its uudoubt- 
 ing reception of the Bible as a Divine Revelation; but 
 I ask the question, because it seems to me that the exact 
 nature of the eyes of these trilobites must have beeii 
 taken marvellously upon trust. Since, though their or- 
 ganic remains may be abundant in a fossil state, I can 
 scarcely think that the delicate coatings of the eye, with 
 
 j 
 
 ^. 
 
 Int 
 under 
 ed fal 
 pharis 
 purpo 
 Bunse 
 antagc 
 in wl 
 the pi 
 earth 
 and 
 at libe 
 book, 
 To th 
 theref 
 of hot 
 princi 
 ceuce, 
 of the 
 and un 
 Egypt, 
 langua 
 compli 
 not 8U( 
 
 )U^ 
 
4i? 
 
 t of one 
 niracles, 
 order of 
 tends to 
 •es, — are 
 ; accord- 
 :inciples. 
 ocedure, 
 f to right 
 iracrdous 
 believer 
 race His 
 word and 
 
 13 
 
 its still more subtile fluids, have been so wondrously 
 preserved throughout the mighty convulsions oi nature 
 for a thousand ages, that in these last days the anatomist 
 and the optician can, at least with due regard to their 
 own professional reputation, decide, with the reckless 
 fearlessness assumed by the Reviewer, upon the exact 
 relation which this most delicate organ bore to light, or 
 its equivalent, in the awful past of nature's remotest dy- 
 nasties. Verily, it appears to me that the good old 
 woman, who declared that she could believe that Jonah 
 swallowed the whale, if the Bible said so, knew nothing 
 of the power of faith, when compared with these learn- 
 ed sceptical geologists! 
 
 lith, (cre- 
 :ommend 
 )tical phi- 
 vy proba- 
 apparenl- 
 and it is 
 esence of 
 the Ark ! 
 om those 
 Geology, 
 le Palseo- 
 anization 
 or credu- 
 lecause it 
 unt of the 
 existence 
 3 creation, 
 uudoubt- 
 tion; but 
 the exact 
 ave been 
 1 their or- 
 ate, I can 
 eye, with 
 
 In the number of the Westminster Review (July) now 
 under notice, there is another striking instance of learn- 
 ed fallacious arrogance; and of whar. appears to be 
 Pharisaic, sceptical humility, for the sake of serving a 
 purpose. That arch-enemy of the faith, Chevalier 
 Bunsen, nas lately published a work on Egypt, 
 antagonistic to the integrity of Holy Scripture; 
 in which, amongst other speculations, he assumes 
 the probability of our race having been on this 
 earth for upwards of twenty thousand years, 
 and then modestly intimates that no one is 
 at liberty to condemn his theories, who has not read his 
 book, and is not, also, deeply learned in Egyptian lore! 
 To this the reviewer meekly assents, and declines, 
 therefore, to criticise the work. But mark the cunning 
 of both the Chevalier and the reviewer. For if the 
 principles they thus lay down, with such apparent inno- 
 cence, be correct, the evidences of our Christianity and 
 of the truth of its Volume of Inspiration, are so feeble 
 and uncertain, that, unless we have read the work on 
 Egypt, and are, in addition, thoroughly versed in the 
 language and antiquities of that country, we musi be 
 completely at sea as to whether Chevalier Bunsen has 
 not succeeded in entirely uprooting their foundations. 
 
14 
 
 !fti 
 
 II 
 
 ■B 
 
 I 
 
 !tl 
 
 ir 
 
 11 
 
 Out upon such pretentious insolence, from whomsoever 
 it comes .' If our faith vrere, indeed, thus at the mercy 
 of the brightest intellect that God ever made, it were 
 not worth the preserving ! 
 
