ON THEORIES OF THE EARTH, 401 



of Moses are both true, because they agree. Really, 

 these are things which make thinking men wonder. 



Enough of the " aqueous" theories : the " igneous" 

 have been set in opposition; as if the stability of the 

 one was to be ensured by the overthrow of the other: 

 but he who has no strength of his own will not stand 

 the firmer because his enemy is down. It would have 

 been well had these terms never existed: but such 

 things will be, when men shall become lovers of truth 

 more than lovers of hatred. 



Theories of Bitff&fty Lazzaro Moro, Dolomieu 8$ others. 



We have seen what the aqueous theories have 

 proved; but there is no purely igneous one. And, 

 hypothesis or theory, there is a chain which unites 

 them all: while, in thus treating them, I may dis- 

 tribute merit where it has been overlooked, and reduce 

 assumption to its simple rights. 



The theory of Bourguet is of 1730 ; and though but 

 a sketch, it has anticipated Lazzaro Moro on one impor- 

 tant point. Buffo n treats him with contempt, while 

 apparently indebted to him for the igneous fluidity of 

 the globe ; as has been usual among geologists, con- 

 cealing plagiarism by suppressing the name of the au- 

 thor, if not, as is more common, by abuse. But I may 

 pass his system, together with Keill, King, and others; 

 yet not forgetting Ray, whose opinions, whether ori- 

 ginal or borrowed, are as decisive as clear ; contain- 

 ing those essentials of an igneous system, in which the 

 most recent theory has made no change. 



That of Leibnitz is a mere cosmogony: the earth, 

 like the planets, having been a fixed and luminous star, 

 extinguished under the waste of its combustible matter. 

 This is the "separation of light:" the rocks are vi- 

 trified from fusion, quartz alone retaining its original 



VOL. II. D D 



