326 
Wernerian and Iluttoman Systems of Geology. [Nov. 
ly so called ; for be it remembered, that the most important part, — or rather, I 
<Wht to say, tlie most original and characteristic feature, of the theory of this great 
rntm was the arrangements which it embraced for the destruction and regeneration 
of worlds ; and that its distinguished author “ saw nothing in the phenomena of 
Geology, but the ordinary operations of actual causes, carried on in the same 
manner through infinite ages, without the trace of a beginning, or the prospect of 
an end.” And, however much his theory may be calculated to captivate the ima- 
gination— however much we may admire the vastness of the genius which framed it, 
and the acuteness of the arguments by which itlias been supported, i am convinced 
that the Editor of the Gleanings in Science will entirely concur with Buckland, when 
lie says, “ that such views are, if possible, still more at variance with the conclu- 
sions of Geology, (as a science founded on observation,) than they are witli those 
of theology.” Do not imagine that I wish, by these remarks, to express my belief 
in the Wernerian theory. No one can be more aware than I am of its numerous 
imperfections, of the many nnphilosophical opinions which it embraces : — but at the 
same time, the name of Werner must be dear to every Geologist ; and I cannot help 
thinkin" that if we candidly peruse the writings to which the discussion of these 
rival theories gave rise, we shall conclude that the Werncrians, so far from being 
little qualified to weigh the merits of the question, hatl in the stale of knowledge, at 
least, -AO equal show of reason on their side, and that Playfair found in Dr. Murray 
an opponent worthy of hitnself. . , ' . , , , 
The originators and defenders of these rival theories have passed away, and, 
while their friends and cotemporaries are still amongst us, the discussions in which 
they took so keen a part, have become little more than matters of history. The 
characteristic features of both theories have been lost sight of, except hv one or two 
of their most devoted supporters ; and the best of our present Geologists have set 
about collecting facts with a perseverance, which has nobly rewarded their exer- 
tions and which has tended to throw a strong light on all the phenomena ot 
Geology. In the self same number of the Gleanings, in which the sentence, for- 
merly quoted, occurs, you mention the experiments of M. Ganal, relative to the 
formation of “artificial diamonds 1” Here, then, is the hardest known substance 
formed in the laboratory of the chemist in the great laboratory of Nature wliat 
may not have been effected by similar agencies ! My only object in alluding to this 
circumstance, is to proveto you, that the Wernenans, also, might have found among 
our late discoveries, many wonderous facts in support of their opinions. But I am tar 
from wishing to argue in favor of that theory, (still held by some, and those not 
the least distinguished of our cotemporaries,) which gives to our globe, exclusive- 
ly a Neptunian origin. On the contrary, 1 am willing to allow, that many rocks, 
but more especially those of the overlaying trap formation, have in all probability 
owed their formation to an igneous origin, or, if you prefer the expression, to a 
Volcanic Agency, how generated, or how modified, it is not necessary to enquire. 
These remarks may appear to you trite and common-place ; I do not, however, write 
for the practised Geologist, but rather with the view of guarding your uu-Geulogical 
readers against an impression to which the sentence quoted might give rise,— an im- 
pression whicli might lead them to suppose that the Huttoman theory, with all its 
extravagances, had again come into fashion, and that a science, the importance of 
which has now been universally acknowledged, had again dwindled into a system ot 
Va But h l may*be asked, by those to whom I have more particularly addressed 
mvself, what theory has been substituted in the room of those which have been 
exploded. To this I can only answer that Geologists^ now-^dhys,are^ot mere 
iii ou mams auu vaucys u i tuc • - 
serrations ; and that they have been endeavouring to trace m the structure ot our 
globe, that same unity of design which pervades all the works of the Creator , and, 
that it seems agreed on all hands that, without adopting any particular theory, 
we must patiently wait till the future progress of discovery shall have cleared 
away the mists which at present involve the subject, before we can pretend to form 
any decided opinion relative to what has been termed the theory ot the eaitn. 
I may remark at the same time, that our best modern theorists, without pretending to 
draw any general and sweeping conclusion, have confined themselves to a .much more 
simple question, a question which merely refers to the igneous or aqueous origin of 
particular rocks and suites of formations, and that the best modern observers seem 
inclined to adopt a theory which, without infringing on the doctrine of final causes, 