 But the illogical impudence of such men, apart from 
 their wickedness, excites one's deepest scorn. Let 
 them at least shake the walls that surround the revela- 
 tion of God's eternal truth and mercy, before they so 
 conceitedly and ignorantly attempt to lay them in the 
 dust with their very small artillery. Let, I say. Cheva- 
 lier Bunsen, the Westminster Eeview, et id genus omne, 
 manfully endeavor to disprove the truth of revelation, 
 and of our faith as founded thereupon, by shaking the 
 positive evidences upon which they are based; such as 
 the testimony of profane history, miraculous facts, 
 church iuHtitutions, holy traditions, and the mighty 
 spiritual effects produced by Christianity ; and when 
 these are undermined, but not till then, we may be pre- 
 pared to listen to the negative possible objections, by 
 which, through a great stretch of in6del credulity even 
 then, our hopes of salvation may be assailed. 
 
 But to conclude this letter with one word. — It does 
 seem to me that so long as I believe in a God I must 
 also believe in Christianity, and in the simple 
 and literal truthfulness of that Revelation on which 
 it is so largely founded ; until, at least, scepticism 
 shall oflfer me a system more worthy of the Divine 
 perfection!^, and more full of blessedness to man. 
 And this feeling of holy confidence is irrespective of 
 those positive arguments for its truth, which when men 
 or devils shall succeed in shp'iing, the pillars of Heaven 
 itself may tremble. It is high time that Christian men 
 more thoroughly understood that reason is not elevated, 
 but rather dishonoured, by doubting, and that a whole 
 legion of negative difficulties ought to have no power to 
 disturb the faith of one whose religion, if rightly under- 
 stood, will abundantly enable him to give " a reason of 
 the hope " that is in him. Difficulties are the \ery 
 
15 
 
 atmosphere of faith : we must not expect in this life to 
 "know even as also we are known." And I repeat, in 
 conclusion, the assertion, that scepticism never provbd 
 one fact that was in opposition to the facts stated in the 
 Book of God. 
 
 LETTER IV. 
 
 Sir, — I must once more trespass on your patience, as 
 I wish to make a few remarks on the difficulties attend- 
 ing Mr. Hugh Miller's attempt to reconcile the Mosaic 
 Creation week with the theories of modern geologists. 
 
 Mr. MiPer takes the ground that as Revelation was 
 no more intended to teach geology than astronomy, the 
 opponents of his theories are to be placed in the same 
 category with the unwise theological persecutors of 
 Galileo, Columbus, &c. But in this he confounds 
 things which are essentially different. The Bible does 
 not undertake to instruct us in the mysteries of the Solar 
 System : it merely speaks of the sun, moon, and stars, as 
 Mr. Miller himself well remarks, just ns the almanack 
 does, in that common phraseology which represents 
 their relations to us. But yet I much question, whether 
 the Jewish and Christian world got their former notions 
 of the earth being an extended plain, and so forth, from 
 the Bible ; its language by no means necessarily involv- 
 ing such errors ; these ideas were rather derived, I imag- 
 ine, from ancient secular philosophy, to which Biblical 
 phraseology was unwittingly accommodated in the minds 
 of its readers. 
 
 We readily grant, therefore, on the same principles, 
 that, as the Sacred Volume is not a geological treatise, 
 the organic history and conformation of our globe is a 
 fair subject of scientific research and theory. But what 
 revelation profettes to state as historic truth, must be under' 
 stood according to the received language and ideas of the 
 people to whom the revelation was made, oi it would cease 
 to be reliable testimony ; and thus becoming a mere vol- 
 
ri 
 
 ■I |ii 
 i 
 
 'if 
 
 i 
 
 i 
 
 ill 
 
 i 
 
 in 
 
 16 
 
 nme of guess work, in respect of its interpretation, it 
 would consequently be valueless as a record of Divine 
 truth and mercy. 
 
