ments-those on which the true solution depends-lie beyond our present experience, beyond the region of sense, and belong to revelation, and are articles of faith, not mere matter of fact. Looking at the mere facts, the geologist cannot account for them; they are beyond his reach they are supernatural, and so they would be if their living analogues at present existed on the earth. It is not their belonging to extinct species that raises the difficulty: it is from the strata themselves their ingredients, and the positions in which they are found-the difficulty arises. This is the point to grapple with, and we must fairly grapple with, and not evade it, to be crowned with success.

And we must find a solution which will apply to all the points involved, and not merely to one of the points in question. The Deluge of Noah is a point in question, and it differs from the question concerning stratification in two most important particulars-it is so circumstantially described in Scripture that, if received at all, it must be understood literally-and it is so engrafted on the traditions of all mankind, that, if we reject it, no tradition is of value.

Dr. Burton feels that he cannot go the length of the geologists in this he cannot reject such unequivocal declarations of Scripture-such universal tradition as this; and, being admitted on these grounds, it follows, of course, that he believes it to have been universal, covering the tops of the highest mountains, and miraculous, brought about by the immediate operation of God. All this Dr. Burton allows concerning the Deluge of Noah; but, with singular inconsistency, holds with the geologists, that the deluges by which strata were formed might be brought about by natural causes, although these deluges were so vastly more impressive as to have left imperishable memorials in the strata which they formed; whereas the Deluge of Noah has left no memorial. We say none and pin them to this; for it forms the basis of their whole system: they say that no remains of man are to be found among the strata, and that therefore these strata were formed before the creation of man.

What is this but saying that natural causes are sufficient to account for all that we behold of a vast, and grand, and magnificent description in the world?but we will give to God the credit of one act which is reported to have taken place, yet which was comparatively insignificant, and has left behind it no memorial?

287

ART. II.-Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. London: Churchill. 1845.

A MAN who overhears a discussion respecting facts of which he is himself certain is apt to be much amused. The elaborate guesses of one man, the dogmatic assertions of another, the very probable miss which all parties make of the point which would lead them to the truth, will often make him smile, and sometimes astonish him. The master of the secrets of Nature might smile, in like manner, if he were to amuse himself by glancing over the speculations of the various theorists who have attempted to interpret her actions, and trace her steps. In the multifarious ideas of these men he would find much to pity, something to despise, and little perhaps to admire but the fertility of their fancy.

If our

Speculative theory may be called the holiday play of literature. The old Greek philosophers, who claimed for themselves a perpetual holiday, constantly delight us by their elegant imaginations we are never disappointed, for we look for nothing else. But a modern theorist is like an idle boy who plays marbles in school hours. He pretends to be earnestly poring over his book while he is busy at "odd or even" under the table. theorists claimed but probability for their notions, we might be less disposed to be angry with them; but they clothe their wildest flights with the semblance of abstract reasoning, and work a poetic conceit by the rules of a mathematical formula. It is as if the historical novel should lay claim to history. While the reader imagines himself plodding on the ground he is suddenly lifted into the air, and then let down as rudely. What wonder if he cannot always trace his road?

The speculator may deceive many by the mass of fact and circumstance which he assembles round his theories. It may be that he deceives himself. He argues so well on his assumptions that he becomes seduced by his own logic, and drives from his mind the suspicion that the assumption itself may be untrue. The house upon the sand might have been as good a structure as the house upon the rock: we can only lament to see so much good building thrown away in the one case, and so much good reasoning in the other; for the floods will come in their season, however distant they may be thought both by architect and logician.

The advantages of theorizing are undoubtedly great; but its seductions are still greater. Many, except for the excitement of the theories, would never study the facts of science; and many, even of strong and regular minds, must occasionally be

guile the labour of thought with a little of the relaxation of fancy. Theory, besides, serves as a link for facts, and gives to observation a definite object, without which it might seem tedious or useless. Still its mischiefs outweigh the good. Every page of the history of science presents a period when the prevalence of theory almost annihilated the accuracy and distinctness of observation. The following remarks of Dr. Chalmers on Sir Isaac Newton bear so strongly upon the subject, and upon the mode of reasoning adopted in the work before us, that we cannot abstain from quoting them. It was, says he, "a distinguishing and characteristic feature of his great mind that it kept a tenacious hold of every position which had proof to substantiate it; but a more leading peculiarity was, that it put a most determined exclusion on every position destitute of such proof. The strength and soundness of Newton's philosophy was evinced as much by his decision on those doctrines of science which he rejected as by his demonstration of those doctrines of science which he was the first to propose. He expatiated in a lofty region, where he met with much to solicit his fancy, and tempt him to devious speculation, He might easily have found amusement in intellectual pictures: he might easily have palmed loose and confident plausibilities of his own on the world. But no-he kept by his demonstrations, bis measurements, and his proofs."

