i 24>2 ) 



1. Progress of Geology. — 2. Werner according to Cuvier, 

 Lyell, and MacCulloch. — 3. Hutton according to Playfair 

 and MacCulloch. — 4. Antiquity of' the Earth. 



1. Progress of Geology. 

 X HE fortunes of this science, during the last half century, have 

 conducted it, by a very remarkable course, at the same time, 

 through four main divisions of its subject, and through the four 

 principal scientific nations of Europe. 



Germany : Primary Geology. — The first form under which 

 this portion of knowledge was systematically presented, was 

 mineralogical geology, the cultivation of which had Germany 

 for its point of origin and activity. The disciples of Werner 

 received from their highly gifted teacher an arrangement of 

 rocks, which taught them to distinguish their kinds according 

 to the mineralogical character, and to look for the same succes- 

 sion of such members in every part of the world. As a doc- 

 trine generally applicable, nothing can be more hasty and base- 

 less than this. The generality of the type laid down by the 

 school of Freyberg, was an assumption perfectly gratuitous ; 

 nor could any progress be made in determining the order of 

 superposition of strata, till the distinction and identification of 

 them were made to depend on all their characters ; and of these, 

 the marks derived from their organic contents are incomparably 

 more important than those from their matei'ials *. But to this 



" The accomplished author of the above remarks will probably find, on 

 reconsidering his judgment, that it is rather a hasty one. AVerner taught 

 that mineralogical, geological, and organic characters, were to be employed 

 in determining formations, and that probably the same general geological ar- 

 rangements would be found to prevail throughout the earth. But, he added, 

 the truth or falsity of this view, in regard to the similarity of formations, 

 ■can only be determined by the united labours of geologists continued for a 

 long series of years. He attached much importance to the mineralogical 

 and geological characters, and in this he was right, notwithstanding all that 

 has been said to the contrary. What are modern geologists at this moment 

 ■doing, but following out the Wernerian mode of investigation, and his view 

 in regard to the universality of formations ? Do not geologists in Britain 

 determine the characters of formations according to the Wernerian rules, 

 and is this not also the case on the Continent ? — are not the geologists of 

 England endeavouring to identify the formations of our island with those of 

 Germany, France, and Italy ? — are not the Americans doing the same ? — 

 and do we not find geologists tracing our old red sandstones, coal formations, 

 lias, oolites, &c. throughout India ? What is this but attempting to prove 

 the universality of formations ?— Edit. 



