THIS movement at the national capital, to which we have previously referred, has moved that city as nothing in this line has done before. As recently noted, the convention of ministers had appointed a special committee of fifteen to consider the resolutions presented by Dr. McKim, and make a report. At a subsequent call of the convention, the committee reported as follows:
At the first meeting of the committee, fourteen of the fifteen members were present, Bishop Cranston alone being absent and out of town. After attending the first meeting, Dr. Edward Everett Hale resigned from the committee because the committee's work was concerned with the affairs of the District of Columbia, and since he is not a resident of the District he wrote that he must withdraw from the committee.
Of the fourteen who continued members of the committee, eleven have signed the report. Two members of the committee refrained from signing the report for reasons which each wishes to state briefly to the conference.
Your committee respectfully report: That we are heartily in accord with the purpose of the resolutions offered by the Rev. Dr. McKim; and we submit the following:
1. The American principle of the entire separation of church and state, we believe to be right. It should be carefully maintained. We advocate nothing that will in any wise compromise it; and nothing which shall interfere with the right of parents to control the religious education of their children. But we do not believe that the maintenance of this principle should be interpreted as necessitating an irreligious state or an atheistic education. We rejoice in the good work already done in our public schools. We believe that our schools inculcate morality, and we hope to see them teaching it still more effectively. We have no revolutionary changes to suggest; but we do believe that a further development of the work of the schools under the admirable regulations for their government already formulated by the board of education of the District of Columbia, would contribute materially to the strengthening of character and the development of good citizenship through our public schools. We heartily commend the regulation long in force which provides for the reading of the Bible and the use of the Lord's Prayer in opening the sessions of our schools. To exclude the teaching of theistic morals and Biblical righteousness from our public schools, would be not simply to ignore the principles on which our fathers founded the republic, but utterly to reverse those principles. Our fathers rightfully incorporated into our statute law the recognition of certain principles of religion and morality, as in the laws against blasphemy, polygamy, and perjury. The state justly retains laws and customs which are rooted in principles of religion common to all civilized nations, and retains them in obedience to the will of the overwhelming majority of our people; and we hold that it is right and fitting for the state, in the public schools which the state maintains, to make provision for the teaching of these common principles of morality and religion.
Teaching in Church and Home.
2. As residents of the District of Columbia, we heartily commend that recognition of a common basis of religious belief underlying our common American citizenship, which led to the adoption of rule 46 for the government of the public schools of the District, which requires each teacher to "endeavor to inculcate truthfulness, self-control, temperance, frugality, industry, obedience to parents, . . . and obedience to the laws of God." We bear witness to the efficiency and faithfulness of the great body of our public-school teachers in their efforts to inculcate morality in the school life of the young. But we feel that the alarming increase of certain crimes in our country within the past twenty-five years, clearly indicates the need of more thorough and more definite education in ethics applied to conduct—in that true morality which has characterized those peoples in the history of the world who have been believers in an almighty, righteous Ruler, and Judge of the Universe. While we believe that moral and religious training should first of all and chiefly be given in the family and the church, and that the doctrinal teaching which is peculiar to each church or religious body, should be given in that church or in the home, and should be excluded from the public school—we are, nevertheless, entirely convinced that the first principles of morality, based on the belief in Almighty God, should be carefully and systematically taught in our public schools. We believe that our people generally favor the instruction of their children in the first principles of morality and religion. In our American system, the state has undertaken the maintenance of public schools for the children of all, and has based the right of the state to educate the young on the duty of the state to fit the young to become good citizens. We hold that the only foundation for good citizenship is in morality based on belief in Almighty God. Therefore, it is the duty of the state to incorporate such teaching in its school system.
Acceptable to All Creeds.
3. We believe that it is entirely practicable to make such a selection of readings from the Old and New Testaments as will prove acceptable alike to Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Hebrews. We urge the taking of steps to provide such a lectionary that by its use the children of our schools may have instilled into their minds the principles of the most exalted morality, together with reverence and love for Almighty God; provided that such a lectionary should be of optional use by the individual teacher, in place of the present method.
4. We recommend to the conference that it petition the board of education of our city to introduce into our schools the systematic study of morals by making use of those Ten Commandments which have served as the basis of morals and law for all modern civilized nations, and of the beautiful summary of those commandments in the law of love of God and of our neighbor, and also by the introduction and use of carefully-prepared textbooks upon morals as applied to conduct. We ask this not only in behalf of the children from homes and churches where moral and religious training is systematically given, but still more earnestly do we ask it for the sake of that great multitude of children in our public schools who have no such training at home or in any church. And, of course, we ask that from such special moral and religious training in the school, any parent who may conscientiously wish to do so shall have the right to have his child excused.
