clays and earthy carbonates of the sedimentary deposits, of the various silicious minerals which make up the crystalline rocks, may now be regarded as solved; and we find the agent of the process in waters holding in solution carbonates and silicates acting upon the heated strata.”* In a word,

GRANITE IS A MORTAR, NOT A METAL.

To this conclusion the most advanced geologists of Europe have been slowly, but irresistibly, impelled; and such men as M. Rose, Poulett Scrope, Scheerer, Sorby, Elie de Beaumont, Lyell, and Ansted have given their testimony against the fallacy of the igneous theory. Space permits only one or two testimonies out of a number before me.

Sir Charles Lyell, in his speech on taking the chair of the British Association, as president for 1864, asserts, ex cathedra: "Various experiments have led to the conclusion that the minerals which enter most largely into the composition of the metamorphic rocks have not been formed by crystallizing from a state of fusion, or in the dry way, but that they have been derived from liquid solutions, or in the wet way-a process requiring a far less intense degree of heat. . . . The study, of late years, of the constituent parts of granite, has, in like measure, led to the conclusion that their consolidation has taken place at temperatures far below those formerly supposed to be indispensable. Gustav Rose has pointed out that the quartz of granite has the specific gravity of 2.6, which characterizes silica when it is precipitated from a liquid solvent, and not that inferior density, namely, 2.3, which belongs to it when it cools and solidifies in the dry way from a state of fusion."

Prof. Ansted asserts, in a paper read before the British * Journal of the Geological Society. London, 1859.

Association of 1867, on The Conversion of Stratified Rock into Granite: "Geologists until recently have spoken of granite as a primitive rock, as the nucleus of the earth, and as having been from time to time erupted, playing an important part in the general disturbances by which the framework of the earth is supposed to have been constructed. The observations of Daubree and Sorby show that all true granite had been elaborated with water, under great pressure, at a temperature below melting heat; that it had neither been ejected nor had it formed a framework. There are granites of all ages and of many kinds. Numerous observations show that granite alternates with, and passes into, stratified rocks, and must itself in such cases be stratified rock; and that its production does not necessarily involve the destruction and obliteration of all the stratified rocks with which it is associated. This view of the nature of granite will greatly affect the theories of geology."

Hitchcock formally demonstrates the metamorphism of the stratified rocks into granite. "There is reason to suppose that a large part of the granitic rocks of New England are merely transformed slates, schists, and conglomerates. Granite seems to be the most complete form of metamorphosis."

This exactly reverses the theory of the evolutionists, of the formation of the present strata as the result of the processes of a cooling globe. So far as the so-called. igneous rocks are concerned, they have been formed by the very contrary process, of heating up, and baking of the sedimentary rocks. The granite itself is only a wellbaked fire-brick, made originally of mud; and the whole theory of the molten interior of our globe is demonstrated to be a fable, impossible and absurd.

That this discovery will greatly affect theories of * Geology, p. 224.

geology is certain; and not less so that it will completely overthrow the whole scheme of anti-Bible geology, with all the assailants of Moses for his silence about the cooling of our fused globe, and all the rest of the theory. Ministers, Sabbath-school teachers, and common-school teachers, should familiarize themselves with the subject; so that when they find the minds of their people or of their pupils in danger of being perverted, they may be competent to expose the blunder of the infidel geologist. The facts of the case are patent and undeniable.

Since this subject has been discussed in the religious periodicals, attempts have been made to brow-beat them into silence by the allegation that they are mere tyros in geology. But it does not require a very profound knowledge of science to see a palpable blunder. A man need not be a profound mathematician to know whether or not one and one make three. And surely one need not read a great many volumes, nor hammer all the rocks in the Alleghanies and the Sierra Nevadas, to be able to tell the difference between a brick-yard and an iron furnace, or between a man who mistakes the one for the other, and a man of science. No! Gentlemen, we will take the liberty of doubting your infallibility so long as you go on blundering at that rate.

But it has been alleged in extenuation, that the mistake is not fundamental to the science of geology. No mistake is fundamental to any true science. But this mistake is fundamental to the theory of evolution, which has arrogated to itself the title of the science of geology. The citations already given abundantly prove the assumption of the name of geology for such cosmogony; and scores of such citations can be given from popular writers, and from geological lectures delivered in every country town. The attempt to show that it is not important because some geological writers devote to its discussion only a few

pages in the beginning of their books, is quite sophistical. The importance of a statement does not depend on the number of pages it covers. The Declaration of Independence covers only a couple of pages of American history. Is it therefore not a fundamental fact? Moses' account of the creation occupies only a single page, but all the rest of the Bible stands or falls with its truthfulness. Our infidels feel this, and labor with all their might to overturn that introductory chapter. And we have now overthrown their first chapter of Genesis, and demonstrated its falsehood and absurdity. The whole edifice of evolution falls into the mud which has swallowed up its granite foundation.

Neither will it be possible to evade the difficulty, and to retain the rest of the infidel system, after its foundation is overturned, by alleging the difference between a material and a logical foundation. This is both a material and a logical foundation. The logic is founded upon the alleged fact. The alleged fact is proved to be a fable. The logic based upon the fable must be fabulous also. The most legitimate reasoning from a false fact produces only a logical lie. I cannot believe either the theory or its proposer. If an architect begins to show me his skill in house-building by describing to me the process of building a brick house as commencing at the iron furnace, carried on by pouring out the molten iron into castings, and then screwing them together, while all the time I see that the house is made of brick and mortar, and not of cast-iron at all, would you say, "Oh, that was only a material, not a logical mistake; Mr. Fireman is, after all, a very good architect." We really must press this point of want of confidence in our geological blunderers. When we are obliged to remove the material foundation of facts on which they have built their theory, we would rather be excused from having their theory, or any theory,

pressed upon us as science upon their authority. When we find a gentleman mistaking a mud-scow for a steamboat, we would rather not take passage on either vessel under his command just then. Until geological evolutionists settle down into some degree of sobriety, we must be excused from troubling ourselves about their speculations as to the origin of the earth.

6. Any Theory of Geological Evolution Framed in Ignorance of the Earth's Interior, Insults our Common Sense.

Ignorance, the most profound, of the materials of the nine hundred and ninety-nine thousandth parts of our globe, must ever constitute the prime qualification of evolutionists for describing its formation. Ignorance, if possible still more profound, of the conditions of temperature, pressure, electricity, and magnetism, prevailing in the interior of the earth, must give the laws by which our theorists pretend to regulate its evolution at the present time. Much more dense must be their ignorance of such conditions millions of ages ago. Therefore we exorcise all such theories, as the angels of darkness.

It seems to be taken for granted that Christians must adopt some one or other of the cosmogonies which scientific men are so constantly manufacturing. If we do not accept Darwin's development theory, then we are supposed to patronize Agassiz' notion of the plurality of races of mankind, and so forth. We distinctly decline either of these notions. If we prove one of them to be absurd, it by no means follows from that exposure that the other is a whit more rational. Of two contradictory theories, it is positively certain that one is erroneous; but if two contradictory theories are respectively supported by able men, it is highly probable that both are erroneous; since the contradictions declare their apparent errors, and apparent errors are always likely enough to prove real errors.