[Note 18: Lib. 3. cap. 8.]

The port of Syracuse, with the island which forms the greater and lesser, and the fountain of Arethusa, the water of which the ancients divided from the sea with a wall, do not seem to be altered. From Sicily to the coast of Egypt, there is an uninterrupted course of sea for a thousand miles; consequently, the wind, in such a stretch of sea, should bring powerful waves against those coasts: But, on this coast of Egypt, we find the rock on which was formerly built the famous tower of Pharos; and also, at the eastern extremity of the port Eunoste, the sea-bath, cut in the solid rock upon the sh.o.r.e. Both those rocks, buffeted immediately with the waves of the Mediterranean sea, are, to all appearance, the same at this day as they were in ancient times.[19]

[Note 19: Lettres sur l'Egypte, M. Savary.]

Many other such proofs will certainly occur, where the different parts of those coasts are examined by people of observation and intelligence.

But it is enough for our present purpose, that this decrease of the coasts in general has not been observed; and that it is as generally thought, that the land is gaining upon the sea, as that the sea is gaining upon the land.

To sum up the argument, we are certain, that all the coasts of the present continents are wasted by the sea, and constantly wearing away upon the whole; but this operation is so extremely slow, that we cannot find a measure of the quant.i.ty in order to form an estimate: Therefore, the present continents of the earth, which we consider as in a state of perfection, would, in the natural operations of the globe, require a time indefinite for their destruction.

But, in order to produce the present continents, the destruction of a former vegetable world was necessary; consequently, the production of our present continents must have required a time which is indefinite.

In like manner, if the former continents were of the same nature as the present, it must have required another s.p.a.ce of time, which also is indefinite, before they had come to their perfection as a vegetable world.

We have been representing the system of this earth as proceeding with a certain regularity, which is not perhaps in nature, but which is necessary for our clear conception of the system of nature. The system of nature is certainly in rule, although we may not know every circ.u.mstance of its regulation. We are under a necessity, therefore, of making regular suppositions, in order to come at certain conclusions which may be compared with the present state of things.

It is not necessary that the present land should be worn away and wasted, exactly in proportion as new land shall appear; or, conversely, that an equal proportion of new land should always be produced as the old is made to disappear. It is only required, that at all times, there should be a just proportion of land and water upon the surface of the globe, for the purpose of a habitable world.

Neither is it required in the actual system of this earth, that every part of the land should be dissolved in its structure, and worn away by attrition, so as to be floated in the sea. Parts of the land may often sink in a body below the level of the sea, and parts again may be restored, without waiting for the general circulation of land and water, which proceeds with all the certainty of nature, but which advances with an imperceptible progression. Many of such apparent irregularities may appear without the least infringement on the general system. That system is comprehended in the preparation of future land at the bottom of the ocean, from those materials which the dissolution and attrition of the present land may have provided, and from those which the natural operations of the sea afford.

In thus accomplishing a certain end, we are not to limit nature with the uniformity of an equable progression, although it be necessary in our computations to proceed upon equalities. Thus also, in the use of means, we are not to prescribe to nature those alone which we think suitable for the purpose, in our narrow view. It is our business to learn of nature (that is by observation) the ways and means, which in her wisdom are adopted; and we are to imagine these only in order to find means for further information, and to increase our knowledge from the examination of things which actually have been. It is in this manner, that intention may be found in nature; but this intention is not to be supposed, or vainly imagined, from what we may conceive to be.

We have been now supposing, that the beginning of our present earth had been laid in the bottom of the ocean, at the completion of the former land; but this was only for the sake of distinctness. The just view is this, that when the former land of the globe had been complete, so as to begin to waste and be impaired by the encroachment of the sea, the present land began to appear above the surface of the ocean. In this manner we suppose a due proportion to be always preserved of land and water upon the surface of the globe, for the purpose of a habitable world, such as this which we possess. We thus, also, allow time and opportunity for the translation of animals and plants to occupy the earth.

But, if the earth on which we live, began to appear in the ocean at the time when the last began to be resolved, it could not be from the materials of the continent immediately preceding this which we examine, that the present earth had been constructed; for the bottom of the ocean must have been filled with materials before land could be made to appear above its surface.

Let us suppose that the continent, which is to succeed our land, is at present beginning to appear above the water in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it must be evident, that the materials of this great body, which is formed and ready to be brought forth, must have been collected from the destruction of an earth, which does not now appear. Consequently, in this true statement of the case, there is necessarily required the destruction of an animal and vegetable earth prior to the former land; and the materials of that earth which is first in our account, must have been collected at the bottom of the ocean, and begun to be concocted for the production of the present earth, when the land immediately preceding the present had arrived at its full extent.

