THE  TESTIMONY OF THE ROCKS, OR GEOLOGY IN ITS BEARINGSV)N
  TnE TWO THEOLOGIES, NATURAL AND REVEALED.  By Hugh Millbk,
  Author of " The Old Red Sandstone," " Footprints of the Creator," &c. <kc.
  Boston : Gould & Lincoln.  1857.

                       [Pages 159, 1G0, 161.]
         Lecture III.—The Two Records, Mosaic and Geological.
                    First printed in the U. S. in 1854.
   The  geologist, in his attempts to collate the  Divine with the
 geologic  record, has, I repeat, only three of the six periods of
 creation  to account  for,—the period  of plants,  the period of
 great sea monsters and creeping  things, and the period of cattle
 and beasts of the earth.  He is called on to question his  system?
 and formations regarding  the remains of these three great pe-
 riods, and of these only.   And the question once fairly stated,
 what, I ask, is the reply ?   All geologists agree in holding that
 the vast geological scale naturally divides into three great parts.
 There are many lesser divisions,—divisions into systems, forma-
 tions, deposits, beds,  strata ; but the master divisions, in each of
 which we  find a type of life so unlike  that  of the others, that
 even the unpractised  eye can  detect the difference, are simply
 faree,—the Palaeozoic, or oldest fossiliferous division;  the Se-
 condary, or middle fossiliferous  division;  and the Tertiary, or
 latest fossiliferous division.
   In the first, or Palaeozoic division, we  find corals, crustaceans
 molluscs, fishes, and, in its  later  formations,  a few reptiles. But
 none of these classes of organisms give  its leading character to
 the Palaeozoic ;  they do not constitute  its prominent  feature, or 
2
render it more remarkable as a scene of life  than any of  the
divisions which followed.   That which  chiefly distinguished  the
Palaeozoic from the Secondary and Tertiary periods was its gor-
geous flora.*   It was emphatically the period  of plants,—" of
herbs yielding seed after their kind."   In no other age did the
world ever witness such a flora :  the youth of the earth was pe-
culiarly a green and  umbrageous youth,—a youth of dusk and
tangled forests, of huge  pines and stately araucarians, of  the
reed-like calamite, the  tall tree-fern,  the sculptured sigillaria,
and the hirsute lepidodendron.   Wherever dry land, or shallow
lake, or running stream appeared, from where Melville Island
now spreads  out its ice wastes under  the star of the  pole, to
where the arid plains  of Australia lie solitary beneath the bright
cross of the south, a rank and luxuriant herbage cumbered every
footbreadth of the dank and steaming soil; and even to distant
planets  our earth must  have shone through the  enveloping cloud
with a green  and delicate ray.   Of  this  extraordinary age of
plants we have our  cheerful remembrancers and witnesses in
the flames that roar in  our chimneys when we pile up the winter
fire,—in the  brilliant gas  that now casts its light on this great
assemblage, and that lightens up the streets and lanes of this
vast city,—in the glowing furnaces that smelt our  metals, and
give moving power to our ponderous engines,—in  the long dusky
trains that, with shriek and snort, speed dart-like athwart our
landscapes,—and  in  the  great  cloud-enveloped vessels   that
darken  the lower reaches of your noble river,  and rush in foam
over ocean and sea.   The geologic evidence is so complete as to
be patent to  all, that the first great period of  organized being
was, as described in  the Mosaic record, peculiarly a period of
herbs and trees, " yielding seed after their kind."
  [* The elementary books upon geology show that the limits of the palaeozoic
system, or "division," (i. e., of the most ancient series of  geological periods of
which there remain evidences of organic life,)  have been chiefly determined by
peculiarities of  animal forms ; and that vegetable types have only a secondary
place in this respect.  This and the following notes are by the editor.—W. P. F. 
3
                  [Pages 171, 172, 173, 174, 175.]