MERRILL E. GATES, Chairman,
RANDOLPH H. MCKIM,
HENRY Y. SATTERLEE,
D. J. O'CONNELL,
CHARLES W. NEEDHAM,
WALLACE RADCLIFFE,
FREDERICK D. POWER,
J G. BUTLER,
JOHN JOY EDSON,
WAYNE MACVEAGH,
JAMES E. GILBERT.
Minority Objections.
Two of the committee declined to sign the report, and presented their reasons. From the standpoint of the Jewish people, the following remarks were made by
RABBI STERN:
I am in favor of moral instruction in the nature of applied ethics. Nor am I opposed to the use of a lectionary containing selections from the Bible acceptable to all creeds, to which might be added suitable literature from any source other than sacred for the use of the teachers. But I oppose the proposition to make the Ten Commandments a basis for moral instruction, even as an Israelite, one of the race through which the Decalogue became the heritage of the world. I do not favor it because the Decalogue sets forth plain religious teachings, and definite religious instruction has not, and should not have, a place in our public schools.
It is said that a union of church and state be one thing, a union of religion and state quite another. This is undoubtedly true etymologically considered, but not when put to the practical test. Not the state, but the church, is to propagate religious teachings. The public school is a machinery of the state; use it for religious propaganda and you establish a union of church and state.
Since the promulgation of the Decalogue, 3,000 years ago, its spirit has permeated civilization. The laws of nations are based on its precepts, and even tho they be not taught in our public schools, their influence is constantly in evidence. Great crimes are not committed out of ignorance of the enormity of the offense, but as the result of viciousness and through the absence of self-control. And self-control is taught in our public schools together with other virtues that develop character and good citizenship.
Then the following minority report was presented by a Seventh-day Adventist member,
PROF. W. W. PRESCOTT:
We respectfully represent that we earnestly love the religion of Jesus Christ, entertain the highest respect for His true church, and sincerely desire the peace and prosperity of the nation; that we believe in the Bible as the Word of God, a Book of divine authority, and in the Ten Commandments as the basis of all genuine morality; that we recognize the present alarming increase of crime, and that we are heartily in favor of any legitimate effort to lessen all forms of wrongdoing; that we believe in a Christian education, the only true basis of which is the Bible as the divine revelation of the principles of righteousness in character and conduct; but in the interest of a pure religion, and uncorrupted church, and the peace of the state, we are compelled to protest most earnestly against any movement which we are convinced violates the principles of Christianity, even tho it grows out of a sincere desire to advance the interests of the kingdom of Christ upon the earth.
We make this remonstrance against the demand for the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools:
Separation of Church and State.
1. Because we are convinced that it is contrary to the Christian principle of the complete separation of church and state. And we further maintain that there is no difference in principle between a union of religion and the state and a union of church and state. This movement is declared to be an effort to bring to bear upon the board of education the influence of the church, as represented in a conference composed of representatives of all the various religious denominations. Other citizens equally interested in the public schools, but who do not belong to the church, are not invited to be present or to take part in the deliberations of this conference. This is plainly a church movement. It should not be forgotten, as stated in the United States Senate report adopted January 19, 1829, that "all religious despotism commences by combination and influence, and when that influence begins to operate upon the political institutions of a country, the civil power soon bends under it, and the catastrophe of other nations furnishes an awful warning of the consequence."
If this movement is successful, it will devolve upon the representatives of the church to direct in the preparation of the required books and the necessary instruction for the use of the teachers in the schools. The state will then, at the demand of the church and under the guidance of the church, teach such principles of such a religion as the majority of the church may agree upon. This can be nothing else than a union both of religion and the state, and of the church and the state. The very fact that it is thought necessary to introduce into this recommendation for religious instruction in the public schools a conscience clause, permitting the withdrawal of a certain class of children while the paid servants of the state are giving religious instruction to another class of pupils, demonstrates most clearly that the proposed plan both enters the realm of conscience and violates the true principles of religious liberty.
Children of Unbelievers.