This, however, alters nothing with regard to the nature of those operations of the globe. The system is still the same. It only protracts the indefinite s.p.a.ce of time in its existence, while it gives us a view of another distinct period of the living world; that is to say, the world which we inhabit is composed of the materials, not of the earth which was the immediate predecessor of the present, but of the earth which, in ascending from the present, we consider as the third, and which had preceded the land that was above the surface of the sea, while our present land was yet beneath the water of the ocean. Here are three distinct successive periods of existence, and each of these is, in our measurement of time, a thing of indefinite duration.

We have now got to the end of our reasoning; we have no data further to conclude immediately from that which actually is: But we have got enough; we have the satisfaction to find, that in nature there is wisdom, system, and consistency. For having, in the natural history of this earth, seen a succession of worlds, we may from this conclude that there is a system in nature; in like manner as, from seeing revolutions of the planets, it is concluded, that there is a system by which they are intended to continue those revolutions. But if the succession of worlds is established in the system of nature, it is in vain to look for any thing higher in the origin of the earth. The result, therefore, of this physical inquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning,--no prospect of an end.

CHAPTER II.

An Examination of Mr KIRWAN'S Objections to the Igneous Origin of Stony Substances.

A theory which is founded on a new principle, a theory which has to make its way in the public mind by overturning the opinions commonly received by philosophising men, and one which has nothing to recommend it but the truth of its principles, and the view of wisdom or design to which it leads, neither of which may perhaps be perceived by the generality of people, such a theory, I say, must meet with the strongest opposition from the prejudices of the learned, and from the superst.i.tion of those who judge not for themselves in forming their notions, but look up to men of science for authority. Such is the case with some part of the Theory of the Earth, which I have given, and which will probably give offence to naturalists who have espoused an opposite opinion. In order, then, to obtain the approbation of the public, it may not be enough to give a theory that should be true, or altogether unexceptionable it may be necessary to defend every point that shall be thought exceptionable by other theorists, and to show the fallacy of every learned objection that may be made against it. It is thus, in general, that truth and error are forced to struggle together, in the progress of science; and it is only in proportion as science removes erroneous conceptions, which are necessarily in the const.i.tution of human knowledge, that truth will find itself established in natural philosophy.

Mr Kirwan has written a dissertation, ent.i.tled, _Examination of the Supposed Igneous Origin of Stony Substances_, which was read in the Royal Irish Academy. The object of that dissertation is to state certain objections, which have occurred to him, against the Theory of the Earth published in the Transactions of the Edinburgh Royal Society; and he has attacked that theory in all the points where it appears to him to be vulnerable. It is to these objections that I am now to give an answer.

The authority given to this dissertation, by the Royal Irish Academy, as well as the reputation of the author, make it necessary for me to endeavour to put in their true light the facts alleged in that performance, and to a.n.a.lyse the arguments employed, in order to judge of the reasoning by which the theory of mineral fusion is refuted in this Examination.

A theory founded on truth, and formed according to the proper rules of science, can ever suffer from a strict examination, by which it would be but the more and more confirmed. But, where causes are to be traced through a chain of various complicated effects, an examination not properly conducted upon accurate a.n.a.lytical principles, instead of giving light upon a subject in which there had been obscurity and doubt, may only serve to perplex the understanding, and bring confusion into a subject which was before sufficiently distinct. To redress that evil, then, must require more labour and some address; and this is an inconveniency that may be looked for, more or less, in every controversial discussion.

I do not mean to enter any farther into the defence of my theory in this chapter, than what is necessary to answer a man of science and respectability, who has stated his objections. The observations which he has made appear to me to be founded on nothing more than common prejudice, and misconceived notions of the subject. I am therefore to point out that erroneous train of reasoning, into which a hasty superficial view of things, perhaps, has led the patron of an opposite opinion to see my theory in an unfavourable light. This, however, is not all; for, that train of inconsequential reasoning is so congenial with the crude and inconsiderate notion generally entertained, of solid mineral bodies having been formed by the infiltration of water into the earth, that no opportunity should be lost of exposing an erroneous manner of reasoning, which is employed in supporting a hypothesis founded upon certain operations of the surface of this earth that cannot be properly applied to the formation of mineral bodies. This object, therefore, so far as it may come in the way, will be attended to in this discussion, although I shall have another opportunity of farther enlarging upon that subject.

