parisons which can yield no analogy whatever; namely, 1. a comparison of the present order of nature, with another supposed antecedent state of things which it equally calls the order of nature; and, 2. a comparison of the secondary formations of generated animal and vegetable structures under the present order, with the first formation of the mineral structure in that supposed antecedent state; between which things, it is manifest that there can exist no relation of analogy. The "present order

of nature," is a phrase without a meaning, if it is not intended to express the order established by God at the creation; as Bacon interprets it. But, this excludes any pre-existing order of nature, which are words absolutely without any meaning at all; not only in religion and philosophy, but, also in common sense, which plainly perceives, that "nature" is here a senseless slovenly word, borrowed from heathen ignorance, and only serving for the obstruction and obscuration of truth'.

To demonstrate, once for all, the absurdity of the use to which physics have at length brought the term nature amongst us, let us trace that term to its origin. "Natura," is a noun formed from the future participle of nascor—“ naturus, non nasciturus" (CLEDONIUS, Gramm. Lat. Ant. p. 1914); as genitura from the future participle of gigno-geniturus, messura from metor-messurus, (DIOMED. ibid. p. 474) &c. "Natura," would therefore signify, actively, " oritura vel proventura "things about to be born, i. e. arise, or come forth;" and, its primary and simple signification would have merely expressed the common experimental effect, of things perpetually ready to come forth and succeed each other. As the minds of those who originally used the term were sunk into heathen darkness, and as the external Cause which "maketh the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man," was obliterated from them, the intellect, which constitutionally seeks to connect effects

To reason right, the analogy should have been stated between the first formations in all the three kingdoms of matter; between the first man, the first tree, and the first rock, before the present order of nature commenced its operations; and, the time required for the first formation of the first two of these being found, would give the time required for the first formation of the third. But, what inference can be drawn concerning it, from "the comparatively slow progression to maturity" of generated animals, or of propagated trees, under the present order of nature? The supposition of a primitive confused mixture of elements produced by the Creator, whether in the form of a chaotic liquid or of an amorphous paste, is the supposition of an imperfect creation; but, the tender condition of nascent animals or vegetables under the present laws of generation, is no imperfect creation, but a

with their causes, sought ignorantly for the cause in the effect itself; and, the things which “natura vel proventura essent,” were assumed to contain their cause within themselves. Thence, that fictitious cause received the general denomination of "natura ;" and was elevated by a false philosophy into an universal mysterious internal principle, causative per se of all the effects produced in all the different orders of beings constituting this visible world. This "Natura," unexamined and undetected, is the Nature to whose operation modern physics so resolutely strive to vindicate the first formations of the earth; and, which they consent to receive from the authority whose title I have here exposed. To this natura of the Latins, answers the Qurs of the Greeks; which also, in the later ages, was erected into a cause. But, Homer knew no such cause or principle: it was after his days that both Quis and natura obtained their new dignity; and it is to be observed, as has already heen noted of rʊx", fortuna, chance, that Quois, natura, is not mentioned by Homer. (See Exam. of the Prim. Arg. of the ILIAD, p. 227; and above, p. 47, note 2.)

beautiful part and sequence of that first formation, in which the first animals and first vegetables were created perfect. If the mineral geology could shew it to be probable, that the first man and the first tree subsisted at first an " imperfect substance, "which day by day was fashioned when as yet there "was none of them'," then indeed it might infer, with some consistency, "the comparatively slow

I progression of our planet, from a state of chaos "to a state of maturity;" but, that it never can shew; and therefore, it can never draw the latter inference from the laws now operating in generated beings, without renouncing all pretensions to the faculty of grounding or conducting a logical argument. There is a reason, for the slow progression of generation or secondary formation; but, there is no reason whatever, for supposing slow progression in first creative formations.

66

Again, it would argue by analogy; and it asks, Why are there mountains on the globe?" which question it immediately answers, exultingly, with this other question: Why are there pyramids in Egypt?" as if it should say,

66

<< are

"the

you answered now?" and it adds; that " "course which the antiquary pursues in his researches concerning pyramids, marks out "that of the geologist with respect to mountains, and their bases, our continents"." It then shews,

66

1 Pslam cxxxix. 15, 16.

2 DE LUC, Lettres Géologiques, p. 5.

"that in each there must be both materials and operation; but it forgets, that in the pyramid, the materials must precede the operation; whereas, in the mountain, the operation must precede the materials. In the pyramid, there must be materials before the artificers can act; in the mountain, the Artificer must act before there can be materials. In the one case we are led to inquire, from whence did the artificers procure the materials? but, in the other, how did the Artificer produce the materials? that is, what was the MODE of their first formation? What true analogy, then, can there be between the two cases, if closely examined? But, from not examining them closely, and from limiting its view to a vague resemblance between the strata of soils in mountains and the layers of masonry in pyramids, the mineral geology contents itself with that vague resemblance; and it concludes, we should indeed be very far "behind hand in geology, if we were not able to "discover from whence the materials proceeded of "which those strata were formed1." And, from whence does it at length "discover" that they did proceed? From "a confused assemblage of "elements, of which water was the basis; and it is from this first mixture, that all substances whatever, which engage our observation or experience, formed themselves." And this " discovery," is to be imposed upon us as a result of "the happy

66

66

66

'DE LUC, Lett. Géol. p. 7.

2 See above, p. 26.

"revolution effected by Bacon and Newton in the "studies of the natural sciences!" Of the propounders of such discoveries, we

may with truth pronounce; φασκοντες είναι σοφοι, εμωρανθησαν professing themselves to be wise, they became infatuated."

66

66

But, says the mineral geology, "every proposition in the physical sciences, which does "not result simply and immediately from the ob"servation of a manifest fact, can only be an "induction drawn by analogy from facts which

66

are known; this is an incontestable principle "of all sound logic1." There can be no doubt of the truth of this maxim; but, the validity of the induction must depend, entirely and absolutely, upon the soundness of the analogy. Every degree of unsoundness in the analogy, will impart its vice to the induction; and, as the preceding analogies proposed, between the modes of first and secondary formations, are utterly and palpably vicious and unsound, so must the inductions deduced from them be vicious and unsound also.

The mineral geology does not seem to be at all aware, how baseless a fabric it constructs, in founding its doctrine of first mineral formations on secondary causes. "The first basis of geology

founded on facts," says de Luc, " is certainly

an exact knowledge of the mineral strata, "which compose the mass of our continents

' D'AUBUISSON, tom. ii. p. 603.