  Let me yet further remark, that in each of these three great
periods we  find, with respect  to the classes of existences, vege-
table or animal, by which they are most prominently character-
ized, certain well marked culminating points together, if I may
so express myself,—twilight periods of morning dawn and even-
ing decline.  The plants of the earlier and terminal systems of
the PalEeozoic division are few and small: it was only during the
protracted  eons of the Carboniferous  period that they received
their amazing  development, unequalled in any previous or suc-
ceeding time.   In like manner, in the earlier or Triassic deposits
of  the  Secondary division, the reptilian  remains  are compara-
tively  inconsiderable;  and they are almost equally so  in its
Cretaceous or later deposits.   It was during those middle ages
of the division, represented by its Liassic, Oolitic,  and Wealden
formations, that the class  existed in that abundance which ren-
dered it so peculiarly, above every other  age, an  age of creeping
things and great sea monsters. And so also, in  the Tertiary,
regarded as but an early portion of  the human division, there
was a period of increase and diminution,—a morning and even-
ing of mammalian life.  The mammals of its early Eocene age
were comparatively  small in bulk and low in standing; in  its
concluding ages, too, immediately ere the appearance of man,
or  just  as he had  appeared,  they exhibited, both in size and
number, a reduced and less imposing aspect.  It  was chiefly in
its middle and latter, or  Miocene,  Pliocene, and Pleistocene
ages, that the myriads  of  its huger  giants,—its dinotheria,
mastodons, and mammoths,—cumbered  the soil.   I, of  course,
restrict  my remarks to  the  three  periods of organic life, and
have not inquired whether aught  analogous to  these mornings
and evenings  of  increase and  diminution need  be sought after
in any of the  others. 
4
     PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF
                PHILADELPHIA, VOL. VII. NO. III.
                        May 9th, 1854.
               Vice President Bridges in the Chair.

   Mr. Wm. Parker Foulke asked the attention of the Academy
 to a Lecture by Mr. Hugh Miller, recently republished in the
 United States,  under the title, " The Two Records, the Mosaic
 and the Geological;"  and made  some remarks upon the import-
 ance of maintaining a careful scrutiny of the logic of the natural
 sciences.   The  cultivators of those sciences are particularly in-
 terested at this  time in preventing any misapprehension of the
 results of their researches, as there is a prevailing disposition to
 -reconcile " these  by extreme processes with the popular inter-
 pretation of certain texts of the Mosaic history.  Unfinished in-
 vestigations of the  students of nature are  used as complete evi-
 dence ;  and  provisional generalizations are employed as fixed
 premises, from which are drawn  conclusions  very inconvenient
 to subsequent inquirers  and writers.   Thus both religion  and
 natural science  are wronged.
   Mr. Miller  teaches  that in the attempt to reconcile the two
 -records," there are only three periods to be accounted for by
 the geologist, viz.,  "the period of plants, the period of great sea
 monsters and creeping things ; and the period of cattle and beasts
 of the earth f and that the first of these "periods " is  repre-
 sented by the rocks grouped under the term  palceozoic, and as
 distinguished from the  secondary and tertiary chiefly by its
 -gorgeous flora;" and that the "geological evidence is so com-
 plete as to be patent to all, that  the  first great period of  or-
ganized being was, as described in the Mosaic record, peculiarly
a period of herbs and trees yielding seed after their kind."  The
general  reader,  not familiar with the details  of geological ar-
rangement, could not fail to infer from such a statement, used 
5
for such a purpose, that the palaeozoic rocks are regarded  by
geologists as forming one  group,  representative of one period
which can properly be said to be distinguished as a ivhole by its
gorgeous flora ;  and  that it is properly so distinguished for  the
argument in question.  It was familiar to the Academy as well
as to Mr. Miller, that from  the carboniferous  rocks downward
(backward in order of time) there have been discriminated a large
number of periods differing one from  another in mineral and in
organic remains ;  and  that the proportion of the carboniferous
era to the whole series is small, whether we regard the thickness
of its deposits or its conjectural chronology.  It is only of this
carboniferous era, the latest of this series, that the author's re-
marks could be true; and  even of this, if taken for the entire
surface of the earth, it could not be truly asserted that "the
evidence is so complete as to be patent to all " that the quantity
of its vegetable products distinguishes it from the earth's surface
during the era in which we live.   To confound by implication all
the periods termed palaeozoic, so as to apply to them as a whole
what could be true, if at all, only of the carboniferous period, is
a fallacious use of a generalization made for a purpose and upon
a principle not  properly  available for the writer's  argument.
 The high esteem in which  the character of  Mr. Miller is de-
servedly held by readers in the United States, where his writings
 are widely circulated, and  the respectful manner in which his
 interesting researches have occasioned his name to be mentioned
 by authors eminent in the department of geology, give to such
 of his writings as bear upon the biblical question, peculiar im-
 portance with reference to the community at large.