Our author begins by examining a geological operation, the very opposite to that of mineral consolidation, and which would seem to have little connection with the subject of this dissertation. In my theory, I advanced two propositions with regard to the economy of this world: First, That the solid ma.s.ses of this earth, when exposed to the atmosphere, decay, and are resolved into loose materials, of which the vegetable soil upon the surface is in part composed; and, secondly, That these loose materials are washed away by the currents of water, and thus carried at last into the sea. Our author says "Here are two suppositions, neither of which is grounded on facts;" and yet he has but the moment before made the following confession: "That the soil, however, receives an increase from some species of stones that moulder by exposition to the air cannot be denied, but there is no proof that all soil has arisen from decomposition."--Surely _all soil_, that is made from the _hard and compact_ body of the land, which is my proposition, must have arisen from _decomposition_; and I have no where said, that _all_ the soil of this earth is made from the decomposition or detritus of those stony substances; for, ma.s.ses of looser sand and softer substances contribute still more to the formation of vegetable soils.

With regard to the other proposition, our author says, "Soil is not constantly carried away by the water, even from mountains."--I have not said that it is _constantly_ washed away; for, while it is soil in which plants grow, it is not travelling to the sea, although it be on the road, and must there arrive in time. I have said, that it is _necessarily_ washed away, that is, occasionally. M. de Luc's authority is then referred to, as refuting this operation of water and time upon the soil.

Now, I cannot help here observing, that our author seems to have as much misapprehended M. de Luc's argument as he has done mine. That philosopher, in his letters to the Queen, has described most accurately the decay of the rocks and solid mountains of the Alps and Jura, and the travelling of their materials by water, although he does not carry them to the sea. It is true, indeed, that this author, who supposes the present earth on which we dwell very young, is anxious to make an earth, _in time_, that shall not decay nor be washed away at all; but that time is not come yet; therefore the authority, here given against my theory, is the speculative supposition, or mere opinion, of a natural philosopher, with regard to an event which may never come to pa.s.s, and which I shall have occasion to consider fully in another place.

Our author had just now said, that I have advanced two suppositions, _neither of which is grounded on facts_: Now, with regard to the one, he has acknowledged, that the mouldering of stones takes place, which is the fact on which that proposition is grounded; and with regard to the other, the only authority given against it is founded expressly upon the moving of soil by means of the rain water, in order to make sloping plains of mountains. Here, therefore, I have grounded my propositions upon facts; and our author has founded his objections, first, upon a difficulty which he has himself removed; and, secondly, upon nothing but a visionary opinion, with regard to an earth which is not yet made, and which, when once made, is never more to change.

After making some unimportant observations,--of all water not flowing into the sea,--and of the travelled materials being also deposited upon the plains, etc. our author thus proceeds: "Hence the conclusion of our author relative to the imperfect const.i.tution of the globe falls to the ground; and the pains he takes to learn, _by what means a decayed world may be renovated_, are superfluous."--The object of my theory is to show, that this decaying nature of the solid earth is the very _perfection_ of its const.i.tution, as a living world; therefore, it was most proper that I should _take pains to learn_ by what means the decayed parts might be renovated. It is true, indeed, that this will be superfluous, when once that const.i.tution of the earth, which M. de Luc thinks is preparing, shall be finished; but, in the mean time, while rivers carry the materials of our land, and while the sea impairs the coast, I may be allowed to suppose that this is the actual const.i.tution of the earth.

I cannot help here animadverting upon what seems to be our author's plan, in making these objections, which have nothing to do with his examination. He accuses me of giving this world a false or imperfect const.i.tution, (in which the solid land is considered as resolvable, and the materials of that land as being washed away into the sea,) for no other reason, that I can see, but because this may imply the formation of a future earth, which he is not disposed to allow; and, he is now to deny the stratified construction of this present earth to have been made by the deposits of materials at the bottom of the sea, because that would prove the existence of a former earth, which is repugnant to his notion of the origin of things, and is contrary, as he says, to reason, and the tenor of the Mosaic history. Let me observe, in pa.s.sing, that M.

de Luc, of whose opinions our author expresses much approbation, thinks that he proves, from the express words and tenor of the Mosaic history, that the present earth was at the bottom of the sea not many years ago, and that the former earth had then disappeared.