 Whether the history of Creation as at present organ- 
 ized, was given to Moses in a vision, as Mr. Miller 
 and others suppose, or by direct communication, is of 
 little importance : its literal accuracy is the question ; 
 but yet from the distinct declaration of Jehovah to 
 Aaron and Miriam concerning the honour He put upon 
 Moses, when He said : " With him will I speak mouth 
 to mouth, even apparently and not in dark speeches," 
 I can come to no other conclusion, notwithstanding the 
 special pleading in " The Testimony of the Rocks," 
 than that the history of Creation was so given to him, 
 immediately by God himself. 
 
 Now nothing can be more plain, simple, and didac- 
 tic than the account given in the book of Genesis o^ 
 the creation of the heavens, the earth, and its inhabitants, 
 as they at present exist. And this account Jehovah so- 
 lemnly repeated, writing it with his own finger upon 
 the two tables of stone, amidst the awful solemnities of 
 Mount Sinai. And here, let it be remembered, that 
 " words are but signs of our ideas, " and that conse- 
 quently they cease to be true, when they cease correctly 
 to represent those ideas. Now, what would the people 
 of Israel understand ; what, in fact, have all men under- 
 stood, till warped by a floundering philosophy, from this 
 week of six days, and its seventh of holy rest — but the 
 universal week of Judiaism, and of Christianity 7 Hence 
 as Jehovah — the God of Truth — could not use language 
 designing it to convey a deceptive sense to His hearers, 
 I cannot avoid the conclusion that the Mosaic week of 
 the Creation was a natural week. 
 
 Miller and his friends, suggest, however, that Moses 
 ^poke after the manner of the later prophets, who gener- 
 ally use natural periods to indicate long prophetic dates. 
 But they ignore this all important difference, that the 
 prophets were not writing history ; and the people 
 
17 
 
 ition, It 
 Divine 
 
 t organ- 
 . Miller 
 on, is of 
 uestion ; 
 ovah to 
 put upon 
 k mouth 
 eeches," 
 iding the 
 Rocks," 
 ito him, 
 
 nd didac- 
 enesis of 
 habitants, 
 hovah so- 
 ger upon 
 mnities of 
 sred, that 
 at conse- 
 
 correctly 
 le people 
 en under- 
 
 from this 
 —but the 
 
 7 Hence 
 
 language 
 is hearers, 
 E week of 
 
 lat Moses 
 rho gener- 
 etic dates, 
 that the 
 le people 
 
 \ 
 
 whom they addressed doubtless understood that the 
 days aLd weeks mentioned were prophetic and not na- 
 tural periods ; and again a certain degree of obscurity 
 was absolutely requisite in their case, as otherwise the 
 prophecies might have been said to procure their own 
 fulfilment ; and thus one of their great objects — the 
 proof of the Divine prescience— have been defeated. Evi- 
 dently then, their position and that of Moses in his ac- 
 count of Creation, were not at all parallel. His theme 
 was history, his object to impress the Jews, and thence 
 mankind at large, with a deep sense of the Divine Ma- 
 jesty, power and goodness, and the high original motive 
 for the institution of the Sabbath; here there was no 
 call for obscurity ; on the contrary, the plamer the de- 
 tails the more likely was the object aimed at to be gain, 
 ed ; and hence, as we see, the language could not be 
 simpler; nor could there be a more complete absence 
 of anything to intimate that the terms day and week 
 were not used in their natural sense. 
 
 And further, notwithstanding all the efforts used to 
 reconcile the employment of an indefinite geological 
 period in the present organization of things with the 
 motive assigned by the Most High for setting apart the 
 seventh day and making it a day of holy rest, I must think 
 them a signal failure. To my moral perceptions there 
 js something very painfully repugnant, in supposing, that 
 the Eternal, after being an incalculable number of ages 
 in bringing creation to perfection, should then, in the 
 firstpauae of His operations, represent to us that He 
 had been only^thus engaged six natural days, and make 
 that the ground of demanding that the seventh day 
 should be set apart as a day of holy rest, so long as time 
 should last, in commemoration of that supposed six days 
 of creative energy. There is,however, no such objection 
 to the idea that our globe itself, and, if you will, the 
 countless systems by which it is surrounded, had beea 
 in existence innumerable ages, and that afler returning, 
 perhaps repeatedly, to chaos, whatever that may be, they 
 were once more called into joyous existence during the 
 