    Mr. F. urged the duty of insisting upon the maintenance of
 regular methods of exposition as  well as  of investigation ; leav-
ing apparent inconsistencies, which are beyond our means of ex-
planation, to be " reconciled " by our successors with the aid of
larger  accumulations of knowledge than we possess.   The  pro-
gress of science has been retarded by the assumption that every 
                             6
discovery must be  immediately proved  to  be harmonious with
certain  other portions of  our  knowledge.  A due regard to  the
sacredness of  religious faith and to the  natural sensitiveness of
the popular mind will secure respectful caution ; but it is most
consistent with the acknowledged imperfection of human facul-
ties, and at the same time most worthy  of  the  true  dignity of
science, to  assume  that ultimately all truths will  be found to
agree ;  and  meantime, strictly adhering to the canons of evi-
dence, to explore courageously the great field  open to us.   We
ought especially to avoid generalizations which have  no sound
philosophical principle, or which are framed or applied merely
from a desire to appease over-zealous minds ignorant of the facts
already ascertained.  This  obligation is stronger in proportion
to the degree of confidence given to the teacher in any case, and
also in proportion to the limitation of access to other sources of
information.
THE TESTIMONY OF THE ROCKS, OR GEOLOGY IN ITS BEARINGS ON
  THE TWO THEOLOGIES, NATURAL AND REVEALED.  By Hugh Miller,
  Author of " The Old Red Sandstone," " Footprints of the Creator," &c. &c.
  Boston : Gould & Lincoln.  1857.
               [Note on pages 171, 172, 173, 174, 175.]

  It will be seen  that there is no attempt made in this lecture
to represent  the great Palaeozoic division as  characterized
throughout its entire extent by a luxuriant flora.   It is, on the
contrary, expressly stated  here, that the " plants of its  earlier
and  terminal formations (i. e. those of  the Silurian, Old Red,
and Permian Systems) were few  and small," and that " it was
only during the protracted  eons of  the carboniferous period that
they received their amazing development, unequalled in any pre-
vious or succeeding time."  Being thus express in  my limitation
I think I have just cause of complaint against  any one who 
7
represents me as unfairly laboring, in this very composition, to
make it be believed that the whole Palaeozoic period was charac-
terized by a gorgeous flora ;*  and as  thus  sophistically gene-
ralizing in the first instance, in order to make a fallacious use of
the generalization in the second, with the intention of misleading
non-geological readers.  Such, however, as maybe seen from the
following extracts from the " Proceedings of  the  Academy of
Natural Science at Philadelphia," is the charge preferred against
me by a citizen of the United  States.
   " Mr.  William Parker Foulke  asked the attention of the So-
ciety to a lecture by Mr. Hugh Miller, recently published in the
United States under the title of ' The Two Records, Mosaic and
Geological,' and  made some remarks upon the importance of
maintaining a careful scrutiny of the logic of  the natural sci-
ences.....Mr. Miller teaches that, in the attempt to
reconcile the two 'records,' there are  only three periods to be
accounted for by the geologist, viz. ' the period of plants ; the
period of great sea monstsrs and creeping things; and the period
of cattle and beasts of the earth ;  and that the  first of these pe-
riods is represented by the rocks grouped under the term Palae-
ozoic,  and is distinguished from the  Secondary and Tertiary
chiefly by its gorgeous flora ;  and that the geological evidence
is so  complete as to be patent to all, that the first great period
of organized being was, as described in the Mosaic record, pecu-
liarly a period of herbs and trees, yielding seed after their  kind.
The general  reader, not familiar with the details of geological
arrangement, could not fail to infer from such a statement, used
for such a purpose, that the Palaeozoic rocks are regarded  by
geologists as forming one group representative of  one  period,
which can properly be said to  be distinguished  as a whole by its
gorgeous flora;  and that it  is properly so distinguished for the
  * [It was not said that  the author asserted this as a geological fact; but
that he used an argument  which logically required the assumption of  such a
characteristic to make the reasoning valid.  The reader  is requested to recur
to page 2.] 