But, what does our author propose to himself, in refusing to admit my view of the operations which are daily transacting upon the surface of this earth, where there is nothing dark or in the least mysterious, as there may be in the mineral regions? Does he mean to say, that it is not the purpose of this world to provide soil for plants to grow in? Does he suppose that this soil is not moveable with the running water of the surface? and, Does he think that it is not necessary to replace that soil which is removed? This is all that I required in that const.i.tution of the world which he has thus attacked; and I wish that he or any person would point out, in what respect I had demanded any thing unreasonable, or any thing that is not actually to be observed every day.

Thus I have endeavoured to show, that our author has attacked my theory in a part where I believe it must be thought invulnerable; but this is only, I presume, in order that he may make an attack with more advantage upon another part, viz. the composition of strata from the materials of an earth thus worn out in the service of vegetation,--materials which are necessarily removed in order to make way for that change of things in which consists the active and living system of this world. If he succeed in this attempt to refute my theory of the original formation of strata, he would then doubtless find it more easy to persuade philosophers that the means which I employ in bringing those materials again to light, when transformed into such solid ma.s.ses as the system of this earth requires, are extravagant, unnatural, and unnecessary. Let us then see how he sets about this undertaking.

With regard to the composition of the earth, it is quoted from my theory, that _the solid parts of the globe are in general composed of sand, gravel, argillaceous and calcareous strata, or of various compositions of these with other substances_; our author then adds, "This certainly cannot be affirmed as a fact, but rather the contrary; it holds only true of the surface, the basis of the greater part of Scotland is evidently a granitic rock, to say nothing of the continents, both of the Old and New World, according to the testimony of all mineralogists." This proposition, with regard to the general composition of the earth, I have certainly not a.s.sumed, I have maintained it as a fact, after the most scrupulous examination of all that, with the most diligent search, I have been able to see, and of all that authors have wrote intelligibly upon the subject. If, therefore, I have so misrepresented this great geological fact on which my theory is absolutely founded, I must have erred with open eyes; and my theory of the earth, like others which have gone before it, will, upon close examination, appear to be unfounded, as the dissertation now before us is endeavouring to represent it.

Our author here, I think, alleges that the contrary to this, my fundamental proposition, is the truth; and he has given us Scotland as an example in which his a.s.sertion (founded upon the testimony of all mineralogists), is ill.u.s.trated. Now my geological proposition should certainly be applicable to Scotland, which is the country that I ought to be best acquainted with; consequently, if what our author here a.s.serts be true, I would have deserved that blame which he is willing to throw on me. Let me then beg the readers attention for a moment, that I may justify myself from that charge, and place in its proper light this authority, upon so material a point in geology.

I had examined Scotland from the one end to the other before I saw one stone of granite in its native place, I have moreover examined almost all England and Wales, (excepting Devonshire and Cornwall) without seeing more of granite than one spot, not many hundred yards of extent; this is at Chap; and I know, from information, that there is another small spot in the middle of England where it is just seen. But, let me be more particular with regard to Scotland, the example given in proof.

I had travelled every road from the borders of Northumberland and Westmoreland to Edinburgh; from Edinburgh, I had travelled to Port-Patrick, and from that along the coast of Galloway and Airshire to Inverary in Argyleshire, and I had examined every spot between the Grampians and the Tweedale mountains from sea to sea, without seeing granite in its place. I had also travelled from Edinburgh by Grief, Rannock, Dalwhiny, Fort Augustus, Inverness, through east Ross and Caithness, to the Pentland-Frith or Orkney islands, without seeing one block of granite in its place. It is true, I met with it on my return by the east coast, when I just saw it, and no more, at Peterhead and Aberdeen; but that was all the granite I had ever seen when I wrote my Theory of the Earth. I have, since that time, seen it in different places; because I went on purpose to examine it, as I shall have occasion to describe in the course of this work.

I may now with some confidence affirm, from my own observation, and from good information with regard to those places where I have not been, except the northwest corner, I may affirm, I say, that instead of the basis of the greatest part of Scotland being a granitic rock, which our author has maintained as an evident thing, there is very little of it that is so; not perhaps one five hundred part. So far also as I am to judge from my knowledge of the mineral construction of England and Wales, which I have examined with the greatest care, and from the mineral chart which my friend Mr Watt made for me from his knowledge of Cornwall, I would say that there is scarcely one five hundred part of Britain that has granite for its basis. All the rest, except the porphyry and basaltes, consists of stratified bodies, which are composed more or less of the materials which I mentioned, generally, in the above quotation, and which our author would dispute.

