such consequence deducible from Newton's philosophy. Newton, with no other view than to illustrate his meaning, supposed an earth formed of an uniformly yielding substance, in order to shew that whilst at rest such a mass would be spherical, but that when made to revolve on its axis, it would assume a spheroidal form. But Newton constantly maintained that God at the beginning formed all material things (and, therefore, this earth which is one of them) of such figures and properties as most conduced to the end for which he formed them,' and consequently, for the reasons already given, 'he formed the earth with the same figure, which, it is manifest, he has given to the other planets. Moreover, unless the earth was actually flatter at the poles than at the equator, the waters of the ocean constantly rising towards the equator, must long since have deluged and overwhelmed the equatorial regions, and have deserted the polar, whereas the waters are now retained in equilibrium over all its surface.' Thus its oblate spheroidal form is no proof of its original fluidity, though it is an incontestable one of that divine wisdom which fashioned it according to the strictest rule of harmony and equilibrium' between those laws which he had ordained it should for ever after be obedient to, and which therefore most conduce to the end for which he formed it.' Thus, both from crystalline character and from the obtuseness of spherical figure, the mineral geology concludes to chaos; whereas from both of these Newton concluded to God.'

"Our author proceeds to shew that this discordance between the conclusions of the mineral geology and those of Newton, arises from the analysis of the former being limited to mineral matter, whereas Newton's included all matter, of which mineral matter is only a part. The investigation of the mode of the first formation of mineral matter, must be connected with the inves tigation of the mode of the first formation of all matter in the general, otherwise we assume a partial principle for a general, and setting out in error, must continue in it to the end. Such a wonderful conformity in the planetary system,' said Newton,

must be the effect of choice, and so must the uniformity in the bodies of animals; these and their instincts can be the effect of nothing else than the wisdom and skill of a powerful, everliving agent.'

With common sense and Newton, all first formations are creations, and by that term he denoted them. Were it otherwise, there would be formations before first formations, which is absurd. Deluc would not use the term created, because, said he, in physics, I ought not to employ expressions which are not thoroughly understood between men.' Our author reprobates his conduct and his argument with just severity. Was he aware,' says Mr. Penn, that in excluding the word, he at the same time excluded the idea associated with that word; and, together with the idea, the principle involved in that idea - the exclusion of which is the very parent cause of all materialism and all atheism?'

"It was the all-sufficiency ascribed by the mineral geology to physical impressions, or what it denominates pheno nena, to determine the great question of the mode of the first formation of mineral substances, that induced it to check its analytical progress, short of the end to which it ought to have pursued it. Our author, therefore, proceeds to shew how insufficient phenomena alone are to determine that question.

"If a bone of the first created man now remained, and were mingled with other bones, pertaining to a generated race; and if it were to be submitted to the inspection and examination of an anatomist, what opinion and judgment would its sensible phenomena suggest respecting the mode of its first formation, and what would be his conclusion? If he were unapprized of its true origin, his mind would see nothing in its sensible phenomena, but, the laws of its ossification; just as the mineral geology sees nothing in the details of the formation of minerals, but precipitations, crystallizations, and dissolutions.' He would therefore naturally pronounce of this bone, as of all other bones that 'its fibres were originally soft,' until,in the shelter of the maternal womb, it acquired 'the hardness of a cartilage, and then of bone;' that this effect' was not produced at once, or in a very short time,' but by degrees; 'that after birth, it increased in hardness, by the continual addition of ossifying matter, until it ceased to grow at all.'

"Physically true as this reasoning would appear, it would nevertheless be morally and really false; because it concluded from mere sensible phenomena, to the certainty of a fact which could not be established by the evidence of sensible phenomena alone; namely, mode of the first formation of the substance of created bone.

66

the

'From hence we obtain a second principle, with respect to such first formations by creation, that their sensible phenomena alone cannot determine the mode of their formation, since the real mode was in direct contradiction to the sensible indications of those phe

nomena.

