may be wanting in the habits of inductive philosophy: so that, whilst we give him full credit for his indefatigable researches, we may place no reliance on his ability to construct theories, or on his skill in creating worlds. The Nebular hypothesis has been lucidly described by an eminent writer in the following terms :--"Laplace conjectures that in the original condition of the solar system, the sun revolved upon his axis, surrounded by an atmosphere which, in virtue of excessive heat, extended far beyond the orbits of all the planets, as yet having no existence. The heat gradually diminished; and as the solar atmosphere contracted by cooling, the rapidity of its rotation increased by the laws of rotatory motion, and an exterior zone of vapour was detached from the rest, the central attraction being no longer able to overcome the increased centrifugal force. This zone of vapour might in some instances retain its form, as we see it in Saturn's ring; but more usually the ring of vapour would break into several masses, and these would generally coalesce into one mass, which would revolve about the sun. Such portions of the solar atmosphere, abandoned successively at different distances, would form 'planets in the state of vapour.' These masses of vapour, it appears from mechanical considerations, would have each its rotatory motion; and as the cooling of the vapour still went on, would each produce a planet, which might have satellites or rings, formed from the planet in the same manner as the planet was formed from the atmosphere of the sun."

Now we should think, that if the sun be the centre of light and heat, he would not be always parting with a portion of these genial influences: if so, he must continue to cool, until he shall be no longer a sun. And we wonder that this has not taken place long ago. However, since his luminous atmosphere has already contracted from "far beyond" the planet Herschel, which is nearly 2,000,000,000 of miles distance; and since Mercury is not 37,000,000 of miles from his body, we may expect that the next throw-off will plunge our system into utter darkness. Indeed, this must be the case, if it shall average the former effects, by which it originated eleven planets and Saturn's ring. And since old women tell us that the seasons were much milder in their youth than they are now, this awful crisis may speedily be expected to arrive; especially as it is so very long a time since Mercury was produced. In vain philosophers attempt to convince us of the stability of our planetary system; for since twelve accidents of this nature have already occurred, there is

every probability that the thirteenth will happen: and, when we remember that the planets also have already parted with their luminous atmosphere, once obtained from the sun, the probability of his becoming opaque is vastly increased; nay, according to Laplace's own "calculation of chances," we may regard it as a moral certainty, and may be in yearly expectation of this awful Occurrence. We wish that some of those astronomers who have so roused our apprehensions, would enter into a minute calculation of the rate at which this cooling process takes place, that we may know if the sun's light will continue during our lifetime; —which they might easily do, by comparing the nebulosity of Mercury with that of Venus and the earth. Geologists tell us that before the time of Moses, the earth's temperature must have been much greater than in the present day,-an inference which is drawn from the tropical nature of organic remains now found in temperate regions. So that, either Mercury was not then "thrown off" from the sun, or else his cooling process has gone forward at so fearful a rate as quite to establish the old women's report; and a tremendous catastrophe is approaching, accompa nied with a total destruction of the world's inhabitants, both vegetable and animal, in a chaos of utter darkness and frigidity.

Under these considerations, it is some consolation to take refuge in the absurdity of the hypothesis. Was this weighty world formed out of a luminous vapour? Then, why is it not still luminous? Are solids made out of vaporous and luminous particles? How came there to be water, which could not have existed, even in a state of vapour, in so tremendous a heat as that contemplated by Laplace? How did the globe cool, and whither has the heat gone? If solid particles formed the first nucleus, they must now be in the centre, and all idea of an internal fire must be abandoned;-how, then, will Dr. Pye Smith manufacture his world? Would not so great a heat have reduced every substance to white ashes, instead of modelling it into so beauteous a world?

Let us consider the foundation of this wild theory, and the reason assigned by its originator. "Such is in fact the first state of the nebula which Herschel carefully observed by means of his powerful telescopes. He traced the progress of condensation, not indeed on one nebula, (for this progress can only become perceptible to us in the course of centuries,) but in the assembly of nebulæ; much in the same manner as in a large forest we may trace the growth of trees among the examples of different ages

which stand side by side. He saw in the first place the nebulous matter dispersed in patches, in the different parts of the sky. He saw in some of these patches this matter feebly condensed round one or more faint nuclei. In other nebulæ, these nuclei were brighter in proportion to the surrounding nebulosity; when, by a farther condensation, the atmosphere of each nucleus becomes separate from the others, the result is multiple nebulous stars, formed by brilliant nuclei very near each other, and each surrounded by an atmosphere: sometimes the nebulous matter condensing in a uniform manner has produced nebulous systems which are called planetary. Finally, a still greater degree of condensation transforms all these nebulous systems into stars. The nebulæ, classed according to this philosophical view, indicate with extreme probability their future transformation into stars, and the anterior nebulous condition of the stars which now exist."

