tance of the subject must be our apology. It is ardently hoped, that the lovely and peculiarly christian temper, which is so persuasively recommended, and so beautifully exemplified, by the author of this little work, may be extensively promoted by its publication, on both sides of the ocean; and that the writer will continue to instruct and edify the reli- gious community, both in his own country and in this, and to disarm the irreligious of their prejudices against the gospel, by publications of a similar tendency.

ART. V.-REVIEW OF WORKS ON THE STRUCTURE OF THE EARTH.

Essay on the Temperature of the Interior of the Earth. By M. L. CORDIER, Member of the French Institute, Professor at the Museum of Natural History, etc. Translated by the Junior Class in Amherst College. Am herst, Mass. August, 1823. 18mo. pp. 94. J. S. & C. Adams. Considerations on Volcanoes, the probable Causes of their Phenomena, the Laws which determine their March, the Disposition of their Products, and their Connection with the present State and past History of the Globe; leading to the Establishment of a New Theory of the Earth. By PortLET SCOPE, Secretary of the Geological Society. London: 1825. 8vo. pp. 270. Outline of the Course of Geological Lectures given in Yale College. By Benjamin Silliman M. D. LL. D. Professor of Chemistry, Mineralogy, etc. in said College. New-Haven: 1829. pp. 128. Hezekiah Howe.

We consider it our duty, as Christian Spectators, to watch the progress and changes that are taking place in the various departments of science: for such is the connec tion between all the branches of human knowledge, that probably a science cannot be named, which has not a bearing, direct or indirect, upon theology. Particularly obvious is this connection in the case of geology. Geologists, as well as the sacred writers, profess to give us the early history of our globe; and the apparent coincidence or discrepancy be tween these sources of evidence, has long been a fruitful theme of discussion and exultation, both with the infidel and

the christian.

Not long since, we gave our readers a detailed account of certain recent discoveries by Dr. Buckland and others, which seemed to throw no small degree of light upon the subject of the Noachian deluge. More recently, some new and impor tant theoretical views relating to the original formation and present internal condition of our globe, have been advanced, by names so respectable, and adopted, wholly or partially, by so large a number of geologists, that we have thought it might

be acceptable to our readers to be made acquainted with the nature of these theories, and their bearing upon christian theology. That bearing is not, indeed, particularly important; still, it is a point which ought not to be entirely overlooked. A period is approaching, when every branch of knowledge, as well as every other human pursuit, will be made subservient to the divine glory, and have inscribed upon it, "Holiness to the Lord;" and when no object of scientific research will be pursued any farther than it can be done in consistency with this first of all objects. Men of science, we believe, are beginning to feel that the glory of God is the principle that should regulate all their efforts. To inquire into the bearing of those efforts upon christianity, will, therefore, be always important.

The history of the theoretical part of geology is very instructive. And although almost every one has some vague notions about the extravagance of geological hypotheses, yet few have ever attended to the subject systematically. Indeed, this history must be gathered in so many places, and out of so much rubbish, that nothing but strong curiosity, or the calls of professional duty, will sustain a man through the investigation. We do not deem it essential, however, to the subject we have taken in hand, to give a full view of the progress of theorizing in respect to the original formation, present condition, and future destruction of the earth. We shall, therefore, only allude to a few of the principal Theories of the Earth.

These theories, with few exceptions, are generally and justly considered as scarcely equalled in extravagance and wildness in any other branch of physical science. For this fact we think it not difficult to account. All the earlier geological hypotheses were almost entirely the work of imagination. Scarcely any of the facts, on which the present science of geology is founded, were correctly known at the period that gave birth to these hypotheses. Hasty generalizations,— building up theories upon insulated half-understood facts, have done incalculable mischief in this science, and covered it with an opprobrium, which generations to come will not see entirely wiped away.

It ought not to be forgotten, that in geology there is an important distinction between theory and hypothesis.

"The former," says Professor Silliman, in his Outline, "draws conclusions directly from facts, and follows strictly the inductive course. It has therefore the same foundation as general physics; and its conclusions often approximate to demonstration. The latter also appeals to facts, but in a manner less conclusive; and it makes suppositions of facts, not actually

proved to exist. For instance: when we observe, that vast quantities of aerial agents, especially of steam, are ejected from volcanoes, we reason conclusively, that these agents are employed to raise the lava, and that they cause it to flow over the crater, or to burst through the side of the mountain; for we know, from familiar facts and experiments, that these agents have power enough to produce such an effect; we know that in the case supposed, they are present in sufficient quantities, and we are ignorant of any other causes, that might produce these effects, or that may be believed to exist in these circumstances. But, when we inquire for the causes of the heat that produces the steam, and evolves the other aerial agents, we are obliged to speculate. We may say, perhaps, that the voltaic or galvanic powers are the principal agents, and we may even render it highly probable, nay, quite credible; but we cannot prove the fact, and therefore our solution rests as an hypothesis." Outline, p. 9.