But do not let me take the advantage of this error of our author with regard to the mineralogy of Scotland, and thus draw what may be thought an undue conclusion in favour of my general theory; let us go over and examine the continent of Europe, and see if it is any otherwise there than in Britain. From the granite of the Ural mountains, to that which we find in the Pyrenees, there is no reason, so far as I have been able to learn, to conclude that things are formed either upon any other principle, or upon a different scale. But, instead of one five hundred part, let us suppose there to be one fiftieth part of the earth in general resting upon granite, I could not have expressed myself otherwise than I have done; for, when I maintained that the earth in general consisted of stratified bodies, I said that this was only _nine tenths, or perhaps ninety-nine hundredths_ of the whole, and I mentioned that there were other ma.s.ses of a different origin, which should be considered separately. Our author, on the contrary, a.s.serts that the Old and New Worlds, as well as Scotland, are placed upon granite as a basis, which he says is according to the testimony of all mineralogists.

I shall have occasion to examine this opinion of mineralogists, in comparing it with those ma.s.ses of granite which appear to us; and I hope fully to refute the geological, as well as mineralogical notions with regard to that body. In the mean time, let me make the following reflection, which here naturally occurs.

My Theory of the Earth is here examined,--not with the system of nature, or actual state of things, to which it certainly should have corresponded,--but with the systematic views of a person, who has formed his notions of geology from the vague opinion of others, and not from what he has seen. Had the question been, How far my theory agreed with other theories, our author might very properly have informed his readers that it was diametrically opposite to the opinions of mineralogists; but, this was no reason for concluding it to be erroneous; on the contrary, it is rather a presumption that I may have corrected the error of mineralogists who have gone before me, in like manner as it is most reasonable to presume that our author may have corrected mine. Let us then proceed to examine how far this shall appear to be the case.

Our author has stated very fairly from the Theory, viz. _That all the strata of the earth, not only those consisting of calcareous ma.s.ses, but others superinc.u.mbent on these, have had their origin at the bottom of the sea, by the collection of sand, gravel, sh.e.l.ls, coralline, and crustaceous bodies, and of earths and clays variously mixed, separated, and acc.u.mulated._ He then adds, "Various geological observations contradict this conclusion. There are many stratified mountains of argillaceous slate, gneiss, serpentine, jasper, and even marble, in which either sand, gravel, sh.e.l.ls, coralline, or crustaceous bodies are never, or scarce ever found."

Here our author seems to have deceived himself, by taking a very partial view of things which should be fully examined, and well understood, before general conclusions are to be drawn from those appearances; for, although those particular objects may not be visible in the strata which he has enumerated, or many others, they are found in those strata which are either immediately connected and alternated with them, or with similar strata; something to that purpose I think I have said; and, if I had not, it certainly requires no deep penetration to have seen this clear solution of that appearance of those objects not being found in every particular stratum. He says that those marks of known materials are never or scarce ever found;--by _scarce ever_ he surely means that they are sometimes found; but if they shall only _once_ be found, his argument is lost. I have not drawn my geological conclusion from every particle in strata being distinguishable, but from there being certain distinguishable particles in strata, and from our knowing what had been the former state and circ.u.mstances of those distinguished parts.

If every stone or part of a stratum, in which those known objects are not immediately visible, must be considered as so _many geological observations that contradict my theory_, (of strata being formed from the materials of a former earth), then, surely every stone and every stratum which visibly contains any of those materials, must prove my theory. But if every stratum, where these are found in any part of it, is to be concluded as having had its origin at the bottom of the sea; and, if every concomitant stratum, though not having those objects visible or sufficiently distinct, must be considered as having had the same or a similar origin, that pretended contradiction of my theory comes to no more than this, that every individual stone does not bear in it the same or equal evidence of that general proposition which necessarily results from the attentive consideration of the whole, including every part.

But to see how necessary it is to judge in this manner, not partially, but upon the whole, we may observe, that there are two ways by which the visible materials or distinguishable bodies of a former earth, not only _may_ be rendered invisible in the composition of our present earth, but _must_ be so upon many occasions. These are, _first_, by mechanical comminution, which necessarily happens, more or less, in that operation by which bodies are moved against one another, and thus transported from the land to the bottom of the deepest seas; _secondly_, by chemical operations, (whatever these may be, whether the action of water or of fire, or both), which are also necessarily employed for consolidating those loose materials, that are to form the rocks and stones of this earth, and by means of which those materials are to have their distinguishable shapes affected in all degrees and obliterated.

