matter, are the known result, and only the result of the forces of nature; that is of chemical, mechanical, or other powers, by which material effects are wrought; are not the effects of those powers, but of a creative fiat; they thereby deprive themselves of the right of assuming that any other class of such effects are not the work also of such a fiat, instead of second causes. They can no longer consistently assume that the strata were not created in the state in which they now exist; they can no longer assume that the vegetable and animal relics that are imbedded in the strata were once living organisms, and were lodged in the sepulchres where they now lie by, the forces of nature. For they admit a principle on which it is as consistent and as philosophical to suppose that all those organisms were created precisely as they now are, as it is to suppose that the globe was created in. a state of fusion by heat.

Our objection is thus legitimate, and unless it can be met, is fatal to the theory against which we alleged it.

In the third place, Mr. Blake offers no answer to this objection. He does not deny that fusion by heat is a secondary state of matter. He does not deny that, therefore, to suppose the globe created in a state of fusion by heat, is to contradict an established law of matter, by which fusion is the result only of a process. He does not deny that to resort to such a supposition to account for changes that have taken place in the condition of the globe, is to quit the sphere of geology, and abandon and contravene the fundamental principle on which it proceeds. These propositions are left by him absolutely untouched. Why now was it that he thus passed them without attempting a reply? Was it because he did not apprehend the objection, and see its bearing on the theory against which it is alleged? But how could he fail to apprehend it? There is not a simpler or more self-evident proposition in the whole compass of ehemistry or geology. Is he incapable of grasping so far sweeping, though so obvious a truth, and discerning the confutation it presents to his favorite theory? What competence then has he to fill the office he has undertaken of a scientific critic, to which a comprehension of facts, and a knowledge of principles, are indispensable? If so ignorant or so dim-sighted, what authority can attach to his judg

ments? If his neglect of the objection did not spring from a failure to apprehend its meaning and discern its importance, what can have prompted it; unless it were a consciousness that he was unable to frame a satisfactory reply; that the truth and unanswerableness of the objection are selfevident and cannot be set aside by any legitimate process? If he comprehended the objection, and saw that he could effectively answer it, is it credible that he would have withheld that answer, and resorted rather to a shuffle to save, in appearance at least, his tottering theory from overthrow? No one will believe it. The conclusion, therefore, seems inevitable, that either he has wholly failed to comprehend some of the simplest and most indubitable facts and truths that belong to the subject, or else that he has not the candor and courage to acknowledge them and treat them with directness and fairness; and whether this or the other conclusion is deemed the more probable, it is fatal to his authority as a reviewer.

In the fourth place, the pretended parallel by which he affects to interpret and set aside the objection, is no parallel whatever. He says,

"To pass over the philosophy of this case (that is, that to suppose the world to have been created in a state of fusion from heat, is a contradiction to nature) and interpret its force by the aid of an illustration, it amounts to this-that God could not have created water or aqueous vapor without doing violence to the laws which he prescribed to himself in the conduct of nature; for no one need be told that water is ice 'in a state of fusion from heat.'"-P. 539.

He thus expressly waives the consideration of "the philosophy of the case," which is the only point at issue; and proposes only "to interpret its force by the aid of an illustration." But he is as unfortunate in his illustration as he is in his attempt, by a shuffle, to escape a direct consideration of the objection. That which he offers as a parallel, instead of a parallel, is a contrary. His allegation is, that to reject the supposition that the world was created in a state of fusion from heat, on the ground that it is a contradiction to nature, because by the established laws of nature, the fusion of earthy matter, such as the materials of granite and

other rocks, is the effect and only the effect of a chemical or other process; is in principle, what a denial would be "that God could create water or aqueous vapor” in a fluid state, because in some cases it is now brought into that state by the liquefaction of ice.

