392 ON THEORIES OF THE EARTH. 



ble, suspends the law of cohesion, and finds that ver- 

 tical strata are horizontal ; why smile at him who, thus 

 armed, can accomplish any thing? Theories, yet lauded, 

 have done as much : while followers are fiery in de- 

 fence of that, under one name, which they condemn 

 under another. The plagiarist ought not at least to 

 abuse his original. 



Scheutzer is the mere echo of Burnet and Wood- 

 ward: and this hare notice will suffice for many more, 

 who have similarly wrought for some fame in this 

 field ; as the system of Burnet will serve for that of 

 Descartes. Yet there are writers, of different dates, 

 to whom geology is indebted for somewhat better. I 

 cannot here settle the contending claims of Rouelle, 

 Steno, Targioni, and Lehman : but in these we trace 

 the first attempts to account for the present distribu- 

 tion of the surface, by earthquakes, deluges, and other 

 transitory events. And if the first hint of the powers 

 of antient currents did not originate with Steno, it is, 

 at least, not the suggestion of those who have drawn 

 so largely on it. If also Lehman has been called the 

 father of modern geology, he has been over-rated ; 

 when he must forfeit his claims to originality, and 

 when even his division, founded on a false criterion, 

 corresponds, in name only, with the facts. The name 

 of Whitehurst is enough : and if geology stands in- 

 debted to Lister, Catcott, Mills, Michell, Vallisneri, 

 Arduino, Raspe, and others, they belong to the history 

 of the science, not to the present sketch of theories. 



Systems of Saussure, Werner , De Luc, and Klrwan. 



Coinciding in general views, these names are the 

 chief supporters of aquatic or " Neptunian" theories ; 

 as they also bring us clown to our own times. The 

 reader will soon judge of the comparative merits of 



