39 
the earth, and abundant reason for the changed animal and 
vegetable life which the rocks disclose to us in their fossils. 
Again, on another point, whence could have come the 
notion that the earth was covered with vegetation and with 
animal from the lowest forms of life ? and even those produced 
from a vesicle or cell containing the future creature — nay, 
possibly all from one primordial unit ? Most likely because 
reproduction — all that now exists, or has existed for thousands 
of generations — all — all-*-every living thing we see — every 
living thing, from the microscopic to the most colossal bulk — 
arises from a tiny germ. This is what we see. But this is 
not creation. It is the created perpetuating itself. Strange 
confusion; that creation and perpetuation should have the 
same origin ! — and certain philosophers tell us they have ; 
that the plant, for instance, sprang from a mere point — a 
nucleated cell. Whatever it may be called, it must contain 
the perfect plant, which is to all intents and purposes a seed ; 
the thing thence proceeding is therefore reproduced, not 
created. 
I do not understand by what steps philosophy can reach a 
germ beyond the first plant. If it contain the future plant it 
involves a contradiction ; inasmuch as that infers reproduc- 
tion. Reproduction proves a progenitor. The first plant could 
have had no progenitor ; therefore the first plant must have 
been created in a perfect state, and not as a mere atom con- 
taining the plant that was to be subsequently evolved. 
The perfect plant, then, must have existed before the forma- 
tion of any minute substance containing itself ; otherwise, 
you would have the astounding incongruity of reproduction 
before existence. A small nucleated body is the mode of 
perpetuating. If this body were also the mode of creating — 
the one and the other being the same thing — we are fighting 
with shadows, when we attempt to trace the producer from 
the produced ; as in such case they are convertible terms. 
W hat other idea can we attach to a fertile egg, or nucleus, 
but that of having been generated by a form similar to what 
it will itself generate ? In a natural sense, the plant which 
produces the embryo of future plants proceeded from a like 
embryo. In a natural sense, therefore, we cannot point to 
creation in its embryonic form, its primordial shape. I feel, 
then, full conviction, that in spite of philosophy — “ in erring 
reason's spite," — the Revealed Word alone can inform us of 
the true origin of life. 
Nobody can deny an ultimate principle — a first Cause. 
Creation, as I understand the word, means production by 
original power. Is the external world — inanimate nature — 
