32 ON THE REVOLUTION? OF 



that portion of the superficies of the glohe which geologists have 

 termed transition rocks. We meet here and there with layers of shells 

 interposing between some granites more recent than others, amongst 

 divers schists and amongst some later deposites of the coarse marble. 

 Life which sought to possess itself of this globe seems in these early 

 periods to have struggled against the inert nature which first predomi- 

 nated ; it was a long time ere it entirely gained the mastery it con- 

 tended for, and appropriated to itself the right of continuing and rais- 

 ing the solid coating of the earth. 



Thus it is undeniable, that the masses which now form our highest 

 mountains were originally in a state of liquefaction ; for a long time 

 they were covered by waters which did not then nourish living bodies ; 

 it was not only after the appearance of vitality that important changes 

 took place in the nature of the deposited matter ; the masses formed 

 before have changed, as well as those subsequently produced ; they 

 have even undergone violent changes in their situation, and a portion 

 of these changes took place when these masses alone were existing, 

 and were not covered by layers of shells. The proof is evident in the 

 overthrows, in the dislocations, the rents, which we perceive in the 

 layers, as well as in the posterior layers of earth, which are even 

 more numerous and more strongly marked. 



But these primitive masses have experienced other revolutions, sub- 

 sequently to the formation of these secondary layers of earth, and 

 have perhaps occasioned, or at least shared, some of those changes 



whatever heat it he ? If heat be a fluid, as many philosophers suppose, what 

 becomes of the fluid heat of the nebulous matter, as the matter cools down ? Into 

 what unoccupied region does it find its way ? 



Many questions of the same nature might be asked, and the conclusion to be 

 drawn is, that every new physical theory which we include in our view of the universe 

 involves us in new difficulties and perplexities, if we try to erect it into an ultimate 

 and final account of the existence and arrangement of the world in which we live. 

 With the evidence of such theories looked upon as scientific generalizations of ascer- 

 tained facts, with their claims to a place in our natural history, we have here 

 nothing to do. But if they are put forward as a disclosure of the final cause of that 

 which occurs, and as superseding the necessity of looking further or higher ; if they 

 claim a place in our natural theology, as well as our natural philosophy, we conceive 

 that their pretensions will not bear a moment's examination. 



Leaving them to other persons and to future ages to decide upon the scientific 

 merits of the nebular hypothesis, we think that the final fate of this opinion cannot 

 in sound judgment affect all the view which we have tried to illustrate : the view of 

 the universe as the work of a wise and omnipotent Creator. Let it be supposed 

 that the point to which this hypothesis guides us is the ultimate point of physical 

 science, that the most remote glimpse we can obtain of the material universe by our 

 natural faculties shows it to us occupied by a boundless abyss of brilliant matter. 

 Still we ask, how space came to be thus occupied, how matter came to be thus lumi- 

 nous ? If we fully establish by physical proofs that the first fact which can be 

 traced in the history of the world is, that " there was light," we shall still be led 

 even by our natural reasoning faculties to suppose that before this could possibly 

 occur, " G-od said, let there be light." — Eng. Ed. 



