have succeeded each other, and mark to us the course of time past, we come to a period in which we cannot see any farther.  This, however, is not the beginning of those operations which proceed in time and according to the wise economy of this world; nor is it the establishing of that, which, in the course of time, had no beginning; it is only the limit of our retrospective view of those operations which have come to pass in time, and have been conducted by supreme intelligence.

My principal anxiety was to show how the constitution of this world had been wisely contrived; and this I endeavoured to do, not from supposition or conjecture, but from its answering so effectually the end of its intention, viz. the preserving of animal life, which we cannot doubt of being its purpose.  Here then is a world that is not eternal, but which has been the effect of wisdom or design.

With regard again to the prospective view of the creation, How are we to see the end of that wise system of things which so properly fulfils the benevolent intention of its maker,—­in giving sustenance to the animal part, and information to intellectual beings, who, in these works of nature, read what much concerns their peace of mind,—­their intellectual happiness?  What then does our author mean, in condemning that comprehensive view which I have endeavoured to take of nature?  Would he deny that there is to be perceived wisdom in the system of this world, or that a philosopher, who looks into the operations of nature, may not plainly read the power and wisdom of the Creator, without recoiling, as he says, from the abyss?  The abyss, from which a man of science should recoil, is that of ignorance and error.

I have thus shown, that, from not perceiving the wise disposition of things upon the surface of this earth for the preservation of vegetable bodies, our author has been led to deny the necessary waste of the present earth, and the consequent preparation of materials for the construction of another; I have also shown, that he denies the origin which I had attributed to the stratified parts of this earth, as having been the collection of moving materials from a former earth; and now I am come to consider the professed purpose of this paper, viz. the examination of solid stony substances which we find in those strata of our earth, as well as in more irregular masses.  Here, no doubt, my theory would have been attacked with greater success, had our author succeeded in pointing out its error with regard to the original composition of those indurated bodies, to which I ascribe fusion as the cause of their solidity.  For, if we should, according to our author’s proposition, consider those consolidated bodies as having been originally formed in that solid state, here the door might be shut against any farther investigation;—­But to what purpose?—­Surely not to refute my theory, but to explode every physical inquiry farther on the subject, and thus to lead us back into the science of darkness and of scepticism.  But let us proceed to see our author’s sentiments on this subject.