"The same ingenious argument is then applied to vegetable first formations, and the just inference deduced from boththat, from phenomena alone, physics can determine nothing concerning the mode of the first formations of the first individuals composing either the animal or vegetable kingdoms of matter.'

"Nor are they 'a whit more competent to dogmatize concerning the mode of first formations, from the evidence of phenomena alone, in the mineral kingdom, or to infer that it was more gradual, or slower, than those of the other two. For,' continuing the comparison, and transferring it to created mineral matter, the sensible phenomena which suggest crystallization to the Wernerian, or vitrification to the Huttonian, in examining a fragment of primitive rock, are exactly of the same authority, but not of a particle more, with that which would have suggested ossification and lignification to the anatomist and naturalist, who should unknowingly have inspected or analyzed created bone or created wood—and all would be equally in error, in concluding them to have been respectively formed by the modes of crystallization, ossification, and lignification. The mineralogist can no more discover the mode of the formation of primitive rock by the laws of general chemistry''than the anatomist can discover the mode of the formation of created bone, by the laws of generation and accretion.'

"Concluding, then, with Newton, that God at the beginning formed all material things' of such figures and properties as most conduced to the end for which he formed them, we per

ceive that there must have been a first-formed created man, as certainly as there has since been a succession of generated men; and that it is most consistent with the notion of an intelligent agent, and therefore most philosophical, to suppose that he created that first man with the perfection of mind and body which most conduced to the end for which he formed him'and the same argument is equally applicable to all other first created animals, and every first created individual of the vegetable kingdom. As, therefore, in two parts out of three of the tripartite system of matter, we have ample ground to conclude, That the first formations must have been produced in their full perfection, perfect bone and perfect wood,' we must infer, from every principle of sound analogy, that in the third part,

where the first formations were as essential to the structure of the globe, as in the two former to the structure of their respective systems, the first formations were likewise produced in their full perfection, perfect rock-and we have seen that sensible phenomena can have no authority whatever in this question.'

"The fatuity of the analogies by which the mineral geology attempts to support its darling chaos, and the absurdity of inferring, from the slow progress of generated beings to maturity, the slow progress of the earth from a state of confusion to its present form, is next forcibly demonstrated, and Deluc's trash about mountains and pyramids ridiculed as it deserves to be.

"Equally absurd is the attempt to find secondary causes for first-formed, created things. Of this class are the speculations concerning the agents by which the mineral geology supposes primitive rocks to have been held in solution. To prove the legitimate relation between cause and effect, either the cause must be known in the course of actual operation, or the effect in the course of actual production; and who ever knew a granite rock in course of actual production, or a menstruum exhibiting a cause capable of producing it? Secondary causes can only effect secondary productions. Created bone and wood were not produced by secondary causes-'yet we know that

there are secondary causes which produce bone and wood, but we know of no secondary cause that produces granite-and the reason appears to be obvious; for the animal creation (from the perishable nature of the individuals that compose it) was to subsist by succession to the first-formed individuals, and therefore laws for securing that succession were necessary: but the mineral creation was to subsist permanently in its firstformed individuals, therefore no laws for their multiplication were necessary. And from this consideration alone accrues a very powerful moral evidence that the first mineral formations which are still permanent, were formed by no other mode than that' (viz. creation) which formed the first animals, wh.ch have been succeeded by generation.'

"The Crystalline texture and hardness of granite rocks, whence they derive their solidity and durability; their immense height, to which is owing the accumulation of supplies for the rivers which irrigate the globe, together with their lengthened and inclined forms to determine the direction of those rivers, are so many proofs of unchangeable arrangement which adapts them to the end for which they were formed' and 'how is it possible,' exclaims our author, to contemplate all this, without rendering immediately to God the things which are God's ?""

(To be continued.)

P. S. In this department, we hope to be furnished by Dr. Carey, with a monthly Botanical notice of whatever may be peculiarly interesting in the garden. We trust, too, that the time is not far distant, when we shall have it in our power to record any particular astronomical phenomena that may occur. We again beg the assistance of our friends.