ART. III. GEOLOGICAL SPECULATION, AND THE MOSAIC ACCOUNT OF

CREATION.

What is the real province of Geological Science, and what the true boundary of its researches ?

In answer to these questions, we hope to shew that speculations, about the preadamic antiquity of the earth, do not lie within the proper sphere of this Science; that they constitute simply a diseased excrescence upon it, a fungus growth, which mars its beauty and justly excites the alarm and opposition of Believers in Revelation.

"Geology," says Sir Charles Lyell, "is the Science which investigates the successive changes that have taken place in the organic, and inorganic kingdoms of nature; it inquires into the causes of these changes, and the influence which they have exerted in modifying the surface, and external structure of our planet."

MacCulloch says, "But even the philosophical geologist does not inquire how the great Creator of the universe produced the globe that we inhabit."

The definition of Geology given by Dana is, "the science which treats of the structure, and mineral constitution of the globe, and of the causes of its physical features." It is described by Hitchcock as, "the history of the mineral masses that compose the earth, and of the organic remains which they contain."

"The Science," says Cleaveland, "of the compound minerals or aggregate substances which compose the earth, the relations which the several constituent masses bear to each other, their formation, structure, position and direction."

Broad as are these definitions, taken from the advocates of the preadamic theory, they evidently do not cover the ground under debate. All questions, then, pertaining to the mode and time of the first formations of the earth do not lie along the path, which the Geologist has marked out for himself, and their discussion is extraneous to his proper work. He here departs from the field he has undertaken to cultivate, and unfurls his sail upon the tempestuous seas of Speculation with neither compass, helm nor ballast, and his unstable bark, at the mercy of every wave, is "tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine," the more rapid his progress the greater his departure from the haven of true wis

dom. These gratuitous lucubrations of unwise and visionary Geologists, have contributed more than all other causes to the production of that jealousy which exists among thousands of pious persons against the science-and are not of any possible practical utility either in this, or any other department of human knowledge, which strips the abettors of the doctrine of every excuse, and they stand convicted of the unnecessary agitation of questions pregnant only with mischief. We regard this preadamic doctrine as dangerous to religion, and perfectly useless to Geology, and can discover no good reason why it is so tenaciously held by certain religions men. We cannot understand the hallucination which so infatuates them with this theory, that they incorporate it in their very descriptions of phenomena. It has given them new eyes, and taught them a new language.

So MacCulloch, in his strange argument in favor of theories generally, makes a most remarkable confession, "In none," says he, "can the work of observation proceed without general principles; without theory. Not understood, facts are useless; but not understood, they are not seen. He who knows what to see, sees; and, without knowledge, the man and the quadruped, equally seeing, see to the same purpose. And if we are ever to wait for future discoveries, the result is, that we neither know wHAT WE WANT, nor WHERE to seek, nor how to use what we may have obtained." Vol. 2d p. 382.

Now this is a bold endorsement of that result, which constitutes the great danger of theories, or as he evidently means, hypotheses, in scientific investigations and gives to them a pernicious tendency. Hypothesis can only be of value when it is made to hold a subordinate place, but it is a remorseless tyrant when we allow it such a mastery that he only can see, "who knows what to

In the direction of his theory, the shade of a shadow is solid substance, a mere appearance is demonstration, and even chasms in the evidence are readily filled up from a fertile and inventive imagination. We must suspect that new vision, for the language of the SEERS does not sound like the language of Moses, "who was the first historian of our race, was its divinely Inspired Law-giver, and who spake with God face to face as a man speaketh with his friend."

But, says the preadamic theorist, must I not believe "incontrovertible evidence?" We answer, undoubtedly, you must.But have you any evidence, much less any "incontrovertible evidence" to sustain your doctrine? Are your alleged facts indubit able? If so, why then has there been so much controversy among the different schools of Geology respecting those very professed facts? It is a matter of history that the Wernians and Huttonians were mutually opposed to each other in their observation and

description of those facts. While the one class saw every where the marks of water, the other was equally confident that the signs of fire were evidently visible.

Thus from the same phenomena they drew conclusions mutually destructive, because they had adopted different hypotheses, and with their powers of vision thus hoodwinked they only saw such things as the master required or allowed them to see. Both schemes cannot be true. And yet they have severally been advocated warmly, and with vast ability by men of learning on either side. Sometimes the one party would obtain the popular favor; and then again the fickle goddess would award the Laurel to the opposite party, and thus Geology vacillated between Neptune and Pluto, uncertain at which shrine it would worship.

The facts do not incontrovertibly establish those points most essential to the Systems of the Theorizers. What confidence then can we place in those facts as to the decision of the present question? If they are equivocal and dubious upon the foundation doctrines, why may they not be also de-ceptive in this instance? Some one will say that the dispute between these two contending parties has now closed in the permanent establishment of the Plutonian doctrines, which are at the present time entertained by the majority of Scientific men. History admonishes us not to be too precipitate in following the majority. In the days of Cuvier the current was equally strong in favor of the opposite theory.— It was confidently asserted that the "Water theory" had completely quenched the fire doctrines, and the Plutonian was not recognised in Scientific circles. So confident were Geologists in the truth of those doctrines, that they administered sharp rebukes to christian men who opposed the doctrine, yet the admonition. was more decorous, than the biting Sarcasm of Mr. Miller against the Antigeologists. However those doctrines passed to the shades, and so may the present theory.