8
 irgument in question.   It was familiar to the Academy, as well
as to Mr. Miller, that from the carboniferous  rocks downward
(backward in  order of time), there  have been  discriminated  a
large number of periods, differing from one another in mineral
and in organic remains ; and that the proportion of the carbonife-
rous era to the whole series is  small, whether we regard  the
thickness of its deposits  or its conjectural  chronology.  It is
only of this carboniferous era, the latest of this series, that the
author's remarks could be true ;  and even of this, if taken for
the entire  surface of the  earth, it could  not be truly asserted
that ' the evidence is so complete as to be patent to  all,' that the
quantity of its vegetable products distinguishes it from the earth's
surface during the era in which we live.  To  confound by im-
plication all the periods  termed Palaeozoic, so as to apply to
them as a whole what could  be true, if at all, only of the car-
boniferous period, is a fallacious use of a generalization made for
a purpose, and upon a principle not properly available for the
vriter's  argument," &c.   So  far the  "Proceedings"  of  the
Academy.
   This, surely, is very much the reverse of fair.   I, however,
refer the matter, without  note or comment (so far  at least as it
involves the question whether Mr. Foulke has not, in the face of
the most express statement on my  part,  wholly misrepresented
me), to the judgment of  candid and intelligent  readers on both
sides of the Atlantic.
   I know not that I should recognize  Mr. Foulke as  entitled,
after such  a display, to be dealt with simply as  the  member of a
learned society who differs from me  on a scientific question;  nor
does his reference* to the  " carboniferous era " as " the latest of
the " Palaeozoic "series," and his apparent unacquaintance with
that Permian period,f in  reality the terminal one of the division
during which  the Palaeozoic forms seem to have gradually died
* [There is no such reference. See pages 5 and 16.
f [Nothing required the Permian to be mentioned. 
9
 away, in order to give place to those of the Secondary division,
 inspire any very high respect  for his acquirements as a geolo-
 gist.  Waiving,  however the legitimacy of his  claim, I may be
 permitted to repeat, for the further  information of the non-geo-
 logical reader, that the carboniferous formations, wherever they
 have yet been detected, justify, in the amazing abundance  of their
 carbonized  vegetable  organisms, the name which they bear.*
 Mr. Foulke, in three short  sentences, uses the terms  " carbon-
 iferous era,"  "carboniferous rocks,"  "carboniferous period,"
 four several times ;  and these terms are derived from the pre-
 dominating amount of carbon (elaborated of  old  by the plants
 of the period)  which occurs in its several formations.   The very
 language which  he has to employ is of itself a confirmation of
 the statement  which he challenges.   For  so  "patent"  is this
 carboniferous  character of the system, that it  has  given to it its
 universally accepted designation,—the  verbal sign by which it
 is represented wherever it is known.*  Mr. F. states, that " if
 taken for  the  entire  surface of the  earth," it cannot be  truly
 asserted that the carboniferous flora  preponderated over that of
 the present  time, or, at least, that its preponderance could not
 b© regarded as "patent to  all."   The  statement  admits of so
 many different meanings, that I know not whether I shall suc-
 ceed in replying  to the special meaning intended by Mr. Foulke.
 There are no doubt carboniferous deposits on the earth's  surface
 still  unknown  to the geologist, the  evidence of which  on the
 point must be regarded, in consequence, not as " patent  to all,"
 but as nil.  They are witnesses absent from court, whose testi-
 mony has not  yet  been tendered.   But equally certain it is, I
repeat,  that wherever carboniferous  formations have been dis-
 covered and examined, they  have been found to bear the unique
characteristic to  which the system owes its name,—they have
  * [Doubtless ; but this is applicable to the carboniferous period alone, not
to  all  the periods  termed Palceozoic, of which the carboniferous is  only the
penultimate, according to the author himself. 
10
been found  charged with the carbon, existing usually as great
beds of coal, which was elaborated of old by its unrivalled flora
from the elements.   And as this evidence is certain and positive,
no one would be entitled to set off against it, as of equal weight,
the merely negative evidence of some one or two deposits of the
carboniferous age that did not bear the carboniferous character,
even were such known  to exist;  far less is any one entitled to
set off against it the possibly negative  evidence of deposits of
the carboniferous age not yet discovered nor examined; for that
would  be simply to set  off against good  positive  evidence, what
is  no evidence at all. It would be to set  off the possible evidence
of the absent witnesses, not yet precognosced in the case, against
the express  declarations of the witnesses already examined, and
strong on the positive side.
