Page images
PDF
EPUB

THOUGHTS

ON THE

STRUCTURE

OF THIS GLOBE,

LETTER IV.

Remarks on the Monuments of Nature alleged as Proofs of the Antiquity of the Earth.-Reflections on the System of Mr. de Buffon, and of divers other modern Philofophers.

UNDER the fpecious pretext of the obscurity and uncer

tainty of antient ftory, and confounding in their scepticism particular and isolated facts, invented by the intereft of priests or imagined by the vanity of this or that people, with thofe great events which belong to the whole human race, and whofe effential and fundamental points are attested by all nations, feveral perfons think they have a right to reject all hiftorical teftimony. It is Nature alone, fay they, who must be interrogated on her age. A confiderable number of modern naturalifts affirm, that the veftiges and monuments of that

[blocks in formation]

Nature, much more authentic than the dubious records of history, loudly proclaim a much higher antiquity. In vain do the traditions: of all nations affert the event of an univerfal deluge, whose date is not very far removed; in vain do they disclose the cradle and infancy of the most antient nations, and the firft population of more than three parts of the earth as yet recent: against all thefe teftimonies they set the irrefragable authority of that book whofe characters are manifeft to their fagacity. This globe has, no doubt, fay they, undergone many revolutions; but that recent deluge of which fo many nations speak was neither general, nor worthy to be ranked amongst the great epochs of nature, the latest of which must at leaft be removed 100 centuries before our times. That deluge recorded in our scriptures Mr. de Buffon terms the particular and cafual inundation of Armenia, equally partial and local as those spoken of by the Greeks and Egyptians. It must be allowed that, was the voice of nature clear and precife, an undoubted preference would be due to it above traditions, which, however univerfal, are tinctured by great confusion and many variable circumftances. But nothing as yet clearly indicates the authenticity of that voice; it is the versatile lan-guage of its pretended interpreters, always in contradiction with one another, and often with themselves, which I hear. Avowing the rapid progreffes of natural philofophy in many parts, I have yet ftrong reasons to doubt whether it is fufficiently advanced to pronounce without appeal on the whole fyftem and order of nature. Many very celebrated naturalifts agree, however, in maintaining

that

that the most certain indications of nature prove a much more antient existence of the prefent earth than is given to it by common opinion and vulgar prejudices; and that the very conftruction of this globe announces many thousand years more, fince the poffibility of any univerfal deluge, than can at any rate be made to coincide with the relation of Mofes ; and that every part of it is incompatible with his account of the creation, calculated, fay they, to fuit the ideas of an ignorant people, and. nowife worthy to be the guide of philofophers. We ought, no doubt, to hear them: but, notwithstanding the authority of great names, it will be lawful to examine if this their decifion is in truth irrevocable; and if it may not perhaps be yet poffible to explain the present order of things, without abfolutely contradicting the few words left us on that head, as the general tradition of his times, by the oldest and most refpectable of hiftorians (a). It will not be less useful perhaps to confider, if the systems which have been fubftituted to his plain narration are in fact more confonant to the few well known laws of Nature, or to its more generally averred operations. I will own to you, Sir, that the principles of these philofophers often appear to me rather founded in their own bold and brilliant imaginations than in Nature. If they have often happy coincidences with her, it must be allowed that fometimes it is not Nature which preffes the fyftem upon us, but the fyftem which forcibly bends her to its gratuitous decifions.

The ambition of framing general fyftems tyrannises the most fober

[blocks in formation]

heads, and attaches us to certain ideas, to which, without perceiving it, we ftrive to make all Nature pay homage, even where fhe is moft ftubbornly oppofite. How many pretended experimental difcoveries have we feen, which could never be repeated by others! How many affertions are hazarded upon the partial infpection of one country, which are falfified by the examination of another! How many spurious or incorrect accounts (b) have been eagerly adopted without fcrutiny, because they were favourable to the particular fyftem embraced! Thefe are weakneffes natural and common to all those who support with warmth any opinion once imbibed. Amongst the French philofophers in particular, over and above the common vanity of important difcovery, and of dealing out laws as fecond creators of the universe, another motive has in general had no fmall influence. Many of them have been avowedly combined to overturn by all poffible means, each in his diftinct department, not the particular mode adopted in France, but the general foundations of christianity itself, which in many points feemed to cramp their genius, and fet bounds to that human wisdom of which they have, or think they have, fo large a fhare. To fet nature at variance with the affertions of one of its firft props, and with a fuppofed infpired writer, was no fmall object. The fhort account he has given us of the creation runs counter to the opinions faid to be framed on the unerring proofs of Nature by many celebrated philofophers; and has not yet been fo fatisfactorily explained as not to meet with fome undeniable objections. Notwithstanding my feeble efforts

3

efforts to pave the way to a more fatisfactory explanation, the object will no doubt by many be deemed not only unattained, but every part of my reasoning inadequate to command the conviction they require. To time, and the more fuccessful labours of men of superior talents and knowledge, who may hereafter deign to follow the track I have ventured to point out, I must leave this. But before I enter into this difcuffion, it will be proper to lay before you, Sir, and to examine with you, those more celebrated modern fystems in particular which have been triumphantly fubftituted to the Mofaical narration; and to confider whether thefe are, in fact, more intelligible and more conformable to the known laws of Nature, than that account, however short and obfcure. You with juftice require me to give my reasons for diffenting from fyftems fupported by the blaze of celebrated names, and fanctioned by the number of their profelytes. To Mr. de Buffon's fyfter to which you, Sir, are more particularly attached, I fhall expofc my objections more at length. In fact, most other systems since him are nearly established on the fame general foundations.

In his Introduction to the History of Animals Mr. de Buffon, already distinguished in the learned world, after having briefly expofed and refuted the several systems of Woodward, Whiston, and Burnet, gave to the world a new Theory of the Earth. Amongst his countrymen the fublimity and eloquence of his style gained him many admirers, difpofed to give credit to the ideas of a philofopher who promised to

do

« PreviousContinue »