Here is a fresh subject of alarm. If Herschel could so distinctly trace the matter of these nuclei, they must be very close to our earth, for the nearest star appears a mere point even through the most powerful telescope: consequently a new sun may soon be formed in our neighbourhood, which shall wholly destroy the planetary system. We do not, however, allow that stars and planets are of the same composition: and if the above be the usual mode of originating suns, it may have nothing to do with manufacturing planets. We might relate Herschel's discovery (if such it be) in a very different manner, by assuming an opposite hypothesis. For instance: the whole materiel out of which the nebulous theory has originated, is to this effect: "He saw some dark spots surrounded with a luminous atmosphere of different intensities." How natural is such a variety, and how analogous to all the operations of the Creator! Laplace's figure of the trees of the forest is not admissible as an argument: it only shows that though he was an excellent astronomer, he was a poor logician; and we wonder not that Bonaparte found him to be a wretched Minister of State. The similarity existing between two objects must first be proved before any argument can be drawn from their homogeneity. But is there any point of resemblance between a luminous cloud and our opaque globe? Surely, not half so much as between a monkey and a man;- -whence Lord Monboddo argued that the human species was derived from an oran-outang. We readily grant, that a young oak will in due time become a large one; but we do not admit that a

the

bramble will ever grow into a beech tree. In the same way, French philosopher might have attempted to prove, that two or three oysters will be condensed into a crab, and that several of these will unite to form a tortoise.

Finally, the gradual refrigeration of the earth (and, consequently, the nebular hypothesis) has been shown impossible by Laplace himself, in one of his forgetful moments; for he asserts that had a cooling of the globe taken place, even to a very slight degree, it must have become sufficiently contracted in bulk to make an appreciable difference in the shortness of the day, which is proved from scientific records not to have been the case during the last two thousand years. Since this is a matter of fact, it follows, that both the Plutonians and Nebularists must be wrong in their systems; or else, that the laws of heat have undergone a complete change; under which supposition, no ground of argument remains, and one theory respecting former dispensations is quite as good as another.

We once thought, that the "Arabian Nights' Entertainments" could not be surpassed as a specimen of fictitious extravagance : but we were mistaken, for the Nebular hypothesis leaves it far behind. The one built fairy castles, the other builds fairy worlds.

Having taken a general view of the principal geological schemes, and having examined them upon the ground of their own merits, we have found that they will not stand the test of a logical or scientific scrutiny. They not only oppose one another in every essential point, but they are contradictory in themselves, and are repugnant to the well-known principles of experimental philosophy. We believe them also to be at variance with the records of Scripture, with the analogy of nature, and with many ascertained facts of natural history and geognosy. For the sake of perspicuity, we shall arrange our remarks on these points under the subjects of creation, the deluge, the deposition of strata, and the difference of species in organic remains.

THE SIX DAYS OF CREATION.

WHEN we peruse the Mosaical account of the origin of our system, we are struck with its wonderful ease and simplicity. It is concise; yet it tells us all that we require to know, in order

to worship the heavenly Artificer. Its very brevity seems to forbid the prying eye of vain curoisity, and to divert man's attention from that mysterious transaction to a class of subjects which he may better hope to understand. We know that the greatest human minds have been engaged for six thousand years in searching out and describing the works of creation; but whilst every addition to our knowledge extends the catalogue of these wonders, every advancement in science points out a still wider range for the walks of philosophy. If man, then, cannot yet inform us of all that has been made, can he expect to tell us how it was done? Should the geologist inquire if we may not lawfully speculate upon the mode in which a part of our system was primarily modelled, we would reply, that such an inquiry does not appear consonant with wisdom; for if all nature be one symmetrical whole, reason suggests that it was made at once, for a specific object, by a great master-mind.

This analogy of nature agrees with the records of Scripture. Moses relates, that God employed six days in constructing the world, having a wise intention in occupying that particular space of time. From the perfect facility with which He performed his work, it is evident that time was no object with Him, as it is with cosmogonists. His operations were not slowly progressive, like those of man: they were such as might be expected from Omnipotence. When he said, "Let it be," it was. This summary mode of creation is beautifully described in other parts of the Bible. "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth: for He spake, and it was done; He commanded, and it stood fast." (Psalm xxxiii. 6, 9.) "Through faith we understand that the worlds were formed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.” (Heb. xi. 3.)

That the six days employed in the creation were natural days, like those at present enjoyed, is evident from the reason assigned by the inspired penman: "God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made." (Gen. ii. 3; Exod. xx. 11.) It would appear, therefore, that in order to impress mankind with the duty of resting from ordinary toil on one day out of seven, Deity set a memorable example in his creating process. That such a rest is salutary, and even necessary, for man and the beasts employed by him, is attested by the most eminent natural, moral, and economic philosophers: so that nature agrees