   Surely an American, before appealing, in a question  of this
kind, to the bare possibility of the existence somewhere or other
of barely negative evidence, ought to have bethought him of the
very extraordinary positive evidence furnished by the carbonife-
rous deposits of his own great country.*   The  coal  fields of
Britain and the European continent had been wrought for ages
ere those of North America were  known, and for ages more after
it  had  been but  ascertained that the New, like the Old  World,
has its Coal Measures.   And  during the latter period the argu-
ment of Mr. Foulke might have been employed, just as now, and
some member of a learned society might  have urged that,  though
the coal  fields of Europe bore evidence  to the former  existence
of  a singularly luxuriant flora,  beyond  comparison more vast
than the European one of the present day, the same could not
be predicated of the American coal fields, whose carbonized re-
mains might be found  representative of a flora which had been
  * [The object of this re-print  is to counteract a misapprehension.  As
illustrative of  the hazards incidental to criticism at a distance, it may not be
in bad taste to mention that the American  particularly referred to in the text
has been, during a  dozen  years, in part owner, and repeatedly a visitor, of
thicker beds of coal than our author ever saw. See page 17. 
11
at least not more largely developed than that existing American
flora to which the great western forests belong.  Now, however,
the time for any such argument has gone by; the American coal
fields have been carefully explored; and  what is the  result ?
The geologist has come to know, that even the mighty forests of
America are inconsiderable, compared with its deposits of coal;
nay, that all its forests gathered into one heap would fail to fur-
nish the materials of a single coal seam equal to  that of Pitts-
burg ;  and that  centuries after all its thick woods  shall have
disappeared  before the axe, and it shall have come to  present
the comparatively bare, unwooded aspect of the long civilized
countries of  southern Europe, it will continue to derive  the ele-
ments of its commercial greatness, and the cheerful blaze of its
many millions of domestic hearths, from the unprecedentedly lux-
urious flora of the old carboniferous  ages. Truly, very wonderful
are the coal fields of Northern America !  If geologists inferred,
as they well  might, that the extinct flora which had originated
the European coal vastly outrivalled in luxuriance that of the
existing time, what shall  be said of that flora of the same age
which originated the coal deposits of Nova Scotia and the United
States,—deposits twenty times as great as all those of all Europe
put together !
   PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF
                   PHILADELPHIA, VOL. IX.
                        May 5th, 1857.
              Vice President Bridges in the Chair.

  Mr. W. Parker Foulke requested  permission to submit to the
attention  of the Academy  some observations  of the  late Mr.
Hugh  Miller, printed  in  his recently published work, entitled
" The Testimony of the Rocks."
  It may be remembered, said  Mr. F., that  about  three  years 
12
ago I noticed at one of the stated  meetings of the Academy,
what  appeared to me an interesting  example of the fallacious
use of a generalization—the  inference from a term used in one
*ense of  what could  follow from it only when  used in another
sense.  From the fact that the carboniferous  rocks lie within
the series which  geologists, for special reasons, group  into  one
system which they call the " palaeozoic," Mr. Miller had thought
himself authorized  so far  to treat this system as a unity, as to
consider it  properly characterized as  a whole, for  the  object of
his argument, by the carboniferous member ; and thence to infer
that the palaeozoic periods together constituted the Mosaic  day
during which the creation of vegetables took place. No  influence
had been allowed  to the fact that  distinctive types of animal
organization had  been the chief motive for  the discrimination
between the  "palaeozoic"  and "secondary" rocks as two sys-
tems ;  but  the  distinction being thus  adopted by  others, the
author had assigned one of the systems entire  to the vegetable
creation, and the other to  that of reptiles.