Christian liberty recognizes the right not to believe, as well as the right to believe, and in a public school the children of unbelievers ought not to be exposed to contempt by any exercise which separates them into a distinct class. Furthermore, the right on the part of the state to introduce religious instruction with a conscience clause involves the right to do it without a conscience clause. We avoid all the consequences involved in the wrong principle by denying the principle.
2. Because religious instruction in the public schools necessarily establishes a state theology. The state, at the demand of the church, must decide what religion, and what tenets of that religion, shall be taught. It must settle differences of opinion, not only between religionists and non-religionists, but also between the different sects of the favored religion.
3. Because religious instruction in the public schools involves the compulsory support of a state theology. All classes of citizens are taxed to support the public schools. All have equal rights in them. The teaching of religion will necessarily interfere with these rights.
James Madison's Warning.
4. Because this movement to introduce religious instruction into the public schools is a menace to religious freedom. In the words of James Madison: "It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. . . . Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?"
5. Because the introduction of religious instruction into the public schools will infringe upon the sacred rights of conscience, and involves a disregard of the conscience of the minority on the part of the majority. "The rights of conscience are individual and personal, and are not to be settled by the arithmetic of putting many consciences on the one side against a few on the other." It has been well said: "True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities."
6. Because this demand for religious instruction to be given by the state is contrary to the principles of Protestantism as established by the reformers. They opposed the intrusion of the civil magistrate in matters of faith. "Protestantism sets the power of conscience above the magistrate." They also declared that "in matters of conscience the majority has no power." These lessons of the Reformation ought never to be forgotten, and these principles ought never to be violated.
7. Because we believe that the effort to lessen crime and lawlessness by introducing religious instruction into the public schools, being itself wrong in principle, will not be effective in securing the desired result. We are convinced that the perils which now beset both the church and the state call loudly for the authoritative inculcation of the principles of righteousness—the principles of the Ten Commandments—but we are as firmly convinced that the proper place for giving this instruction is in the home, the church, and the private school supported by voluntary contribution, and not in the public school supported by compulsory taxation.
Other Objections.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Catholic representative, Mgr. D. J. O'Connell, changed his tactics and favored the proposition, as did some other prominent men, there were several men of influence who saw in the move a decided menace to religious liberty. Dr. Muir and other prominent Baptist clergymen stood out against the proposed innovation, and others, while not desiring to be understood as antagonizing religion, saw the danger of its being taught under the auspices of the state.
The positive bias of the advocates of this disguised church-and-state scheme was shown when Dr. McKim, leader of the movement, got the floor, and after a strong statement in favor of his scheme, took advantage of parliamentary tactics to close the7discussion, and this even to the extent of cutting off a gentleman to whom the floor belonged, and who had yielded it to extend Dr. McKim's time. But the vote in favor of the committee report was not by any means unanimous, being 39 ayes to 22 nays—a goodly number present not voting.
Professor Prescott has received many commendations of his position, some prominent gentlemen assuring him that his protest is unanswerable.
RELIGION AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL.
Its Latest Phase in Washington.
(From our Washington correspondent.)
AT this writing (March 24), the status of the religion-in-the-public-schools issue in Washington is as follows: The public discussion of the matter has somewhat subsided, pending the circulation of petitions for and against the adoption, by the board of education, of the recommendation made to it by the conference of churchmen, and the presentation of these petitions to the board. It is expected that these petitions will be presented to the board at its next meeting, on March 29, and that some action with reference to the matter will then follow by the board.
The president of the board has already expressed his agreement with the desires of those demanding the introduction of specific religious teaching. The matter may be submitted by the board to a referendum of the parents of the school children. Such a plan has been proposed by the Washington Times, which has been giving special attention to the matter during the past week, and has been approved in interviews by several members of the board of education.
The method of taking the referendum, as proposed by the Times, is for the board to prepare a circular letter of inquiry, and transmit copies to the teachers, who, through the children, are to send a copy of the letter to every household represented in the schools, with instructions that the letter must be returned within a day or two, when all replies will then be returned to the board. While declaring that "the responsibility to decide the controversy over the introduction of moral training, upon a distinctly religious foundation, into the curriculum of the public-schools, rests finally with the authorities in control of the schools—the board of education and the District Commissioners, especially that member of the Board of Commissioners who supervises the schools directly"—the Times is of the opinion that before they act in the matter, the authorities would do wisely to obtain the fullest possible expression from the parents of the pupils, as they are the persons whose interests are vitally affected, and "are, after all, the only persons who can speak as of right" in the matter. This referendum, in the opinion of the Times, would contribute greatly to satisfy the parents with the decision finally reached by the board, and "would almost certainly preclude what now seems to be an inevitable remonstrance against any decision of the board."