There is another point, about which it is very important that every man, who would judge correctly of geological theories and hypotheses, should have correct ideas. Very many of the appearances that meet the observer in examining the crust of our globe, seem to be the result of certain second causes slowly operating for ages. Now, shall we adopt the principle that such causes have in fact operated, as they seem to have done, or shall we say that God, in creating the rocks, might have given them the appearance of having been formed by a slow process, although their production out of nothing may have been instantaneous? We will state a case-the most important one in which the principle is concerned. In all the rocks, except those of the primary class, we find very numerous examples of imbedded substances, which exactly resemble sea and land animals, except that they are different in their position, and most of them are actually converted into stone. Were these once living animals, which at death were enveloped in a stony matrix, and slowly transformed by the petrifactive process into the same substance; or is it only one of the modes in which creative power exhibits itself? To an experienced geologist at the present day, we should not think of seriously propounding such a question; nor should we propose it at all, did we not know that up to this time there exists, even among some intelligent men, a leaning towards the opinion that petrifactions were never living animals, but merely lusus naturae; or, to speak more religiously, were created in just the state in which we find them. We will therefore state the argument which, as geologists conceive, establishes the contrary opinion.

In the oldest secondary rocks, petrifactions are generally found entirely composed of stone,-sometimes of limestone, and sometimes of flint, or a similar mineral. These lie buried the deepest in the earth. But as we ascend towards the sur

face, we find the petrifactions made up partly of stony matter, and partly of the harder parts of the animal itself. Still higher in the series, these organic remains consist entirely of the bones and other parts of animals, that are not easily decomposed; and in a few instances, ex. gr. the rhinoceros found in an ice bank in Siberia, and the tiger in the frozen gravel of the same country, the animal is found in a perfect state of preservation, having been enveloped in ice before the process of putrefaction began, and at a period as far back, at least, as the deluge of Noah. Now if we maintain, in regard to any one variety of these organic remains, that they were never living animals, but were originally created as we find them, we must admit the same in regard to all the other varieties; since they pass imperceptibly into one another. If we may say that the masses of flint and limestone, that have precisely the shape of zoophytes and shells, were at first created of such a shape and texture, we must grant also that the frozen elephant of Siberia, whose flesh the wolves and dogs devoured, never was a living animal, but was originally created a lifeless mass of flesh and bones. Nay farther, on this principle, what proof have we, except so far as the parish register goes, that the numerous organic remains, apparently human, found a few feet below the earth's surface, ever formed a part of living men? Suppose they are enveloped in a coffin and a shroud could not God have created these as well as any thing else?

From such absurdities, we are freed only by admitting that organic remains were deposited at successive periods, where they are now found, after the death of the animal; and that their rocky, or earthy matrix, gradually accumulated around them; while, as the organic animal or vegetable matter slowly escaped, siliceous or calcareous particles took its place. Like absurdities follow in every other instance, where we attempt to explain geological appearances, that seem to have resulted from second causes, by imputing them to an immediate and extraordinary exertion of almighty power. We ought, therefore, to admit the operation of second causes in all geological phenomena, where they seem to have operated. we settle this principle at the outset of our inquiries, it will greatly assist us in judging impartially of geological theories and hypotheses.

If

But we shall draw still more important aid, from an extensive and thorough knowledge of the facts which this science discloses. At the present day these have become extremely numerous. We know of no one book, nor any five or ten books, which embrace them all. Yet are they all important

in making up an opinion concerning a theory. And it is probably in a great measure owing to an ignorance of facts, that so many crude geological hypotheses have been, and still are, broached. In no science whatever has hasty generalization and induction done so much injury as in geology. Yet the nature of geological facts is such, as to present an almost irresistible temptation to theorize, until a man has learned by bitter experience, the danger of so doing. We can scarcely find a man of respectable knowledge in other things, who is not ready, and with confidence too, to account for any insulated fact he may happen to stumble upon among the rocks. But if intelligent men, who have never paid particular attention to geology, are disposed to smile, or to sigh, at the extravagances of the hypotheses of geologists, they may be assured that their own attempts at explanation are viewed with no greater complacency, among the cultivators of this science. Indeed, we have witnessed the contemptuous sneer, with which the infidel geologist has received the crude observations of the christian minister on these subjects; and have been pained to observe that the minister's attainments in other things were measured in the infidel's opinion by his knowledge, or rather ignorance, of geology; and hence the self-satisfying conclusion was drawn, that such a man might be expected to embrace christianity.

It is difficult enough for a man, even after all the facts in geology are known to him and have been well digested, to form correct conclusions or theories; as the numerous failures in this respect, among the ablest philosophers, abundantly testify. Indeed, we hesitate not to say, that in no part of natural history, and perhaps even of physical science, does it require such comprehensive views, such nice discrimination, such an accurate balancing of facts, in order to make correct inductions, as in geology. But even after they are correctly made, the geologist labors under a peculiar difficulty in defending them. For though this science is exciting an extensive and increasing interest, and though professors in our literary institutions, and lecturers in our cities and villages, have done much to disseminate knowledge on the subject, still, there is such a deficiency of accurate and thorough knowledge of this kind, that he who would defend a geologi cal theory or hypothesis, must first give a detailed account of the facts on which it rests. He cannot, as may be done in most other branches of knowledge, presume upon a public acquaintance with the facts, not even among educated men. For although geology receives as much attention in our seminaries of learning as is consistent with the claims of other