   You will remember, Mr. President, that, before the time to
which I refer, it was a subject of private remark amongst the
members of the Academy,  that a large portion of the  zeal  and
talent employed in drawing conclusions from the generalizations
of discoveries in natural science, was applied  to premature in-
ferences, or  in  disproportionate subordination to  incomplete
metaphysical inquiries.  This  evil was not  confined to men of
one pursuit, or of  one school; but  it affected every department
of " natural  science," and of the abstract sciences most nearly
connected  with  it.  In geology, as well  as  in  ethnology, phi-
lology, and general natural history, we had frequent occasion to
notice the conflict of unnecessary speculations, and of irrelevant
or  unseasonable inferences ; and the temporary withdrawal of
much mental activity from the  legitimate paths of scientific in-
quiry.  The  interval is short since  the investigations of our day
were fairly opened;  and  already the necessary subdivisions of 
13
labor are so numerous as to demand the most sedulous devotion
to each.   Yet we saw laborer after  laborer diverging from his
road to engage  upon one or another side of  metaphysical  con-
troversies, which  could not be finally  determined  except by
methods proper to the natural  sciences ;  nor  even by these, un-
less after greater accumulation and more accurate generalization
of facts than had been accomplished.   In the eagerness excited
by these  controversies, we also noticed, especially in respect  to
such as were of a kind to attract  popular attention, that there
was caused a bias unfavorable  to the ascertainment of fact; ant.
that the legitimate uses of  actual  discovery were thwarted by
irregular processes, which for the most part were unconsciously
adopted, but which were  not for this reason the less pernicious
to the progress of  natural knowledge.   In these circumstances.
the rationale of the methods employed by writers upon natural
history or the  physical sciences in general, became a peculiarly
important subject for the scrutiny of the Academy ;  and in for-
mally presenting that subject, I felt assured that my propositions
 would serve only as the means of concentrating thoughts already
 entertained by the members.   To give a suitable illustration of
 the irregularity in question, there were several reasons for se-
 lecting the discourse of Mr. Miller, entitled " The Two Records,
 the Mosaic and the  Geological."  It had just been republished
 in this country; its author was widely known in both hemispheres
 by his interesting discoveries in the old red sandstone;  and,
 because of his having written so as to be easily understood  by
 persons not previously skilled in geology, his  publications had
 been read by probably a *larger number of persons than had
 before undertaken the perusal of treatises on the same subject.
 Moreover, he had written with special reference to several  lead-
 ing controversies which engaged the popular attention ; and his
 works were frequently appealed to with more or less pertinency
 in relation to  the Noachian deluge, the origin of the varieties in
 the animal and vegetable kingdoms, and the geographical distri- 
14
 hution of species.  He thus served as a medium of communica-
 tion between the studies of  scientific men, and the speculations
 of the general reader.   Lastly, his character and motives were
 unimpeached; and thus the  force of personal considerations was
 added to those of learning  and judgment.   I was  careful, Mr.
 President, to announce at the outset, that what was intended in
 my criticism had reference to the " logic of the natural sciences;"
 but under the comity proper between this  Academy and the
 cultivators of those sciences throughout the world, it certainly
 did not appear to me  necessary to disclaim all design  to charge
 upon any person a wilful misuse of  reasoning.  Nevertheless,
 as a manifestation of  the feeling with which the essay of Mr.
 Miller was reviewed,  I used these words, which were printed in
 our Proceedings :  "  The high esteem in which the character of
 Mr. Miller is deservedly held by readers in the United States,
 where his  writings are  widely  circulated, and the  respectful
 manner in which  his interesting  researches have occasioned his
 name to  be mentioned by authors eminent in the department of
 geology,  give to such  of  his  writings as bear upon the  biblical
 question, peculiar importance with reference to the community
 at large."   There was,  therefore, no question proposed  upon
 matter of  fact, nor any imputation upon the motives of Mr.
 Miller.   My remarks  obtained the general concurrence of the
 members who heard them ; at whose  instance, and not at my
 own, the minute of them  made by the  Secretary was published
 with the  other proceedings of the evening.
  Sharing with you, Mr. President,  and our fellow members, the
 profound sentiment produced in this country by the  melancholy
 scenes which closed the useful life of Mr. Miller, I  am  sure of
 your  participation with  me in  the surprise  and  regret   with
which I have read the  following paragraphs, at pages 171, 172
and 173* of « The Testimony of the Rocks."   (Mr. Foulke here
read the  passages referred to.)
* Boston Edition, 1857. 