After holding its columns open a week for the discussion of the subject, the Times, on March 22, announced that no further communications would be published, as, "in the newspaper sense," the communications already published had "exhausted the subject," having "presented it in every reasonable light." Regret was expressed that it had been impossible to give space to "a great number of letters" received during the week's discussion, "many of them giving expression of strong argument and deep interest." As was virtually stated in its editorial inviting the discussion, it seems to have been the desire of the Times to get the expression of the sentiment favoring the scheme proposed. But it was noticeable that most of the communications published were from opponents of the scheme, and it is reasonable to infer that most of the communications received were against the demand of the church conference. But probably this had nothing to do with the almost abrupt closing of its columns to communications on the subject by the Times.
From present indications, the question of religion in the schools will be pending for some weeks at least, and the question is not likely to disappear entirely, whatever action the board of education may take.
The petitions to be presented to the board of education are being circulated by the Seventh-day Adventists on one hand, and by a committee representing the church conference on the other. The Adventists are making quite a thorough canvass for signatures throughout the city, but it is announced by the chairman of churchmen's committee that they propose "to attempt a long, but rather strong, petition of representative men." A circular letter accompanying their petition, asks that "each pastor shall get the signatures of ten members of his congregation," the most influential members, of course. The signatures to the Adventist petitions will, no doubt, be far more representative of the common people. The text of the petition being circulated by the committee representing the churchmen, reads:
For improved moral teaching in the schools.
This is not a proposal to do something new, but to do in a more effective way what is now required by law. Teachers in the District of Columbia are required by rule 46, to "inculcate truthfulness, self-control, temperance, frugality, industry, obedience to parents, and obedience to the laws of God;" and it is also required that the Bible shall be read and the Lord's Prayer repeated in the public schools. Those who sign this petition only ask that this moral teaching shall be carefully prepared by the board of education, instead of leaving the details of selection and explanation to each teacher. Manifestly, the new plan diminishes the opportunity for any teacher to inject his personal views.
To the Board of Education:
We, the subscribers, citizens of the District of Columbia, beg leave most respectfully to petition your honorable body, in the interests of good citizenship, to introduce into the public schools under your control, the following studies, to-wit:
The Ten Commandments.
Their recognized summary: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself."
The systematic study of ethics, as applied to conduct, approved by the board of education.
And we beg further, respectfully to suggest that your board take steps to provide a course of readings taken from the Bible, the use of which shall be optional with the teachers.
These suggestions are made with the proviso that there should be no sectarian religious teaching in the schools, and that any parent who may desire to withdraw a child from the instruction above suggested, should have liberty to do so.
The text of the petition being circulated by the Seventh-day Adventists, reads:
A remonstrance against the teaching of religion in the public schools of the District of Columbia.
Inasmuch as the recent interdenominational conference has adopted an action, by a majority vote, urging that religious instruction be made a part of the courses of study in the public schools of the District of Columbia, and a petition is now being circulated to make this action effective, we, the undersigned, adult residents of this District, do most respectfully petition the honorable board of education not to introduce the teaching of religion into the public schools:
Because it is a violation of the Christian principle of the separation of church and state.
Because it will necessarily infringe upon the rights of certain classes of citizens.
Because it is a menace to religious freedom, and a departure from that generous policy which has made this nation great.
Because the use of money raised by compulsory taxation of all classes of citizens for the purpose of teaching religion, is contrary to the just principles of civil government.
Because it will necessarily establish a state theology, and make a religious test necessary for the holding of the office of public trust as a teacher, which is a violation of one of the provisions of the Constitution.
Because religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, is a matter of individual conscience, and can only be directed by reason and conviction.
Because the teaching of religion does not come within the purview of the state, but belongs to the home, the church, and the private school supported entirely by private contribution.
This remonstrance makes out a strong case against religious teaching in the schools, notwithstanding its conciseness.
An Entering Wedge.
By Editor
There has been introduced in the Wisconsin Legislature, a bill requiring all employers to give to their employees at least fifty-two rest-days each year—one in each week of the year—and not less than seven of such days to be on the first day of the week. Small as is the track of the advocate of enforced Sunday observance in this movement, it is there quite distinctly. It was designed to make the beginning of Sunday enforcement so small that it would appear insignificant, and therefore would not meet serious opposition.
