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 ageous production, by shewing, that the perfect preservation of shells in the secondary strata could not 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 mass'. But, he would infer from thence, that primary formations must likewise have been of aqeous 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 neutralise each other. The result is, that there will remain for ever a ground of 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 in error with respect to the fact; consequently, that “ the crystal"line character stamped upon the primitive mineral "tended aquoso-igneous liquefaction" (Superpos. of Rocks, p. 67 and 407, 408): an agent, nevertheless, which has probably operated with a mighty energy, in some of the secondary formations of the globe. See Note [III.] On M. Humboldt's Theory of Rocks. 1 D'AUBUISSON, tom. i. p. 381. 2 Ibid. p. 388. "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, when He gave to those masses, by crystalline composition, "the properties "which most conduced to the end for which He formed them." 66 66 A principal and obvious "end" of those “ properties," as we have seen, was the solidity and durability, resulting from the grain and texture of that composition, essentially requisite for the uses of the globe; 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, nearly twice 2000 years before him. Whatever may be the destructive and wasting power of atmospheric agents upon some bodies, it is absolutely null with respect to these, and therefore it is idle and unphilosophical to take account of it in geology. And, how then is it possible, to contemplate the admirable artifice by which these perfect means conduce to their perfect end, without " rendering immediately "to GOD, the things which are GOD's!" CHAPTER IX. IT is revolting to reason, and therefore to true philosophy, to observe, how strenuously physical science, though expatiating in the wonders of Creation, has laboured to exclude the Creator from the details of His own Work, straining every nerve of ingenuity to ascribe them all to secondary causes; and, with what undisguised relief of thought, it exchanges the idea of God, for the idea of Nature1! 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 systematical; 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 1 See above, note to p. 105. 66 66 66 66 our system, I had an eye upon such principles as might work with considering men for the belief of a Deity1:" that is, an intelligent, interfering, and operating Deity. Hence it was, that he taught: "HÆC OMNIA, simili consilio constructa, "suberunt UNIUS dominio:- HIC omnia regit, non ut Anima Mundi, sed ut universorum Dominus; et propter dominium suum, Dominus "Deus Пávтongaτwg dici solet. Nam Deus est vox relativa, et ad servos refertur; et deitas ac dominatio. Dei, non in corpus proprium, uti sentiunt quibus Deus est anima mundi, sed in "servos.-ALL THESE THINGS, constructed by the same Wisdom, are subject to the dominion of ONE alone. He, rules them all; not as a soul of the world, but as the Lord and Master of the "universe; and, on account of his own proper dominion, He is called, the Lord God Almighty. For God, is a relative term; and relates to servants, or ministers; and the godship and domina❝tion of God is, not over His own frame, as those supposed who considered Him only as the "soul of the world; but, over His servants or “ministers." 66 66 But, does the mineral geology exhibit any demonstration, that it "has an eye upon any "such principles" in the management of its science? It is with much concern that I have to adduce, A First Letter to BENTLEY. Princip. Math. lib. iii. Schol. General. 66 66 in proof of the justice of the preceding remarks, the very recent, and in a merely scientific point of view, the very wonderful Essay on the Superposition of Rocks in both Hemispheres." Yet, that work is not so wonderful for the unparalleled labour which it evinces, and for the vast comprehension of its physical combinations, as it is for the moral phenomenon which it exhibits: a work, scrutinising the amazing structure of this globe with a minuteness and universality never before attempted; compelled, by its subject, to look back occasionally to the " first "period and origin" of that structure; professing, "in presenting the details of the phenomena, to generalise the ideas respecting them-to connect "them with the great questions in Natural Philosophy1 -and to trace the first elements of geognostic philosophy;" and yet, without embracing a single reflection rising above the brute matter with which it is engaged; without a single allusion to a divine cause or first principle; without the most transient homage of the mind evinced by the teacher before his pupil; alleging Nature twice or thrice, but propounding no other primary principle of its " philosophy" than that of "de 46 66 66 66 velopment," common to minerals, animals, and vegetables; and therefore, having no “eye upon those principles" which Newton kept ever in his view in handling the "great questions of Natural Phi 66 |