15
  That a member of this Academy could be permitted to make,
against such a man as the lamented deceased, a gratuitous charge
of intentional misrepresentation ; and that the charge could be
deliberately sanctioned, and printed under your  authority and
that of the other distinguished gentlemen who were present at
the meeting of May 9,1854—some of whom are now here—seems
so far beyond  any license known to a respectable  association,
that I  confess myself at a loss to find an acceptable  explanation
of the  credence which has been given to the supposition.  I need
not say, in this Hall, that the thing is impossible.  Mr. Miller
is no longer among  the living; the hand  of death has  removed
restraints which might have prevented the voluntary proffer of
any denial of  such an imputation as  is implied upon me,  upon
you, and upon our associates, by the paragraphs which I have
read to you.   I shall have your and their approval,  when I give
to the  memory of the deceased, as a tribute of respect, the most
emphatic disclaimer of any thought which could impeach the
integrity of his motives in the construction of his argument; or
which  could attribute to him conscious neglect of the rights of
others, in that most unfortunate interpretation which he has put
upon the proceedings of this body.
   Having said thus much towards the dead,  let  me add  a few
words in the way of caution to ourselves.  Each of us is engaged
in some pursuit which touches adversely the opinions, the preju-
dices,  the self-love, perhaps the religious sentiment of  a portion
of mankind.  Even in what might appear to an  unimpassioned
observer the most tranquil of occupations, there  arise competi-
tions;  and the very love of  truth often makes us impatient
disputants.   We have seen that under a sudden sensibility to a
logical  criticism, not  so phrased as  expressly to forbid the
meaning erroneously attributed to it, a stranger, with  no cause
of  quarrel, has been supposed by an author of respectable fame
to make an accusation of mendacity against him; and  a learned
body of established reputation has been believed to have promoted 
16
 the publication of the charge.   To a judgment thus unconsciously
 clouded, see how naturally all that followed became distorted.
 I had said that the proceeding of the  author was " a fallacious
 use of a generalization made for a purpose,  and upon a principle
 not properly available for the writer's argument;" and the author
 forgetting the distinction between a fallacy and & falsehood, and
 overlooking  too  the grammatical relation of  the parts of the
 sentence,  italicized the words "made for a purpose,"  so that his
 readers could not avoid the suggestion that it was the "fallacious
 use" and  not the "generalization," which had been  said to  be
 made for a purpose inapplicable to his object. Nay more; such was
 the effect upon the author's mind, that he closed his quotation with
 an " &c." at the very point at which began the sentence which I
 have read to you, referring to  the   " esteem in which  he  was
 deservedly held in the United States "—took no notice whatever
 of the tenor of that sentence, but said, " so far  the Proceedings
 of the Academy."  It need not surprise you, sir, after such ex-
 amples, to find that I am said to treat the carboniferous period as
 "the latest of the palaeozoic series."  A glance at my phraseology
 will be sufficient to show you that the " series"  referred  to was
 one reckoned " from the carboniferous rocks downwards, (back-
 ward in order of time,)" and that the rocks in this  series  were
 selected by me to show the inconsistency of the  argument with
the facts; and that my choice had no connection with the limit-
ation of the palaeozoic system.   That my use of the word series
was not a  novelty, may be easily shewn by reference  to  British
 as well as American authors.*  I have no wish to multiply these
 observations; my peculiar  personal interest  in the misapprehen-

   "The use of the word series in describing the subdivisions of the pateozoic
 system, is by no means an innovation, but is, on the contrary, a return to the
language formerly in  very common use among the members of the Geologioal
 Society, as any one may see on turning over the pages of the early volumes."
 Synopsis of  the Classification of the British Palaeozoic Rocks.  By the Rev. Adam
 Sedgwick M. A., F. R. S.,  Woodwardian Professor and Fellow of Trinity College,
 Cambridge.  London, 1855. 