It was designed to make the rest idea prominent and the Sunday proposition obscure; but the latter idea is sufficiently engrafted on the bill to give assurance of future growth, if the bill should become a law. The ultimate purpose of such a law is attested by two prominent points or marks: (1) It is advocated by the Wisconsin Sunday-Rest Association; (2) it specifies that a certain number of rest-days shall be on Sunday, and does not designate any other day. So the ultimate purpose of the desired legislation is, not that every one shall be enabled to enjoy a day of rest, but that every one shall be compelled to observe Sunday—every Sunday—as soon as sufficient sentiment can be aroused to fix the weekly rest-day on Sunday throughout the year. It is the nose of the camel which is pushing into the tent. Beware.
Foreign and Domestic News
Emperor William, of Germany, will soon make a visit to Morocco, and the purpose of his visit is causing much discussion in European capitals. It seems evident that the emperor has some political object in view. The incident is causing France some anxiety, especially in view of the plain statement of the German chancellor in the matter. It is feared that Germany will attempt to gain a leading influence in this country, where France has so long been recognized as the dominating influence.
A great difference was seen in the manner in which the Russian loan and the Japanese loan were taken by those who had money to invest. The former was floated with great difficulty, and with conditions attached which were little short of humiliating. The Japanese loan was oversubscribed ten times. At the banks, crowds of people struggled for a chance to purchase the Japanese securities.
The bill recently passed by both houses of the Nebraska Legislature forbidding the practising of Christian Science doctors, has been vetoed by the governor. The governor declares the bill unconstitutional, considers that it would be a violation of the nation Constitution which guarantees freedom of religious belief.
The assassination of the new governor of Finland is reported from Viborg, Finland. A boy of fifteen made the attempt on the life of the governor, but did not succeed in inflicting a fatal wound. The boy is said to be a member of the Anti-Russian party.
It is reported that Poland has won her long fight for the teaching of the Polish language in the public schools in that portion of the Russian empire.
One hundred is the number now said to have lost their lives in the great explosion at Brockton, Mass., on March 21.
Four hundred carloads of freight, chiefly machinery, arrived at Seattle and Tacoma recently for shipment to Japan.
THE WAR IN THE ORIENT.
By Editor
IN spite of all the peace talk that is heard in Europe, and is echoed in America, there seems to be no material indications that either of the warring nations are considering the immediate possibility of peace proposals. Japan insists that any peace negotiations must be conducted direct between the most interested parties; she insists that the desire for peace must be expressed by Russia. The Russian people are anxious for peace; but those who have the controlling influence in government circles, declare that the war must go on to the bitter end. Their hope is to wear Japan out, financially, and in the matter of men.
The Japanese armies have begun a forward movement, and seem to be executing a turning movement toward the east, with the purpose of conducting a campaign against Vladivostok. This will be another costly and tedious campaign, as it is reported that the Vladivostok fortifications are very strong.
Russian re-enforcements and supplies are going forward at the rate of ten trains a day from St. Petersburg, and rush orders are being placed with various European firms for war materials and other supplies.
Domestic discontent seems as deep-seated as ever. There are reported from time to time collisions between police and rioters, bombs are being used by the socialists and anarchists, and in various sections peasants are organizing into mobs, whose object is to divide up the large estates of the landholders. They burn and pillage openly. The outlook for an early peace, either in Russia herself or in the Orient, is not cheering.
EVOLUTION AND GEOLOGY
By Geo. McCready Price
By Geo. McCready Price
XIX. EXTINCT SPECIES.
(Concluded.)
SURELY I have now established to the satisfaction of all my readers the point with which I set out in Articles XII. and XIII. of this series, viz., that the current
Geology Is Founded on Hypotheses
and not on facts, and that these hypotheses are no less than three in number, perfectly distinct as assumptions, and yet inseparable in their intertwining and mutual relationships:
The uniformly quiet and regular action of the elements;
The originally-molten condition of our globe;
The notion that the rocks show how life has occurred on our globe in a certain order of progress.
But if I have thus established this fact that modern evolutionary Geology is thus a purely deductive and not an inductive science, as completely deductive as a system of Geometry based on at least highly questionable postulates and axioms (I am reasoning from the scientific standpoint), surely every friend of true science will welcome any prospect of refounding it on a truly inductive basis.
