CHAPTER V. CHAP. V. BUT, if the researches of the mineral geology PART III. have really produced monumental evidences of these great facts; and if it has so powerfully enforced the attestation of those evidences as to demonstrate the exact correspondence of the facts with the statements of the Mosaical geology; why are not the two geologies one and the same, at least in the second question, viz. the revolutions which this earth has experienced? in what do they differ? They differ in this: that whereas the latter geology alleges two, and only two, general revolutions of the globe, the former affirms, "that the revolutions have been numerous1;" and, therefore, in explaining the phænomena, it ascribes them to various causes, entirely different from those to which, according to those two revolutions, they ought to be ascribed. Thus, the low levels, or plains, between chains of mountains, it ascribes to the hand of time; which, with the aid of atmospheric agents, has gradually and 1 CUVIER, Th. of the Earth, § 5. p. 34. CHAP. V. PART III. imperceptibly eroded, and wasted away', all the immense mass of matter which once filled up the void now existing, between the level of the mountainous summits, and that of the low surface beneath; leaving the mountains themselves untouched; Sed quæ corpora decedant in tempore quoque, but how, or when, this mighty waste took place, no reason however is assigned, why the mountains, which are composed of the same materials with the substance eroded and wasted, chanced to be spared. So that time and the atmosphere must have been unceasingly and capriciously at work, during a lapse of ages to which the remotest date of the Mosaical chronology is, by comparison, only as yesterday. But, upon what authority does it ground this contradiction of the record? Is it upon some other record which it can produce, and which it can show to be deserving of more credit than that of Moses? for the question, is entirely a question of historical fact. No! it can produce no historical testimony whatso D'AUBUISSON, i. p. 231. LUCRETIUS, i. 321. CHAP. V. ever; it grounds its contradiction, wholly and Part III. absolutely, upon the same mode of argument and induction, by which, in the first part of this inquiry, it concluded the formation of this earth from an elementary chaos; and, with the same philosophy and logic with which it there contradicted Newton, it here contradicts Moses. This multiplication of revolutions, is no other than a multiplication of causes; a procedure, always suspicious in philosophy, because it always wears, prima facie, a character of deficiency, either of judgment or inquiry. For, true philosophy abhors a multiplication of causes; and always seeks to reduce effects to the fewest causes that reason will permit. Its "rule of philosophizing" is, to refer effects of the same kind to the same cause, quantum fieri potest — as much as it is possible1." Whereas, the mineral geology, far from making the effort which this precept supposes, seeks for a new cause, that is, a new revolution, upon the occurrence of every new difficulty; so that its multiplied causes are, in fact, not proofs that the effects required the causes, but merely, evidences that it could not reconcile the effects to its own conceptions, without supposing those causes. But, since causes imply facts, the supposition of the PART III. former, is a supposition of the latter; so that supCHAP. V. posititious facts become the basis of its science; and when it would assign dates to those facts, it is manifest, that its whole system must be a compound of supposititious history, and supposititious chronology. Thus it is, that the mineral geologists of Germany, as we are assured, have gravely determined, upon the pretended authority of Werner's principles, that four different seas have successively, and at distant periods, covered the whole of this globe1: Nor less, not more, but just four seas. Thus also it is, that Cuvier affirms, that the "revolutions of the earth have been numerous ;" that "it has frequently happened, that different parts of our continent have risen from the "basin of the sea, and that they have been again covered by the water." And such is the mode in which the mineral geology reasons in general, upon the revolutionary phanomena of the earth. 66 "Dans les ouvrages de géognosie dernièrement publiés "en Allemagne, d'après les principes de WERNER, on regarde les diverses formations minérales comme le produit "de quatres grandes mers successives." - D'AUBUISSON, i. p. 357. 2 § 5. p. 36. CHAP. V. In the midst of these aberrations, it is with no PART III. small pleasure that I find myself able to oppose to such incautious and unphilosophical speculations, the high authority of Werner himself. "I shall observe (says his able and upright disciple, M. D'Aubuisson), that Werner was 66 very cautious on the question of deluges and "revolutions of nature; he never declared himself in a positive manner; probably, because "he had not established a definitive opinion upon those matters; but, perhaps also, his respect for the SACRED WRITINGS made him apprehend, that the opinion he might express "would be misunderstood1." Here is an example, deserving of the serious attention and close imitation of the mineral geology; but, from which it so greatly deviates. We receive from the hands of the disciple, and with peculiar gratification contribute to record, this faithful testimony of his eminent master's mind. We reverence the geological teacher, who held his science under the control of that high paramount authority; and we honour the disciple, who has rendered this justice to his memory. And we the more regret, that he did not so direct his general studies, as to enable himself to trace out, and to expose, the direct correspondence, ! Tom. i. p. 369. |