The author of the "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation" is a theorist on the largest scale. He begins with the theories of astronomy-follows with the theories of geology -pursues to the utmost every speculation on the formation both of mind and matter, and finishes with a prophecy of the future. His chain of theories is connected by one leading idea -the gradual and natural development of all things from a single source. The attempt is a bold one; and, as the author boasts, never made before to its full extent. Not that his notions are separately new, but their connection is striking. What can be grander than a history of the universe, could we but admit its truth? The work itself is the production of an active and enquiring mind-prone to speculate and willing to overlook the difficulties of its case-to disregard hostile facts-and to make every use of facts which seem to agree with its opinion. He writes with elegance and spirit; and has contrived to give some interest to the dullest part of his subject. Evidently he has been little accustomed to accurate observation on his own part-the idea of such a work would never have occurred to an observer. He has apparently spent his time over the pages the magazine and cyclopedia with some diligence: though, as

of

we shall see, he occasionally allows modern discoveries to escape him. A man is always able to produce from studies like these a more popular essay than can be produced by the discoverer. The best talkers are those who have gained their knowledge from conversations: they get it in a colloquial form; in the same way, he who has gained his facts from books, rather than observations, will write the best book. For this reason the work before us is likely to be extensively read, and might have been of real use had its object been different. The importance of the subjects it discusses will justify us in following its reasonings chapter by chapter, through each stage of the progress of creation. If we are unsparing in our criticisms, let it be remembered that the evil we seek to avert is great; that it is the growing vice of the day to substitute opinion for fact; and to fall back into the careless mode of arguing which fifty years ago was banished with so much difficulty. The multitude, both of authors and readers, nurtures the vice, and renders the check more necessary the temptations to ease, both of reading and writing, are sadly increased by present circumstances.

The undertaking which the author has proposed to himself requires him, in the first place, to create the universe from chaos. There is a simplicity and magnificence about the theories of the universe which may atone for our want of entire perception of them, and for some lurking disbelief of their positive truth. The illustration of such a subject as the nebular hypothesis is well suited to the excellences which we have admitted in this writer—his style is forcible and intelligible, and his meaning clear; yet he cannot keep clear of the blunders which are sure to befall abstract reasoners in natural philosophy.

He explains the prevalent opinion, that the sun was at one time surrounded with a nebular atmosphere, coextensive with the present limits of the solar system: the rotation of this atmosphere destroyed the equilibrium of its particles: the outer particles were first thrown off by the centrifugal force, and formed an extraneous ring which was at last rolled up into Georgium Sidus. The particles now forming the outside of the nebular mass were, by the agency of the same centrifugal power, first separated, and then converted into Saturn, and so of the rest. In considering the details of this subject, he finds that the planets nearer to the sun move at a greater velocity than those more distant; and this he explains by instancing the action of the centrifugal power upon a ball fastened to the end of a string. If we take one end of the string, and, by twirling the ball round, suffer the string to wind round our fingers, the velocity of the ball will increase as its orbit becomes smaller, and the ball itself

VOL. XVIII.—U

draws nearer to the central cause of its motion. True but the hypothesis in the one case is at variance with the hypothesis in the other. No particle, in the first case, draws nearer the centre of the system: on the contrary, as the formation of the system itself depends upon the expulsive power of the centrifu gal force, the particle rather recedes from the centre. The hypothesis never supposes the component parts of Mercury to have revolved in the orbit of Saturn. The explanation is altogether formed on a false analogy.

Where the analogy is real and decided the argument fails. The size of the earth at one time, he says, was as large as that of the orbit of the moon. The earth then performed his rotas tion in twenty-nine days and a half. She shrank to her present size; and her particles have in this instance really drawn nearer to their centre. Yet they move much slower, for they move a sixtieth part of the distance in a thirtieth of the time.

The author remarks, speaking of the centrifugal and centripetal forces—“While these (forces) remain exactly counterpoised, the mass necessarily continues entire ; but the least excess of the centrifugal over the attractive force would be attended with the effect of separating the mass and its outer parts." It is not true that the least excess of the one force over the other would be attended with this result. The mutual cohesion of the parts would for a time prevent such a separation. In fact, a body revolving on its axis, with a certain velocity, of course retains the figure of revolution, without which it could not permanently revolve at all. This velocity is confined within certain limits. If it passes those limits, the body does not instantly separate, but alters its shape, alternately contracting and expanding, till, if the force be not increased, the superabundant velocity is destroyed by the action of the parts, and the body resumes its regular form.-(See Ivory, paper in the Philosophical Transactions for 1824, p. 143).

1

We notice these errors, as forming not only blots in the work before us, but serious difficulties in the way of the theories themselves which the work maintains. The author is not the man to allow himself to be stopped by difficulties he jumps the gate instead of opening it--but we do not ride so mettled a steed, and may be pardoned for pausing. We have a fault to notice of a different character. The law of the ratio of the periodic times to the distances of the planets is (says the author) a most surprising result." Why so surprising? What other of the laws of nature is not equally surprising? Are we to be astonished in the same way at the law of gravitation ?-or the elliptic form of the planetary orbits? Yet Kepler's third