18 
 
 m 
 
 m 
 
 I 
 
 '» 
 
 
 
 iS 
 
 ii f 
 
 '¥ 
 
 m 
 
 ! 1 
 
 •is days by recreative Diviae power, as narrated in the 
 Book of Geneiis. Nay, ifone scientifically ignorant of 
 Greology might pretend to offer a geological suggestion, 
 it would be that the foregoing supposition is the only 
 one consistent with the recent discoveries in the science 
 itself; since between the various geological eras the 
 connection appears so slight, as to indicate that each one 
 of them toaa a recreation ; the Mosaic account being 
 simply the history of the last and most perfect, to which 
 indeed all the rest tended. 
 
 Not without reason, also, does the Westminster RevieVir- 
 er sneer at the spasmodic efforts made by Hugh Miller, 
 and those who think with him, to reconcile their theory 
 of a partial Noachian Flood with the plain and strong 
 language of Scripture, and the almost certain previous 
 universal diffusion of the human family. The Reviewer 
 of course, rejoices in the theory of a partial Deluge, 
 because, if true, it gives, in despite of all that Mr. Miller 
 can say to the contrary, awful force to his sceptical 
 attacks upon the credibility of Revelation. With 
 respect to the Flood, as it, like the story of Creation 
 was a matter of history, so Moses concerning it also 
 professes to give a plain detail of the facts of the 
 case ; and here there can be none of the mistaken of 
 eyewitnesses, since he wrote under Divine direction; 
 for not even Noah could have been bold enough to 
 use the unequivocally universal language, concerning the 
 Flood, which is used by Moses, as personally he could 
 only have witnessed a very small portion of its effects. 
 And then the strong expresson of St. Peter surely 
 sets the teaching of Scripture on the matter at rest, 
 when, after speaking of the earth at large, as part of it 
 being in the water and part out of the water, when in its 
 natural state, be adds, " Whereby the worldthat then was, 
 being overflowed with water, perished ;" and he proceeds 
 to compare the flood with that universti destruction 
 by fire of the heavens and the earth, which is hereafter 
 
19 
 
 to Uke place. To such plain declarations as the above, 
 it is surely superfluous to add, in proof of the univers- 
 ality of the flood, the fact of the large, and therefore 
 necessarily diff'usive population of the world ; oalcu- 
 lated by some, as being, from the great age to which 
 men lived, six tinaes as numerous as at present. Mr. 
 Miller finds it difiicult to meet this, but suggests that 
 men were so wicked that they had nearly depopulated 
 the world by their wars and crimes! But even if so, the 
 greater reason is there to suppose that the remnunta 
 would not be all found near the same spot ; and if some 
 were scattered in Asia, some in Europe and Aflrica, or 
 even in America, the Deluge must still have been uni- 
 versal in otdw to reaoh them all. 
 
 Again, the natural cause which Mr. Miller assigns for 
 even his supposed partial Flood is diametrically opposed 
 to the Scriptural one. He attributes it to the sinking of the 
 earth ; the Scriptures, on the contrary, most emphatically 
 to " the fountains of the great deep being broken up, 
 and the windows of heaven being opened," and pouring 
 forth their torrents of rain ; until, not as Miller con- 
 jectures, the earth sank, but, as Moses repeats at least 
 three times, " the waters prevailed exceedingly upon 
 the earth ;" or as St. Peter, so many ages after, declares, 
 " they overflowed the earth that then was." 
 
