where they were found, and that the time of their growth was before Noah's flood. All this no doubt was true; but such new and strange doctrines raised against Fracastoro many bitter opponents. His clear and philosophical views were disregarded, his ideas concerning plastic nature combatted, and the passions, as well as the arguments and learning of the times were arrayed against him.

The questions discussed, were, first, whether fossil remains had ever belonged to living animals; and second, if this be admitted, whether all the phenomena concerning them can be explained in consequence of the changes which took place by the waters of Noah's flood.

At this period, the idea prevailed in the Christian world, that the earth had undergone no considerable changes, except those produced by the general deluge, and that, therefore, to attempt to show that fossil remains had been elevated by any other catastrophe, would be opposing physical appearances against Christian faith. The clergy, on this ground entered warmly into this dispute, but at the same time, it appears that they allowed the subject to be canvassed with considerable freedom, though the arguments on both sides were often such as would have little effect on the mind of a geologist at the present day.

"The system of scholastic disputation" says Mr. Lyell, (speaking on this subject,) "encouraged in the universities of the middle ages, had unfortunately trained men to habits of indefinite argumentation, and they often preferred absurd and extravagant propositions, because greater skill and acuteness was required to maintain them; the end and object of such intellectual combats, being victory, and

not truth."

No theory at that period, was so whimsical as not to find advocates, and as theories of the earth were chiefly founded in opinions and conceits, rather than on facts and observations, the greatest latitude was indulged in the display of ingenuity and imagination in their support. Some of the inventions brought forward in the shape of arguments, against the doctrine that shells once belonged to living animals, were indeed quite too ridiculous to have come from any source claiming to possess the power of reasoning. Thus one of the opposers of Fracastoro, by name Mattioli, professed to account satisfactorily for the facts in the case of the shells at Verona, and other such like appearances, by supposing that a certain materia pin

guis, or fatty matter, set into fermentation by the heat on the earth, gave form and substance to these objects. Another author, Fallopio, of Padua, Professor, &c., conceived that petrified shells, had been generated by fermentation, in the places where they were found, and that in some cases, at least, they had acquired their forms by the "tumultuous movements of terrestrial exhalations." Fallopio was the renowned professor of anatomy at the celebrated school of Padua, and whose name, on account of his discoveries, is seen in every book of anatomy, to this day. Yet this learned man taught his pupils, from the chair of that famous university, that certain elephants' tusks which were dug up in some part of Italy, were nothing more than earthy concretions. And agreeably to the same doctrines, he intimated, that in his opinion, some ancient vases which were disinterred at Rome, were natural impressions, formed by the plastic force of nature, and that they were not the artificial works of man. To the same school of reasoners belonged Mercati, who published a book in 1574, containing some good figures of fossil shells, preserved in the Pope's museum, at Rome. In explaining these subjects, the author has no doubt that the fossils there represented, are not real shells, but mere stones, which had assumed the appearances of shells, "through the influence of the heavenly bodies." Olivi, a contemporary author, after much reasoning on these subjects, satisfied himself that fossil shells, bones, and such like things, were nothing more than the " sports of nature."

In the midst of those who entertained such fanciful notions, which indeed were characteristic of the age, there was not wanting a few, who like Fracastoro, saw their folly, and ridiculous tendency, and who dared to assert the truth on the subject of fossils. Among these was Palissy, a Frenchman, who in 1580, undertook to show that shells and bones, found in rocks, were really animal remains, and that they had been deposited there by the universal deluge, &c.

Although similar doctrines, as we have seen, had before been advanced in Italy, it appears that in France they were entirely new, for Fontanelle, who pronounced an eulogy on Palissy before the French Academy, fifty years afterwards, says that he was the first who "dared to assert in Paris, that the remains of testacea and fish, had once belonged to marine animals."-See Lyell, vol. i. p. 26.

At about this period a host of writers of various merit, arranged themselves on both sides of the question, "whether fossils were real organic substances; and if so, how they came in the places where they are found?" and other such like subjects. The consequence was, that these writers began to investigate facts in proof of their theories, and from this period may be dated the commencement and dissemination of just opinions on the subject of geology. At this time, Steno, a Dane of considerable reputation, demonstrated that some fossil teeth found in Tuscany, were those of a species of shark still living in the Mediterranean. Steno's work "On Gems, Crystals, and organic Petrifactions inclosed in solid Rocks," was published in 1669. He also maintained that fossil vegetables had been living plants,* and hinted that these remains might indicate the distinction between marine and river deposites.