Therefore, to demand the visible appearance of those materials in every stratum of the earth, or in every part of a stratum, is no other than to misunderstand the subject altogether. The geological observations, which have been thus alleged as contradicting my theory, are stratified bodies, containing proofs of the general origin which I attribute to the earth, but proofs which may not always be seen with equal facility as those which even convince the vulgar.

Our author has surely perplexed himself with what writers of late have said concerning primitive mountains as they are called, a subject of deeper search, than is commonly imagined, as I hope to show in the course of this work. It is an interesting subject of investigation, as giving us the actual view of those operations of nature which, in forming my Theory of the Earth, more general principles had led me to conclude _might be_. But, it is a subject which, I am afraid, will lead me to give farther offence to our author, however innocent I may be in giving nothing but what I have from nature.

The reason for saying so is this; I am blamed for having endeavoured to trace back the operations of this world to a remote period, by the examination of that which actually appears, contrary, as is alleged, "to reason, and the tenor of the Mosaic history, thus leading to an abyss, from which human reason recoils, etc." In a word, (says our author), "to make use of his own expression, _We find no vestige of a beginning._ Then this system of successive worlds must have been eternal." Such is the logic by which, I suppose, I am to be accused of atheism. Our author might have added, that I have also said--_we see no prospect of an end_; but what has all this to do with the idea of eternity? Are we, with our ideas of _time_, (or mere succession), to measure that of eternity, which never succeeded any thing, and which will never be succeeded? Are we thus to measure eternity, that boundless thought, with those physical notions of ours which necessarily limit both s.p.a.ce and time? and, because we see not the beginning of created things, Are we to conclude that those things which we see have always been, or been without a cause? Our author would thus, inadvertently indeed, lead himself into that gulf of irreligion and absurdity into which, he alleges, I have _boldly plunged_.

In examining this present earth, we find that it must have had its origin at the bottom of the sea, although our author seems willing to deny that proposition. Farther, in examining the internal construction of this stratified and sea-born ma.s.s, we find that it had been composed of the moved materials of a former earth; and, from the most accurate and extensive examination of those materials, which in many places are indeed much disguised, we are led necessarily to conclude, that there had been a world existing, and containing an animal, a vegetable, and a mineral system. But, in thus tracing back the natural operations which have succeeded each other, and mark to us the course of time past, we come to a period in which we cannot see any farther. This, however, is not the beginning of those operations which proceed in time and according to the wise economy of this world; nor is it the establishing of that, which, in the course of time, had no beginning; it is only the limit of our retrospective view of those operations which have come to pa.s.s in time, and have been conducted by supreme intelligence.

My princ.i.p.al anxiety was to show how the const.i.tution of this world had been wisely contrived; and this I endeavoured to do, not from supposition or conjecture, but from its answering so effectually the end of its intention, viz. the preserving of animal life, which we cannot doubt of being its purpose. Here then is a world that is not eternal, but which has been the effect of wisdom or design.

With regard again to the prospective view of the creation, How are we to see the end of that wise system of things which so properly fulfils the benevolent intention of its maker,--in giving sustenance to the animal part, and information to intellectual beings, who, in these works of nature, read what much concerns their peace of mind,--their intellectual happiness? What then does our author mean, in condemning that comprehensive view which I have endeavoured to take of nature? Would he deny that there is to be perceived wisdom in the system of this world, or that a philosopher, who looks into the operations of nature, may not plainly read the power and wisdom of the Creator, without recoiling, as he says, from the abyss? The abyss, from which a man of science should recoil, is that of ignorance and error.

I have thus shown, that, from not perceiving the wise disposition of things upon the surface of this earth for the preservation of vegetable bodies, our author has been led to deny the necessary waste of the present earth, and the consequent preparation of materials for the construction of another; I have also shown, that he denies the origin which I had attributed to the stratified parts of this earth, as having been the collection of moving materials from a former earth; and now I am come to consider the professed purpose of this paper, viz. the examination of solid stony substances which we find in those strata of our earth, as well as in more irregular ma.s.ses. Here, no doubt, my theory would have been attacked with greater success, had our author succeeded in pointing out its error with regard to the original composition of those indurated bodies, to which I ascribe fusion as the cause of their solidity. For, if we should, according to our author's proposition, consider those consolidated bodies as having been originally formed in that solid state, here the door might be shut against any farther investigation;--But to what purpose?--Surely not to refute my theory, but to explode every physical inquiry farther on the subject, and thus to lead us back into the science of darkness and of scepticism. But let us proceed to see our author's sentiments on this subject.