17
sions of the author, ends with the  explanation  which has been
made in relation to that which wounded his feelings;  yet,  in
illustration of the reflection to which my last remarks have been
directed, it may not be  improper to mention two or three ad-
ditional  examples.   Thus,  although a  member of this  body,
surrounded by the choice  geological library through the use  0f
which so many Americans have become known abroad for learn-
ing in natural science, it  is assumed that I  am ignorant of the
relation of the " Permian" rocks to the Palaeozoic system—a rela-
tion indicated during at least twenty years in  elementary trea-
tises.  Again; although a citizen of Pennsylvania, a State one of
whose most remarkable evidences of wealth is  the fact that she
is the holder of the great anthracite basin  and of a portion of
the chief bituminous measures—although a resident of Phila-
delphia, whose principal domestic export is coal, it is  assumed
that I could  overlook  the  fact  that there are vast  deposits of
coal in North America.  It ought,  perhaps, to be said in this
connection, that the  author has wholly misunderstood  my ob-
servations with respect to  the  comparative  quantities of vege-
table product in the carboniferous period and  that in which we
live.   Considering that we do not know the extent of  the area
of growth in the carboniferous period,  nor the length  of time
consumed in forming  the deposits  of  vegetable matter which
make the coal beds; and  taking into view solidity as well  as
size, and the multiplication of individual growth, it is certainly
not going very far to say that it is not "patent to all " that the
total quantity of vegetable growth upon the earth during a given
space of time was greater in the carboniferous than in the present
period.   I made no affirmative assertion; and in the absence of
conclusive proof, I have  none  to make now.   It is enough to
indicate  the  irrelevance  of the  reasoning  employed  by the
author upon pages 174 and 175.
  With respect to the scientific  criticism which has occasioned
these remarks, it gives me no  concern. It, or its  equivalent, 
18
will be judged by proper persons.   It has been in the hands of
many whose minds have been disciplined in the best methods of
inquiry;  and from no quarter had I reason to suspect the exist-
ence of dissent until the appearance of  the book before us.   It
is to be hoped that on both sides of the Atlantic there will be
cultivated a mutual confidence, which shall  prevent misconcep-
tion of motives ; and that hereafter the vigilance which is indis-
pensable  to preserve the pursuits of philosophy from unconscious
bias, shall not be misconstrued as the intrusion of an unfriendly
spirit.  Felix quern faciunt aliena pericula  cautum.  In con-
clusion, I beg to renew the expression of my regret,  that  any
accident should have made me the occasion of pain to a gentle-
man so deserving of  our  consideration and  friendly esteem as
was the author of "The Testimony of the Rocks."   It cannot
but enhance the appropriateness of such an expression at this
meeting,  that beside yourself and your colleague, the other Vice
President,  who usually preside  over  the deliberations  of the
Academy, I see here to night its venerable President,  and seve-
ral  other  learned  members whose  names are familiar to culti-
vators of the natural sciences in Great Britain.
   PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY,
                       VOL. VI. NO. 57.
                       May 1,  1857.
              Vice President Frazer in the Chair.

  Mr. William Parker Foulke requested  permission to make a
statement in relation to some remarks of the late Hugh Miller,
upon  pages 171 to 175 of  his recently published book, entitled
" The Testimony of the Rocks."   [Boston edition, 1857.]
  It appeared that Mr. Miller had so far mistaken the spirit and
phraseology of a brief criticism upon his reasoning, as to believe 
19
that he had  been charged  with intentional misrepresentation.
This was the less to be expected, as the criticism had been pub-
lished by one of the leading scientific societies of this country
as a part of its proceedings;  and had  been purposely guarded
by express mention of " the esteem in which the  character of
Mr. Miller is deservedly held in the United  States "—a phrase
the intended value of  which was so little seen  by him that  he
has omitted  to quote  it, although originally printed in juxtapo-
sition with the extract which he republishes.
   The melancholy associations now connected with the writings
of Mr. Miller, seemed to Mr. F. to suggest as proper the prof-
ftr by him of a disclaimer of any such imputation as had been,
without  full  consideration, supposed by the lamented author.
Although grieved by that supposition, Mr. F. wished to offer to
the memory  of the deceased the tribute of that denial which the
truth warranted ; and he sought to do this here, because it espe-
cially concerned the American Philosophical Society to promote
by its influence the maintenance of that comity which is proper
 to the intercourse of the  friends of learning throughout the
 world.  He did not propose to  discuss  the question raised as to
 the validity  of the reasoning employed in the book referred to.
 That would  be judged  in  due  time  by well informed readers.
 He had assumed  no facts which are not stated by all the latest
 elementary writers on geology, and he  was sure that a closer
 consideration  of the phraseology of his criticism would have
 convinced Mr. Miller that, not only in respect to his motives,
 but  also in  respect to the geological  facts assumed, a correct
 acceptation  of that phraseology rendered irrelevant the com-
 ments made upon it.   Mr. F. requested  that  his  disclaimer
 mi"ht be noticed in the next printed proceedings of the Society.