 It will perhaps be said, that I have not met the difii- 
 culties that oppose themselves to the idea of a universal 
 Noichian Deluge. That was not my object ; those difiicul- 
 ties I do not fear, they doubtless arise from our own want 
 of knowledge. But I solemnly protest against any be- 
 liever in Revelation attempting to undermine its truth, by 
 such lawless interpretations, as those upon which poor 
 Hugh Miller, and men of his Geological school, have so 
 recklessly ventured. Either their warping and twisting 
 of Revelation is most thoroughly unwarrantable, or the 
 foundations of our faith are gone. No portion of Holy 
 Wru is safe, if such principles of interpretation are 
 once admitted, — the story of Redeeming love may be 
 
20 
 
 ||h- 
 
 reiolved into an allegory, and the Blesied Spirit, oar 
 only hope of sanctification, declared to be a myth. 
 
 In fine, however, I may just observe, that to me 
 it seems that most of the difficulties which appear 
 to surround the question of the Deluge arise from the 
 want of a reasonable faith. For instance, why may we 
 not suppose that the different species of the same ani- 
 mals have, from a variety of causes, greatly multiplied 
 since the deluge 7 Do the different species of the bull, 
 the lion, the sheep, &c., vary more the one from the 
 other than the Oancasian from the Hottentot 7 And 
 yet Christian geologists find little difficulty in supposing 
 that these last are descended from one common parent- 
 age. And if the number of the spftcies can be thus re- 
 duced, the objections as respects both their having to 
 travel far to assemble at the ark, as in such case the ori- 
 ginal species might be found near it, and their accommo- 
 dations in it, are met. Then as to the difficulties attending 
 their dispersion tu their natural localities, I can see none 
 but what equally apply to the fact of their being so dis- 
 persed, even if there had been no flood ; for still the 
 question returns, How did they get to their present 
 localities 7 
 
 Indeed one or two facts by which Geology corrobo' 
 rates Revelation, should teach reasonable men faith as 
 regards the rest. I refer to the truth to which Mr. Miller 
 beautifully alludes, as being proved by geology,— tAat 
 all things had a beginning. And to the yet more strik- 
 ing fact, that up to the Mosaic period of the Creation, 
 no records of man are found ; his footsteps are as yet un- 
 seen! 
 
 I thankfully repeat th&n, with renewed confidence, 
 "Let God be true, though every man a liar." 
 
 iif 
 
21 
 
 THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION. 
 
 LETTER V. 
 
 SiE, — I only last evening saw your "daily," contain- 
 ing the letter of my friendly opponent J. C. P. ; whom 
 I thank for his very kindly personal appreciation. 
 
 But as you wish to eschew controversy on the subject 
 to which his letter refers, I will only trouble you with a 
 brief reply. 
 
 I have carefully examined Hugh Miller's " Testimony 
 of the Rocks," and while I quite appreciate the earnest- 
 ness of his spirit, the beauty of his diction, and the 
 ability displayed in his investigations, I deeply regret, 
 both for the sake of his own peace of mind, and the good 
 of others, what I must consider his unwarrantable 
 wresting of God's Holy Word; Had he been trained 
 with feelings of more reverent respect for the authori- 
 tative interpretations of the Church as the "witness 
 and keeper of Holy Writ," I cannot but think that it 
 would have been happier both for himself and his 
 readers. 
 
 With respect to the "expressions found in God's 
 Word :— 
 
 " The Day of God, 
 
 " The Day of the Lord, 
 
 "A thousand two hundred and three score days, 
 
 "Seventy weeks," &c., &c., 
 
 Quoted by your correspondent, and with which Mr. 
 Miller seeks to confound the " week " of creation, the 
 answer is simple. And though I have already attempted 
 to give it in my fourth letter, I will, at the hazard of a 
 little repetition, make one or two further observations, 
 in the hope of strengthening my position. 
 
22 
 
 
 I 
 
 :3 
 
 
 '■■■I i'i» 
 
 3'' 
 
 t:i,.i|! 
 