Steno, as well as some other writers on these subjects, although anxious to make their doctrines and statements agree with the Mosaic history, alarmed the clergy by their deductions, and hence many theologians again entered the field of controversy. The points which these reverend men were chiefly desirous of protecting from the intrusion of philosophy and physics, were, as before, the Mosaic history, especially that of the Deluge; and knowing little of geology, they accounted those as nearly confirmed. heretics, who could not ascribe all marine organic remains found in rocks, to the effects of the flood. We shall see that the Mosaic history, is, however, not contradicted by supposing the shells in solid strata were deposited long before that catastrophe occurred.

In the mean time, among popular writers, the old doctrine that petrified shells had never belonged to real animals, still maintained its ground. Even so late as 1677, the famous Dr. Plott, in his "Natural History of Oxfordshire," attributes the origin of fossil shells and fishes to a plastic virtue latent in the earth.”

Our limits will not allow us to enlarge on this curious subject, and to detail the different opinions which were

* Fossil strictly signifies any thing dug out of the earth, but in geology this term is restricted to organic bodies which have been petrified, or mineralized by long residence in the ground. Most fossils are supposed to be of antediluvian origin.

offered to the world by more of the early geological writers, nor is this perhaps necessary, since the specimens already given are examples of the prevailing opinions of the times. The light of truth however, gradually followed the accumulation of facts, and the doctrine of " plastic nature" became obsolete, and ridiculous, in proportion as men reasoned on what they saw.

About this time, the celebrated Robert Hooke, a name well known in the annals of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy, published his "Discourse on Earthquakes." Hooke was at least a century before his contemporaries, on this subject, and it appears that his discourse did more to induce others to think and reason correctly on geological subjects, than all who had written before him. He ridiculed most effectually, the old notion that fossil shells were mere stones, so shaped by nature as to imitate such remains, or to use his own words, "formed for no other purpose than to play the mimic in the mineral kingdom." He maintained, also, that many species of shells might be extinct, or not now living; for it was known at that time, that several fossils had been found, of kinds not known in the living state.

At the present day, many hundred species of shells are found, which are considered extinct, no living specimens of the same having any where been discovered. But in the days of Hooke this idea was considered as improper, and even heretical, since as was claimed, it derogated from the wisdom and power of the Creator, inasmuch as it was declaring a want of perpetuity in his works. But Hooke, in his defence, declared that such an opinion was not repugnant to holy writ, for the scriptures taught that there should be a final dissolution of all things, "and as when that happens, all the species will be lost, why should not some become extinct at one time, and some at another."

It will be observed that the early writers of Geology admitted only the two epochs, the creation, and the deluge, as producing all the appearances which the globe exhibits. They did not estimate the effects of earthquakes, running streams, and mountain slides, which in the course of ages have undoubtedly produced very considerable changes on the earth's surface. Hence early theorists attempted to make their doctrines agree with the changes which they attributed to the flood, but which in many instances

were undoubtedly to be assigned to causes now in operation. There was a prevailing timidity with respect to the conclusions to be drawn from geological facts, lest they should be brought to contradict the Mosaic history. But this apparent want of confidence in the triumph of the scriptures, was rather a desire to keep from the hands of designing men any excuse to deny the veracity of Moses, and which arose partly from want of geological knowledge, and partly from the religious character of the times.

Under such circumstances, geological theorists directed their efforts to account for the present actual appearances of the earth, by allowing it a certain form at the creation, and then ascribing the changes since made, to the Noachian deluge.

We will now present the student with a short account of several of the most celebrated early systems, or theories of the Earth; at the same time premising that although some of them are from the pens of those who ranked among the most talented men of the age, still as theories of the earth, they are devoid of any probable foundation in truth.

Burnet's Theory. This was published in 1695,* and its title is strikingly characteristic of that age. It runs thus. "The Sacred Theory of the Earth, containing an account of the original of the Earth, and of all the general changes which it has undergone, or is to undergo, till the consummation of all things."

Burnet supposed that the primeval earth, down to the time of the flood, enjoyed a perpetual spring, and accounts for this assumed fact by assuming that the plane of the ecliptic was then coincident with the earth's axis, and that the commotions during the flood turned the earth into its present position, and thus produced the vicissitudes of the seasons. He endeavors to show, that the original form of the Earth as it rose out of chaos, was so contrived, as to contain within itself the water necessary to produce the deluge. A smooth crust of earth is made to conceal the waters of the abyss from the time of the creation, but the rain on the outside, together with the expansion of the

* Professor Brande quotes Burnet's book as being published in 1726, but this was probably a second edition.