RNG tiie 
Notice and Review of the Reliquiae Diluvianae. 151 
ence, the ideas of hypothesis and extravagance. Yet 
the wanderings of their predecessors, “ damned to ever- 
lasting fame,” serve as beacons to warn modern geologists 
of their danger; and the fate of these theorists does exert 
a salutary influence upon them. We do not fear to hazard 
the assertion, that as a body, no class of philosophers are 
more cautious of mere hypothesis, than the respectable ge- 
ologists of the present day. To amass facts, is the object 
they pursue with unremitted ardor. We appeal to the 
transactions of the European geological societies, to the 
public scientific journals, and to such works as those of 
MacCullock, Conybeare, Phillips, Greenough, Cuvier, 
Brongniart, and Maclure, in proof of these declarations. 
It is important, however, since all men are prone to in- 
dulge in wild hypotheses, that the extravagancies of for- 
referring to former speculations upon the deluge, we 
think it will exhibit to greater advantage the cautious spi- 
rit, and severe inductive logic, of the treatise we have un- 
dertaken to examine. 
The name of Burnet is “ familiar as household words,” 
and caused the waters tooverflow and drown the inhabitants. 
r. Plot, in 1677, having taken it for granted that the 
Noachian deluge was the cause of all the organic remains 
ound in the earth, and perceiving this to be totally inade- 
quate to produce such effects, extricated himself from the 
dilemma, by saying that “the great question now so much 
Controverted in the world is, whether the stones we find in 
the form of shell fish, be lapides sui generts naturally pro- 
uced by some extraordinary plastic virtue, latent in the 
earth, in quarries where they are found ; or whether they 