 
 '- 
 
 t 
 
 The above expressions were so evidently used in a 
 metaphorical or typical sense, and in stich entire ac- 
 cordance with the symbolic teaching common to the 
 periods in which they were written, that it is probable 
 they were never misunderstood by competent persons. 
 
 With the "six days" of the Book of Genesis it is, 
 however, altogether different. Moses was professedly 
 giving a plain historical account of Creation as at pre- 
 sent existing in its relations to man; and, as though 
 anticipating the glosses of these last times, he marks 
 the days of creation, beyond the possibility of unpr^u- 
 diced questioning, as common days, by mentioning their 
 successive ** mornings " and " evenings ;" and then, 
 by Divine command, draws from the cessation of work 
 at the end of these six ordinary days, the obligation of 
 observing every ordinary seventh day, ac one of rest 
 and of holiness to the Lord. The Israelites, therefore, 
 could not, any more than common-sense men amongst 
 oui'selves, have understood the days of creation as other 
 than natural days. And indeed, if they were not so, 
 what was Moses but a deceiver alike to them and us ? 
 
 But, if contrary to all the laws of language, we are 
 to understand the week of creation as being composed 
 of days of almost unlimited duration, then we must of 
 necessity apply the same rule to the Fourth Command- 
 ment, since it is entirely based upon the Mosaic account 
 of creation. Hence its six days of labor become six 
 vast epochs of time, each comprising many ages, during 
 which the successive generations of men are to work 
 without any special periods being appointed for rest or 
 worship, imtil, at the end of these six epochs, a seventh 
 period — an eternity perhaps — is to be ushered in, and 
 devoted to enjoyment and to the service of Almighty 
 God! 
 
 Will J. C. D. accept this as a true interpretation of 
 the Fourth Commandment and its Seventh Holy day ? 
 
 
23 
 
 x\nd yet it appears to me to be the only one consistent 
 with the modern geologico-religious theory. • 
 
 If the Sacred Scriptures are thus to be tortured by 
 private interpretations, contrary to all the teaching of 
 Christ's Holy Catholic Church in its purest, and per- 
 haps most inspired ages, what is to prevent the dogmas 
 of transubstantiation, purgatory, the papacy, &c., be- 
 coming fearfully prevalent amongst those who are seek- 
 ing unity upon almost any terms ? Or, on the other 
 hand, what is to be our protection against the insidious 
 attacks of our sceptical and rationalistic foes upon the 
 Divinity of our Blessed Lord, the existence of the Holy 
 Ghost, the eternity of rewards and punishment, the 
 validity of the Holy Sacraments, &c., &c. ? Since only 
 once admit the lax principles of interpretation sanc- 
 tioned by the unfortunate Miller and his well-meaning 
 compeers, and the Bible will cease to be a " stumbling- 
 stone" to the Romanist, or a "rock of offence" to the 
 rationalist and the infidel. 
 
 LETTER VI. 
 
 Sir, — Since writing the foregoing 1 iters, I received 
 the September number of Blackwood's Magazine^ and 
 regret to see that in an article entitled " The Book and 
 the Rocks," it cordially endorses Mr. Miller's theory 
 that each of the Mosaic six days of creation embraces 
 an incalculable number of ages. It does not, however, 
 advance much that is new in argument, being little more 
 than an echo of" The Testimony of the Rocks." Still, 
 with your permission, I will briefly notice some of its 
 statements. 
 
 I quite agree with the writer, and Mr. Miller, that the 
 supposition of Dr. Pye Smith that the Mosaic account 
 of creation is concerned with only a small portion of the 
 earth's surface, — is quite untenable, opposed alike to 
 Revelation and science. 
 