1. But this is a mere evasion of the question, and substitution of a different one, either from utter confusion of mind or a wish to escape a direct answer to the objection. His illustration, if it have in any degree the nature of an argument, is equivalent to the following. The metallic and earthy substances that belong to the globe generally exist as solids, and are sometimes converted from solids into fluids by the application of heat. Water also sometimes exists, from congelation, as a solid, and is changed from that state to a fluid by the application of heat. Therefore, to maintain that God cannot have created the metallic and earthy substances of the globe in a state of fusion from heat, because they are now brought into that state by the forces of nature, is equivalent to a denial that God could have created water in a fluid state, because that is now sometimes changed to that state from congelation by the application of heat! But suppose these propositions, as thus stated, are in principle equivalents; that is, are equal denials that God could have created matter in a state of fusion from heat; that is not the point in debate. The whole "force" of this pretended illustration lies in its exhibiting the question in discussion, as though it related to God's power to create matter in a state of fusion; not to the propriety of man's assuming without evidence, and in contravention of the laws of matter and the principles of geology, that he actually created the world in that state. It is accordingly a blunder, or else an artifice to evade the objection which he affects to set aside. The question does not relate at all to the power of God to create matter in a state of fusion; but solely to the prin ciples on which geologists are bound to proceed in attempting to account for changes that have taken place in the condition of the globe since it was created, from the action of chemical, mechanical, or other causes.

2. The cases he affects to compare are not parallels. Congelation we know is not the original and normal condition of water. It is a secondary condition, just as fusion is

not the original, but a secondary condition of metals and earths, and that secondary state of water is caused by the abstraction from it of a share of the heat that is held in it when in a fluid state; while the fusion of earths and metals is caused by the opposite process-the communication to them of heat that does not naturally belong to them. The cases are not, therefore, parallels but opposites, and they can be treated as parallels only by assuming, at least virtually, that the solidity in each is either original and normal; the state in which the matter was created; or else secondary, and the result of a chemical or some other process of the forces of nature. But that assumption, whether made by Mr. B. in the one or the other form, defeats him and overturns his theory. If he assumes that the solidity that belongs to earths and metals in all cases except when they are fused by chemical or mechanical agents, is a secondary state and has resulted from an abstraction of heat that originally belonged to them, in consequence of which they have passed from fusion to solidity-just as ice is formed from fluid water by the loss of heat; then he begs the very point in question-which is, whether the original and normal state of those earthy and metallic substances was one of fusion by heat, and contradicts therein the laws of nature, and the principles on which geology proceeds. If, on the other hand, he assumes that congelation is the original and normal condition of water, then he abandons and contradicts his theory that the whole matter of the globe was created in a state of fusion by heat. On whichever view he may be supposed to proceed to make his illustration a parallel with what he affects to exemplify by it, he confounds himself, and overturns his theory.

3. To exemplify the embarrassment in which he would have involved himself, had he presented a true parallel to our objection, we will state one drawn from the vegetable and animal relics that are entombed in the strata. Νο vegetable or animal organisms are known to exist, or to have existed, except such as were formed out of matter that had previously subsisted in a different state. All, the process of whose formation has been witnessed or known, have been formed under the action of vital, chemical, or other forces. t is therefore a contradiction to the laws of nature, to

assume that any of them were created in the form in which they now exist as organisms.

In like manner, no instances are known of the existence of earthy and metallic matter in a state of fusion from heat, except it has been brought into that state from a different one by the action on it of chemical, mechanical, or other forces of nature. It is therefore a contradiction to the laws of nature to assume that matter was ever created in a state of fusion from heat.

These cases are perfectly parallel. Mr. Blake accordingly cannot deny the conclusion of the latter, without virtually denying that also of the other. For if it is no contradiction to the laws of nature to assume that matter was created in a state of fusion from heat, then it can no more be a contradiction to the laws of nature to assume that the vegetable and animal organisms that are imbedded in the strata were the product of a creative fiat, instead of the vital and other forces by which all living vegetable and animal organisms are formed. But to admit that, is in effect to admit that the strata themselves and all other effects of which geology professes to take cognisance, may have been formed in the state they now are by a creative fiat, and thus overturn the whole of its postulates and conclusions. For if the effects of which it treats are not the work of second causes, then the office it professes to fill is a sham. Was Mr. Blake unable to see this, or did he wish to blind, rather than enlighten his readers?

So much for his first criticism. He not only renders no answer to the objection he affects to set aside, but forces us to the conviction that he either failed from want of perspicacity to comprehend it, or else had not the rectitude and manliness to meet it.

His next allegation exhibits the same characteristics:

"In the second place, Mr. Lord concedes to Dr. Hitchcock, for the sake of the argument, the creation of his molten world, and then proceeds to press him with a second dilemma, which he regards as equally perplexing with the first; for even if such a world existed, he says, 'the laws to which the matter of the globe is subjected would have rendered the formation of a crust upon such a fiery ocean impossible.' Such matter, to condense his statement, would have cooled, solidified, contracted, and