A Scientific Reconstruction Needed.
That such a reconstruction is possible and indeed inevitable before long I am perfectly assured. It has been the next thing in order ever since man and some of our modern animals were proved to have been contemporary with the fossil forms of the Pleistocene and Tertiary rocks. In subsequent articles I shall endeavor to outline the principles of a truly inductive science of Geology. Here I may sketch in advance what I conceive to be the only scientific method of approaching this study.
To be in any sense inductive, or a reasoning from the known to the unknown so as to arrive at underlying principles or causes from facts observed, we must start with man himself and modern living species and work backward. I do not exactly mean that Geology must be built onto the end of Archeology, tho it may amount to something like that. But Archeology can at least teach us many things by way of introduction that were absolutely unknown in the earlier years of Geology. Adapting what Zittel said about chemistry, we may say that “the foundations of Geology had been laid without the assistance of Archeology.” For example, what was there known a century ago of the wonderful civilization of ancient Egypt? of the revelations made known by the arrow-headed inscriptions of Babylon? of the almost equally-wonderful civilizations of Yucatan, Mexico, and Peru? or of that genetic lingual tie that unites the Indo-European nations in one brotherhood?—all eloquent of a previous common state of civilization before the peoples were scattered abroad. What, moreover, was there then known of what Rawlinson calls “the consentient belief” of all the great races of mankind in the
Reality of a Great Deluge
which once happened to our race, and which must have occurred before these peoples were scattered abroad who now possess these traditions, a reality which no reputable scientist now denies since the recovery of the Chaldean Deluge tablets of at least 2,000 B.C.? These facts must all be taken into consideration in our investigation of the past, tho it may be that there is a well-defined line which separates Archeology from Geology.
What the True Method Would Avoid.
But when we cross this line we have still to deal with man and his surroundings. In any truly-inductive study of Geology the rocks of the so-called “Glacial Age” and the Tertiaries, the surface rocks, will not be as Zittel says they have been, “the last to be understood,” and only attacked after everything else had been arranged according to the doctrine of Uniformity and à priori methods of reasoning with the result that, failing to equate these two ends of our scientific investigations, we have for over half a century been laboring under a “Glacial Nightmare,” and these deposits on the very top of the ground “still remain in many respects the despair of Geology.” But there is no science in all this. Is it scientific to start with what we know the least about, and make our more accurate knowledge of things near at hand square with our theories of things more remote? The current Geology has never used a trace of induction in its fundamental principles and methods, but has always started with some hypothetically “oldest” forms, and often having located them at the vanishing point of the vistas of a past eternity, has trusted to its skill in dead reckoning to be able to work up by slow stages to the present, and to arrive here with a sufficiently small cargo of “living” species undisposed of to join on to the present smoothly and easily on the basis of uniformity and slow secular change. This is Geology by hypothesis; it is a kind of “science” by which some people have, for a century or so, tried to explain the known in terms of the less known or unknown, and have blamed the Bible because it did not agree with their results. Such are the methods “which dominated medieval scholasticism and made it so barren.”
A Wiser Course of Procedure.
We have learned a better way. Let us start with man and all the living species of plants and animals, and, working back among the strata, find where and how their fossils occur, and then decide as best we can how they were placed there, and how the intervening changes took place. Let us, for instance, focus all the powers we have on those specimens of our species generally termed “pre-Glacial” or “Tertiary” man, and with the aid of all the known facts of Zoology, paleontology, and meteorology, endeavor to reconstruct the flora and fauna of that ancient world, and the marvelously-uniform climate in which they lived—a climate under which mild temperate conditions seem to have prevailed over all the Arctic regions, and semi-tropical conditions over England, Western Europe, and North America. Bearing in mind now that no manner of reasoning or tinkering with the strata can ever prove one fossil intrinsically older than any other form, or than man himself, let us ask a few questions. Where are the great mammals which roamed over these regions at that time? Where is the vegetation on which they fed or beneath which they lived? And where are the semitropical invertebrates that lived in the tepid waters of the surrounding seas, or the hardy alpine forms that may then have lived under semi-Arctic conditions on those ancient mountain tops? Can we hope to dovetail such a world into the present on any basis of uniformity or slow secular change? Why, the thing is too absurd for consideration. The Biblical Deluge will explain it, and nothing else will.