# 
 
 24 
 
 ¥ 
 
 
 P-^ 
 
 L:i .if 
 
 But I also think that the admissions of both Mr. 
 Miller and Blackwood themselves, as well as the argu- 
 ments jf their opponents, prove that their assertion that 
 the "geologic periods agree with the Mosaic days in 
 order and number,^' is based on e::ceedingly fanciful 
 grounds, and strained contrary to the facts of the case, 
 in order to support a favorite theory. In proof of this, 
 let your readers carefully note the admissions of these 
 writers, and then read the article in the Westminster 
 Review which first occasioned these letters. But if I 
 am correct in this idea, then the whole of Mr. Miller's 
 theory falls to the ground as " the baseless fabric of a 
 vision.** 
 
 The saying of St. Peter that " one day is with the 
 Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one 
 day," is quoted in support of Hugh Miller, by his 
 admirer in Blackwood. But the quotation is beside the 
 mark ; the argument of the Apostle simply being that 
 God can accomplish His moral designs in the world 
 without reference to time. While our controversy is 
 concerning the right of geologists to give a non-natural 
 import to the language which Jehovah has addressed to 
 men, in cases where He Himself has not given the 
 slightest intimation that He was using common language 
 in other than in its o>'dinary meaning. 
 
 The principal argument adduced in " The Book and 
 the Rocks'' which I have not already noticed in my pre 
 vious letters, is a very singular one, namely, — that "if 
 the day of the Creator's rest be a long period of time," 
 (as the writer supposes is the case,) "so must also be 
 the six days of His work!" Upon this fancied seguitur 
 he lays a very triumphant stress, saying, " The retort 
 is complete and unanswerable." Whereas to me it ap- 
 pears ponitively puerile. Surely the writer does not 
 suppose that the term " rest" is applicable to the Crea- 
 tor in the same sense that it would be to a. man who had 
 been engaged in arduous labour? In fact, for ought 
 that we know, works of creation may be going on 
 
26 
 
 table. Th,me.j;X°f" "'^r''''' ""yP"- 
 the last ,u day. He bJbZ "" '" '"'i"'' f" 
 
 for h» .„„ c„„f„„, ;„ " "f„ "■'' S";""". .0 God .„d 
 
 K/'Jy- %"««».e«ir°',«Ue7 "" «'^«""> 
 
 pr"" ^'•~»-. -e;r:j; r.^;.f 
 
 h .ha. .he SereTe^ dT^^VJ" "'"" '"«'■' '^» 
 
 «"" .0 atrengihen 4, ^.a^e ''t i, r" ' '5* """■"'»" 
 ^'racier of the oU,er Z^ " *"""■ ""^ "■• '"«"! 
 W'of ceatio.,^',^ *i'',7« •'■er. being .he' 
 
 h». •■> order to preven7.I.T r ^ """^"^ " »«"«' 
 Koe, is „„„ rj"" "■;■•• -«» Perveraion, aa.fo, 
 
 V "eo-e i while the SeveU nft •*""' '" " '""'•°«'"- 
 I' e,o.liy liable .. StoA'^^"* "o »f "e. waa 
 )' la., day „f ti,e Z!! ? °°- ^nd beaide., 
 
 J>th of loviag kmdaS~L ^ ^"^ " » """drone 
 
 "ending perhap, f L. "T"'"" ""^"H'VPhs, 
 " PoaUive ,ev^,.«,r "tnir."' ' "•""" ""'» 
 m; «'«, becaoae there i,r„,,i, """^dingly 
 
 K.»ch -viaion." Which ?fc "'*.'"'""■"»»" "in, 
 o/St. John. „h;„ ,"t tit?-,*'"""^ " '" «" 
 b le« .hen i, U,er. .LT .' ""*" '" "'' «"»Ple i 
 
 k: -hiie, .„ *e" he7h.sr.h':;r''"* " "■"»«• 
 
 t>«fon. M I have «„.j b.?! Z"r°T """ •■■ 
 DBiore, that God apoka in 
 
:S 
 
 w 
 
 n !i 
 
 
 it: 
 
 1:1 
 
 I 
 
 26 
 
 all His revelations to Moses, face to face, as a man with 
 his friend. But this trifling with Holy Writ is further 
 distressing, because we must after all return to the fact 
 that the Divine Intelligence is responsible for the truth- 
 ful accuracy of the narrative according to the common 
 method of interpreting human language, whatever might 
 be methods by which it was imparted to Moses, or, — the 
 Book of Genesis is a fable ! 
 
