In 1740, Moro, on the other hand, with much that is valuable in his onslaught upon other cosmogonists, fell into the error of becoming one of their number. His theory, hov.ever, is much more consistent, as well as reverential to the truth, than that of any of his pre- decessors.
In 1749, Buffon published, like his fellow philoso- phers, a theory of the earth, which is now found in the first part of his collected works. It is a free and easy way of world-making with the aid of a sun, a comet, volcanic and aqueous forces at jilcasure. The Sorbonne required him to recant so much of his work
GEOLOGY
V96
GEOLOGY
aa expressed tlie sentiment that the w-Tters of the sea had pniduced the hind, and then left it dry, and that tlie land was again, by wear and tear, gradually merg- ing into tile sea. The recantation is published witii his worlvS. 'J'hesc gorgeous dreams cost their autlior forty j'ears' thought, and enjoyed uncommon reputa- tion. Even now tlicir decision of tone and eloquence of statement command an interest.
In 175G, Lehmann, tliu German mineralogist, con- fined the action of the flood to the production of a few only of the rocks, and assigned tlie unfossiliferous stra- ta to the original creation, and the conglomerates to an intermediate revolution.
Ill 17(J0, 3Iichell, who held for eight j'ears the Wood- wardian professorship at Cambridge, showed himself the true predecessor of modern geology. Neglect- ing cosmogony altogether, and applying himself to the description of the strata as they appeared under his own observation, he discovered the true sequence of the beds, and indicated a divectiou in which the ge- ologist might pursue his labors without infringing on theology.
After Michell, the visions of the cosmogonists were again reproduced hy various English writers. Sound geology, however, began to take precedence of world- making ; the actual wonders of the subterranean world were preferred to the ga}- creations of the world-mak- ers. Ilutton, William Smith, and a host of followers, comprising Cuvicr and Brogniart, kept the republic of letters well employed in acquiring the grammar of the new science, which was created by physical researches into the strata and their contents. Henceforward cos- inogon}' assumes a second-rate position.
De Luc, in 1799, wrote the chronology of Moses, as only commencing with the creation of man ; and of the days of creation as being not natural davs, but in- definite periods. A long line of illustrious men, many of whom are now living, diverted attention from the vain attempts of the earh^ philosophers, and occupied themselves exclusively with descriptive geology. A classification of opinions- — taking only the views of the leading men — will serve to show, in a general way, what has been said and done for the last fifty years in tliis department of knowledge. The following are the princijial hypotheses :
1. That the days of creation are indefinite periods, during which all the phenomena of geology occurred ; that the deluge is now marked bj' the drift and gravel remains of tlie post-tertiary age (Cuvier, Parkinson, Jameson, and others).
2. That the first sentence of Genesis has no connec- tion with the subsequent verses. The phenomena of geology have place between the first and second verses. The chaos was universal, and ushered in the present creation (Chalmers, 1801. See also The Earth's An- tiquity in harmony icith the Mosaic Account of Creation, by James Gray, M.A., 1849).
3. That the earth that now is was the bed of the ante-diluviau sea. That all the phenomena now visi- ble resulted from operations in the interval between the creation and the end of the deluge. That, save tliis, the rocks were created as they now exist (Gran- ville Penn, Young).
4. Tiiat we cannot relj' on an interpretation of the Hebrew records, and therefore we may set them aside when apparoiitlv at variance with geological facts (Babbage).
5. That the records are poetical representations, and not historical (P.aden Powell).
C>. That the first verse is a detached account of the original creation. Tlie chaos, tiie six days' creation, and the flood were local jihenomena, and refer to what was tr msacted in the province occupied by man only (Or. Pyc Smith).
7. That the "days were great natural periods. The Paleozoic system, pre-eminently that of plants, is the work of tlie third day ; the secondary, pre-eminently
I the epoch of sea-monsters and creeping things, is the work of the fifth day ; and the tertiary, the time of mammalian creatures, is the work of the sixth day"
' (Hugh Miller).
8. That the Mosaic narrative is a revelation made in visions to the mind of the prophet ; the days are therefore spoken of not in connection with the events, but the duration of the vision. The events occurred in extremely lengthened periods. The deluge wiis partial (Lime, Mosaic Record in harmony with Geolog- ical, 1854 ; Poole, Genesis of the Earth and Man, 1856).
9. That all creation took place consecutively, ac- cording to the literal reading of Gen. i. All things, fossil and recent, form part of one whole system of life, and were created at once on the successive daj'S of creation. That the fossil species have become grad- ually extinct, and their remains buried by disturl> ances occurring from the first (L'abbe Soignet, Cosmo^- onie de la Bible, Paris, 1854).