However patent the geological facts may be, on this question the reading of their hieroglyphic characters is obviously conjectural. Different scholars read different lessons from them. Then what right has geology to dogmatize upon such treacherous evidence? Is it not the height of presumption for her upon such grounds to challenge the Inspired Volume? Reason would sug gest the utmost caution when theorizing upon such dubious and often controverted facts; especially when our speculations seem to run counter to the word of God. Any science, which makes such high demands as are made by Geology ought to be sustained by indisputable evidence and unanswerable arguments, or be treated with utter contempt. Is Geology thus sustained? Is the chain of its evidence complete, or its argument valid?

Mr. Miller regards his facts as demonstrated, and Geology as a demonstrative science, ready to take its place by the side of Astronomy and Geometry.

We do not hesitate to assert that the doctrine of the gradual production of the formations older than the fossil strata, is unsupported by even the shadow of evidence; it rests only upon mere assumption, however ingeniously defended it may be, by skilfully constructed sophisms. The narrative in Genesis leads us to believe, that the earth as it came from the hands of the Creator, was in a finished and perfect state, at once fitted to sustain vegetables and animals of the highest orders; and completely adapted to the ends for which it was created; hence, the Lord pronounced it "very good." Geologists should have proven, that the Creation spoken of in Genesis is not an absolute creation out of nothing, but a mere remodeling of matter already in existence: that we have no account of the first or original Creation; before they ventured upon the postulate, that only the ultimate atoms were created, and then left to the operation of material laws, to be developed in their highest forms during the lapse of interminable ages. It is one thing to show that it might have been thus formed, but quite a different thing to prove that it was actually so formed, and this last is the question under debate and assumed in the Geological postulate. Will any one assert that Deity could not create instantly the earth in a perfect state, every way fitted for the abode of his rational creature man. OMNIPOTENCE does not need interminable ages for the production of desired results. Why then do men exhibit so great a desire to exclude the Great First Cause, and to ascribe all the phenomena in relation to our Globe, to the operation of the feeble agency of second causes-the want of requisite energy, being supplied by giving them almost boundless ages for the production of their slow imperceptibly increasing results? A substitution of the INFINITE IN POWER for the almost infinite in Time. Who does not feel, when reading "The Mosaic Vision of Creation," by Hugh Miller, that he has virtually no place in his Diorama for JEHOVAH. All appears upon the canvass, as the work of natural and material laws developed in the creeping ages. His Chapter abounds with all that is beautiful in composition, but its total divesture of the Divine agency in his imagined unfolding scenes, would be entirely suited to the tastes of an avowed Atheist. We do not accuse Mr. Miller of any infidel tendency, but admitting that an Infidel was writing that chapter, would there be any necessity to alter a single sentence.

The CAUSE we have postulated being sufficient to produce the effect in an instant of time, it is unscientific to call in the aid of any other cause. If we must admit, at any stage, an absolute creation by the arm of Omnipotence of substances out of nothing, can any reason be given why so much time must be allowed to Almighty Power for the elaboration of final results? Reason and the Bible alike oppose the doctrine of the gradual development of the earth into a habitable state for man during the lapse of interminable ages.

The advocates of the almost eternal existence of the earth, previous to the creation of the human race, rest their theory principally upon three positions: 1st. The nature and order of the formations, usually known as primary and transition; 2d. The absence of human relics in the lower fossiliferous strata; and 3rd. The Great thickness of those formations.

The Geologist postulates respecting the condition of our Globe. "In the beginning," that it was matter in the form of vastly minute atoms widely dispersed; that a nucleus being somehow established, the atoms gravitated, and formed around it as a common centre; that the sudden condensation of the vapory mist liberated such an amount of latent caloric as to bring the whole into a state of fusion; that the refrigeration immediately began by the radication of heat into space; that a crust was thus formed of "oxidated metals and metalloids, constituting the various rocks of the granite series;" that this crust in cooling, cracked and thus numerous depressions were formed, which permitted the granite to disintegrate; that the debris of the granite was deposited in successive layers at the bottom of the seas and lakes, was there crystallised, and then elevated by subterranean fires, and thus formed gneiss-that the gneiss passed through a similar process of disintegration and ignition, for the formation of the schistose rocks, &c. Thus the surface of the earth in all the by gone ages was alternately depressed, disintegrated, deposited in seas, and then elevated by internal fires, until it was finally adapted to the abode of man.

Now, let it be remembered, that this "atomic theory" is of Pagan origin-that the "fire mist" is unsupported by a single fact, and the whole will assume its true character of wild speculation; nothing more than "the baseless fabric of a vision." To the whole scheme, the laws of gravitation are fatally opposed. Did the "mist" of all the planets and suns mingle? and are the ultimate atoms of these Heavenly Bodies the same? If so, why are some luminous and others opaque? If they are not, how did they occupy the same spaces in the same time? If they were different yet mingling, how were they separated? Not by gravitation for it would have equally attracted all of each kind in a definite sphere? Nor could the separation have been by chemical affinity for that attraction, only acts at insensible distances. Is gravitation sufficient to overcome the immense antagonistic force of the vast quantities of caloric combined with that "mist," which an eminent philosopher has calculated would have been many times more rare and light, than any gas the Chemist has ever produced in his Laboratory, if, as it is supposed the matter of which our solar system is formed, was originally distributed equally through that vast sphere in space, of which, the orbit of Neptune, supposed to revolve upon an axis, would be the boundary? Is gravity able