1

CHAP. VIII.

fore, no laws for their multiplication were ne- PART Í. cessary. And from this consideration alone, accrues a very powerful moral evidence; that the first mineral formations, which are still permanent, were formed by no other mode than that which formed the first animals, which have been succeeded by generation.

When, therefore, the mineral geology ascribes the first formation of rocks to the mode of crystallization in an universal aqueous fluid, it assumes an effect which was never known in course of production, and explains it by an assumed cause, which was never known in course of operation. And what is this in philosophy, but assuming an occult cause; and in reason, but assuming a fiction instead of a fact, for the basis of a science? For the water-geologist, who maintains the crystallization of granite by water, is obliged at the same time to acknowledge the fact of crystallization by fire, in some instances; and since we have never witnessed the crystallization of granite at all, either by water or by fire, the system that would determine the mode of its formation to water, absolutely, can have no real foundation.

The water-geologist, indeed, ascribes all formations, primary and secondary, to water, while the fire-geologist ascribes them all to fire; which resembles "the glorious uncertainty," irreverently ascribed to the law; and has given

PART. I. cause to an eminent chemical philosopher to observe: "geologists arrive at conclusions dia

CHAP. VIII.

66

metrically opposite; upon which a clever "writer remarks, that among all the wonders geology presents to our view, the confidence of the theorists is the most unaccountable1.""

66

But, there is still room for fancy to play between the two; for, why might not those formations be ascribed to both agents, in succession? Why might not the primary formations have been caused by fire, and the secondary by water? Why, after a mineral globe had been formed by igneous fusion, might not a revolution have been effected by an aqueous fluid? for we are certain of the existence, and of the power, of both those agents in the globe. Why then are we to contend for the one, or for the other, exclusively? and why might they not have operated in alternation? Here is still a ground-plot left, to attempt the raising a new system. The argument is so entirely and essentially hypothetical on both sides, that this last supposition may be just as defensible as either of the other two. The Neptunian has established the fact against Hutton, that secondary formations are of aqueous production; by showing, that the perfect pre

! BRANDE, Manual of Chemistry, v. iii. p. 230.

CHAP. VIII.

servation of sea-shells in inland soils could not PART I. have taken place, if the revolution which transported them thither had been effected by fire; for the shells, being calcareous, must have been dissolved, and mingled with the general mass1. But, he would infer from thence, that primary formations must likewise have been of aqueous production; which is more than his premises can yield. He has refuted Hutton, indeed, in the one argument, but he has left him as strong as ever in the other: and yet, not a whit stronger than himself; for, the force of their arguments is so nearly poised and balanced, that they neutralize each other. The result is, that there will remain for ever a ground for hypothetical contest between the two; and, therefore, as there exists no accessory weight of truth to determine the scale definitively on either side, the just conclusion is, that both are equally erroneous with respect to fact; consequently, that "the crystalline character stamped upon the pri"mitive mineral masses," was not stamped by either of the secondary causes assigned; but, that it was impressed by the first, Creating Cause, who anticipated the effects of each, in giving

'D'AUBUISSON, tom. i. p. 381.

H

2

Ibid. P. 388.

PART I. to those masses "the properties which most con"duced to the end for which He formed them."

CHAP. VIII.

A principal and obvious "end" of those "properties," as we have seen, was the solidity and durability resulting from the grain and texture of their composition; so that the granite summits, traversed by Hannibal 2000 years ago, are identically the same which we now witness; and we are sure that they stood identically the same, twice 2000 years before him. Whatever may be the destructive and wasting power of the atmospheric agents upon some bodies, it is null with respect to these, and therefore idle to take account of it in geology; and it is only resorted to, to aid a limping system. We discern a manifest "end," likewise, in their "sizes," and their "figures;" for, to the altitude of the former, is owing the accumulation of supplies for the rivers which are to irrigate the globe; and, to the prolongations and inclinations of the latter, are owing the conduct and direction of the rivers which actually irrigate it. And how is it possible to contemplate the unchangeable arrangement, by which all these perfect means conduce to their several perfect ends, without " rendering immediately "to GOD, the things which are GOD's!"

CHAPTER IX.

CHAP. IX.

It is revolting to reason, and therefore to true PART I. philosophy, to observe how strenuously physical science labours to exclude the Creator from the details of His own creation; straining every nerve of ingenuity, to ascribe them all to secondary causes. Can it be aware that, in so doing, it is moving in the very direction which leads, and which ever has led, to materialism, practical, if not theoretical; and, therefore, in the very opposite direction to that in which Bacon and Newton, of whom it makes its boast, always moved? And that, in every degree in which it despoils the Creator, in order to furnish the fiction which it extols under the unmeaning term of Nature, it in the same degree disclaims the philosophy of Bacon and Newton, and sanctions the doctrine of Epicurean atheism? for, the atheism of Epicurus was not a denial of Deity, but a denial of the action and interference of Deity.

How different was the proceeding of Newton! who declared, "When I wrote my treatise about our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the