 Thus, let any unprejudiced person say, after reading 
 the account of the fourth day's creation of the sun 
 moon and stars, whether human language can convey 
 any facts in clearer or plainer terms 7 Yet of this state- 
 ment of the Book of Genesis, the article in question 
 says : *' This is optical not astronomical truth" ! I 
 fancy I can see the quiet sneer of the Weatminater on 
 reading such a defence of , the holy literal truth of that 
 volume, on the fact of whose unassailable truth all our 
 dearest hopes depend. And this cavilling is certainly 
 most uncalled for; as the account of the heavenly bodies 
 is literally and *' astronomically " correct, Blacheood I 
 to the contrary^ notwithstanding, when considered in; 
 their relations and influences upon our earth ; — and : 
 this it was, of course, the legitimate object of the sacred] 
 historian to state. 
 
 But what, indeed, is there to prevent our supposing,] 
 if geology seems to demand it, that a planetary systemj 
 or systems, had existed, and been destroyed, before tbe| 
 creation of the present solar system, described by Mc 
 ses as taking place on the fourth day 7 or, might it noli 
 possibly be their re-organization from a state of chaos 1 
 These suppositions are surely more reverential, than tol 
 imagine that when God says He **made two greaij 
 lights," He only means that He cleared avmy the mUW 
 and fogs which hid them from sight ! And yet this iij 
 what Mr. Miller al!id Blackwood wjuld have us to be 
 lieve. 
 
 The whole of these efforts to bend the Mosaic aej 
 count to the 5u/)po50(2 discoveries of geological scieno 
 
 II' 
 
27 
 
 give painful evidence of a want of reasonable faith.-^ 
 Good men have unwittingly permitted their love of sci- 
 ence to over-ride their love of faith ; for though all, as 
 respects the when and how of geology, is guess work, 
 yet in order to make the word of God succumb to its 
 rude uncertainties, His Truth has been tortured into 
 something so like " a lie" that religion vails her face in 
 shame. 
 
 It is pleasant, however, where one finds so much to 
 deplore, to be able to speak in terms of high gratification 
 ofthe able manner in which both Mr. Miller and the 
 writer of " the Book and the Rocks " place in bold 
 relief the complete refutation which the recent dis- 
 coveries in the science of geology have given to the 
 sceptical conceits of the eternity oj the world, the ir^finite 
 succession of the human race, die. In earnest and glow- 
 ing language they rejoicingly show how entirely in 
 harmony are geology and Holy writ on these impor- 
 tant points. And this they do mthout any unholy strain- 
 ing of the divine veracityi What a pity it is that they 
 could not also have trusted Eternal Truth where geolo- 
 gy does not speak, but only as yet utters moU uncertain 
 sounds. 
 
 The necessary brevity of these letters compels me to 
 conclude, content with rather suggesting reflection 
 than elaborating argument. I finish, therefore, with 
 one hint, — that the present infancy of the science of 
 geology should cause its christian votaries, while they 
 steadily pursue their researches, and fearlessly proclaim 
 their discovered facts, — for the Infinite stands in no need 
 of the adroit fencing of poor human wit to defend 
 either His natural or revealed truth, — at the same time 
 to let their faith " stand still," assured that in this thing 
 also, they shall one day "see the selvation of God;" 
 and doubtless they will then greatly marvel that they 
 should ever have trembled lest God should not be able 
 to <* vindicate his ways to man." 
 
 u