the present day, in terms that would have provoked the natural theology of Seneca. An eminent mineral geologist asks; "Why should not natural

66

history one day have its Newton'?"-There is no reason why it should not: but, this we may venture to affirm, peremptorily; that it will never have that Newton, unless, following in the steps of his illustrious prototype, he shall so conduct his science, as to conclude, from the most general analysis, to the wisdom and power of an Intelligent Agent, as the immediate cause both of the being and perfect arrangement of all first formations; and, unless his natural philosophy shall proceed by a course, which shall at the same time equally advance the progress of moral philosophy.

'CUVIER, Disc. Prél. p. 3.-Theory, § 1.

66

66

CHAPTER X.

We have now finally determined the great question, concerning the authority of sensible phenomena for deciding the MODE of first formations in the mineral kingdom of matter, by applying the same question to the animal and vegetable kingdoms; and, sound philosophy clearly perceives, that their authority is exactly the same in all the three; and, that the mineral geology can advance no one plea in objection, for its own kingdom, which might not have been equally advanced, and with equal futility, by anatomy and natural history, for the two other kingdoms. It therefore concludes of the "skeleton or frame-work of this earth," the “magnæ ossa parentis," as it concludes of the skeleton or framework of created man: That it was not produced by any secondary cause, but, by the immediate, incomprehensible act of the First, Intelligent, Omnipotent Cause; and, that it is unphilosophical to seek any other origin for its form and composition, or to pretend, that these might have arisen out of a chaos, chaotic ocean, amorphous mass, or confused assemblage of elements, by the mere laws of Nature. And thus, the whole order of first mineral formations, or primitive rocks, are withdrawn for ever from the speculations of the mineral geology, with respect to the mode of their production; so that, from henceforth, it can only exercise those speculations philosophically upon that remaining order of minerals,

which, by bearing incontestable evidence of alteration, either by chemical decomposition and recomposition, or by mechanical action, prove themselves to be absolutely distinct in circumstance from the former.

66

"To what cause, then, (it will exclaim,) are we to ascribe the regular successive strata in all primitive mineral formations, previous to the disturbances of which they bear the evidence?" -I ask, in reply: To what cause are we to ascribe the regular successive lamina in the shell of the first tortoise, or the regular succesive folds in the wood of the first tree? The final cause, in each, was the end to which it was to serve; the efficient cause, was the Intelligent Power which sought those ends; to Whom, all created magnitudes are equal. "We can scarce fail to inquire (observes the able author of the Vindicia Geologica,) whether we shall find in the mineral kingdom of nature the same subserviency to final

66

66

causes which are so strikingly exhibited in the "animal and vegetable creation; and the answer "will be found to be in the affirmative1." The answer has also been found to be in the affirmative, with respect to an equal primitive provision for that subserviency by the common efficient cause, in the first individuals of all the three kingdoms.

"To what cause, it will again exclaim, are we to "ascribe the primitive characteristical diversities of granite, gneiss, mica-slate, porphyry, serpentine, &c.?"-I again reply, by asking: To what

Page 11.

cause are we to ascribe the characteristical diversity, of the ivory of the first elephant and the horn of the first elk; of the wool of the first sheep and the fur of the first ermine; of the whiteness of the first swan, the blackness of the first raven, and the diversified colours of the first peacock? Those were first formations then, as the granite, the gneiss, and the mica-slate, continue to be first formations now. To what cause are we to ascribe the diversity, of spots in the first formed panther, of stripes in the first formed tiger, and of a plain hide in the first formed lion? To what are we to ascribe the differing textures, of bone, cartilage, and muscle, in the created animal? We might as well ascribe all these, to differences of secretion and accretion which never took place, as the diversity of primitive rocks, to differences of precipitation or development which never took place. Of true first formations, the cause of the being and of the diversity must be the Are not use, beauty, and variety, manifest ends in this creation? and, if they are so in the vegetable and animal kingdoms, why are they not to be the same in the mineral kingdom? and, why are we not rather to ascribe to the design of the Creator," those associations in which alternating

same.

66

primitive rocks exhibit a great contrast of crys"tallisation, mixture, and colour," which M. Humboldt ascribes altogether to the delight of Na"ture1?" And, as the Creator at first planted the earth with every tree, not only "good for food," but also " pleasant to the sight," that is, the sight

of man; as He adorned its exterior with the gaiety and variety of flowers, and enlivened it not only with melody of sounds but likewise with mixture, contrast, and splendour of colours; so He provided its interior with various mineral substances both of use and beauty, to be afterwards drawn forth to light by the activity and industry of man; imbedding within it His treasuries of ores and gems, and causing to rise above its surface the useful and beautiful varieties which are found amongst His primitive mineral formations. The philosophy of Bacon and Newton, will never consent to derive these from an elementary chaos.

I know, that the mineral geology wishes to establish an essential distinction of principle and operation, between first formations of the mineral and those of the other two kingdoms, and, that it claims a sort of scientific property in the former, to which it does not lay equal pretension in the latter; but, as the distinction it intends is unreal, so its claim can never be realised. "Man," it says, "who "has weighed the planets and measured their dis

66

tances, may presume to trace the operations by "which the surface of the globe has been arranged'." What analogy, I beg leave to ask, can be found between the two cases; or, what consequence can possibly flow from the one to the other? What true comparison can be made, between the measurement of present objects of sense and the recovery of past facts of history? Because we can apply

rules of arithmetic or mathematics to present

See above, p. 15.