THE EARTH. 10 I 



d eluge ; another, that they existed from the creation, and onlj 

 acquired their deformities in process of time ; a third, that thej 

 owed their original to earthqiuakes ; and still a fourth, with 

 niu'jh more plausibility than the rest, ascribing them entirely to 

 the fluctuations of the deep, which he supposes in the beginning 

 to have covered the whole earth. Such as are pleased with dis- 

 quisitions of this kind, may consult Burnet, Whiston, Woodward, 

 or ISuffon. Nor would I be thought to decry any mental amuse- 

 ments, that at worst keep us innocently employed ; but, for my 

 own part, 1 cannot help wondering how the opposite demand 

 has never come to be made ; and why philosophers have never 

 asked how we come to have plains ? Plains are sometimes 

 more prejudicial to man than mountains. Upon plains, an in- 

 undation has greater power ; the beams of the sun are often col- 

 lected Lhere with suffocating fierceness; they are sometimes 

 found desert for several hundred miles together, as in the coun- 

 try east of the Caspian sea, although otherwise fruitful, merely 

 because there are no risings or depressions to form reservoirs, 

 or collect the smallest rivulet of water. The most rational 

 answer, therefore, why either mountains or plains were formed, 

 aeems to be that they were thus fashioned by the hand of Wis. 

 dom, in order that pain and pleasure should be so contiguous, a* 

 that morality might be exercised either in bearing the one, or 

 oommunicating the other. 



Indeed, the more I consider this dispute respecting the for. 

 mation of mountains, the more I am struck with the futility of 

 ihe question. There is neither a straight line, nor an exact 

 superficies, in all nature. If we consider a circle, even with 

 mathematical precision, we shall find it formed of a number of 

 small right lines, joining at angles, together. These angles, 

 therefore, luay be considered in a circle as mountains are u^«on 

 our globe ; and to demand the reason for the one being moun- 

 tainous, or the other angular, is only to ask, why a circle is a 

 circle, or a globe is a globe. In short, if there be no surface 

 without inequality in nature, why should we be surprised that 

 the earth has such ? It has often been said, that the inequal- 

 ities of its surface are scarce distinguishable, if compared to its 

 magnitude ; and I think we have every reason to be content 

 with the answer. 



S'jnic, however, have avoided the difficulty hv urging the final 



IS 



