6 
The true bearing of the first part of these observations at once 
becomes apparent when applied to a passage in the history 
of geology. Before the time of Werner, more than a century 
was required to elicit the scattered facts and generalizations 
deduced by previous observers. Of Werner it might be said, 
that “ his merit consisted in this, that he infused into the body 
of the science a new spirit.”* The breadth of his views respect- 
ing the universal superposition of strata, his application of their 
structure to mining, and the eloquent sincerity with which he 
advocated his doctrines, raised an enthusiasm that spread over 
the continent of Europe, and gained numerous disciples to the 
cause. 
This, perhaps, more than counterbalanced the prejudice 
suffered by our science in the promulgation of the erroneous 
hypothesis that the ancient rocks of every description were 
successively deposited over the whole earth, from aqueous sus- 
pension or solution in a “ chaotic fluid.” The very excitement 
roused by the bitter controversy maintained between the fol- 
lowers of Werner and the more philosophical disciples of 
Hutton, brought constant accessions of inquirers into the 
field, whose opinions, right or wrong, kept up a continued 
interest in the subject, till, weary of controversy, the very keenest 
advocates of the most exclusive Wernerian theories began to 
see the necessity of grounding their speculations on a more rigid 
examination of facts. 
Of all the men that have heretofore illustrated the science 
of geology none is greater than Hutton, whose name was so 
long used as their watchword by the opponents of the Wer- 
nerians. lie at once threw aside the minor proofless speculations 
with which older writers bewildered their readers, and by the 
strict union of observation and generalization, his compre- 
hensive mind grasped the main outlines of the physical section 
of the subject, and brought geology within the pale of inductive 
reasoning. Not a scrap of illustrative map or section, and but 
little of local description, accompanies Hutton’s “ theory of the 
* Liebig’s Letters on Chemistry, 1851. p. 26. Said of Lavoisier. 
