PROOFS
OF THE
THEORY OF THE EARTH.
ARTICLE V.
Examination of some other Systems.
THE three hypotheses just mentioned have many things in common: They all agree in this point, that, at the time of the deluge, both the external and internal form of the earth was changed: But none of these theorists considered, that the earth, before the deluge, was inhabited by the same species of men and animals; and, consequently, that it must have been nearly the same, both in figure and structure, as it is at present. We are informed by the sacred writings, that, before the deluge, there were rivers, seas, mountains, and forests; that most of these mountains and rivers remained nearly in their former situation; the Tigris and Euphrates, [118] for example, ran through Paradise; that the Armenian mountain on which the ark rested was, at the deluge, one of the highest mountains of the earth, as it is at this day; and that the same plants and the same animals which inhabited the earth before the deluge, continue still to exist; for we are told of the serpent, of the crow, and of the pigeon that carried the olive branch into the ark. Tournefort indeed alleges, that there are no olives within 400 leagues of Mount Araret, and affects to be witty on this head. It is, however, indisputable, that there were olives in the neighbourhood of this mountain at the time of the deluge; for Moses assures us of the fact in the most express manner. Besides, it is not surprising, that, in the course of 4000 years, the olives should be extirpated in these provinces, and multiplied in others. It is, therefore, contrary both to scripture and reason, that these authors have supposed the earth, before the deluge, to have been totally different from what it is now; and this opposition between their hypotheses and the sacred writings, as well as sound philosophy, is sufficient to discredit their systems, although they should correspond with some phaenomena.* Burnet, who wrote first, gives neither facts nor observations in support of his system. Woodward’s book is only a short essay, in which he promises much more than he was able to perform; it is only a project, without any degree of execution. He makes use of [119] two general remarks, 1. That the earth is every where composed of materials which had formerly been in a state of fluidity, and which had been deposited by the waters in horizontal beds. 2. That, in the bowels of many parts of the earth, there are an infinite number of sea-bodies. To account for these facts, he has recourse to the universal deluge; or rather, he appears to employ these as proofs of the deluge. But, like Burnet, he falls into evident contradictions; for it is absurd to suppose, with these authors, that, before the deluge, there were no mountains, since we are expressly told, that the waters rose 15 cubits above the tops of the highest mountains. On the other hand, it is said, that the waters destroyed or dissolved the mountains. In place of this extraordinary dissolution, the mountains remained firm in their original situation, and the ark rested upon the one which was first deserted by the waters. Besides, it is impossible to imagine, that, during the short time the deluge continued, the waters could dissolve the mountains, and the whole fabric of the earth. Is it not absurd to suppose, that, in the space of forty days, the hardest rocks and minerals were dissolved by simple water? Is it not a manifest contradiction to admit this total dissolution, and yet to maintain that shells, bones, and other productions of the sea, were able to resist a menstruum, to which the most solid materials had yielded? Upon the whole, I cannot [120] hesitate in pronouncing, that Woodward, though furnished with excellent facts and observations, has produced but a weak and inconsistent theory.
Whiston, who wrote last, has greatly improved upon the other two; and, though he was given loose reins to his imagination, it cannot be said that he falls into contradiction. He advances many things that are incredible; but they are neither absolutely nor apparently impossible. As we are ignorant of what materials the centre of the earth is composed, he thinks himself entitled to suppose it a solid nucleus, surrounded with a ring of heavy fluid matter, and then follows a ring of water, upon which the external crust is supported. In this ring of water, the different parts of the crust sunk more or less in proportion to their gravities, and gave rise to mountains and inequalities on the surface of the earth. But our astronomer here commits a blunder in mechanics. He considered not, that the earth, on this supposition, must have formed one uniform arch; and, consequently, that it could not be supported by the water, and far less could any part of this arch sink deeper than another. If this be excepted, I doubt whether he has fallen into any other physical blunder: He has, however, committed many errors both in metaphysics and theology. In fine, it cannot be denied absolutely, that the earth, in meeting with the tail of a comet, would be deluged, e- [121] specially if it be allowed to the author, that the tails of comets contain watery vapours. Neither is it absolutely impossible, that the tail of a comet, in returning from its perihelion, should burn the earth, if we suppose, with Mr Whiston, that the comet passed very near the sun’s body. The same observations may be made upon the rest of his system. But, though his notion be not absolutely impossible, when taken separately, they are so exceedingly improbable, that the whole assemblage may be regarded as exceeding the bounds of human credulity.
These three are not the only books that have been written upon the theory of the earth. In 1729, M. Bourguet published, along with his Philosophical Letters on the formation of Salts, &c. a memoir, in which he gives a specimen of a system which he had projected; but the execution of it was prevented by the death of the author. It must be acknowledged, that no man was more industrious and acute in making observations, and in collecting facts. To him we are indebted for remarking the correspondence between the angles of mountains, which is the chief key to the theory of the earth. He arranges the materials he had collected in the best order. But, with all these advantages, it is probable, that he would not have succeeded in giving a physical history of the changes that have happened in the earth; and he appears not to have discovered the causes of those effects which [122] he relates. To be convinced of this, we have only to take a view of the propositions he deduces from those phaenomena which behoved [sic] to be the foundation of his theory. He says, that the earth was formed at once, and not successively; that its figure and disposition demonstrate that it was formerly in a fluid state; that the present condition of the earth is very different from what it was some ages after its first formation; that the matter of the globe was originally more soft than after its surface was changed; that the condensation of its solid parts diminished gradually with its velocity; so that, after a certain number of revolutions round its own axis, and round the sun, its original structure was suddenly dissolved; that this happened at the vernal equinox; that the sea-shells insinuated themselves into the dissolved matters; that the earth, after this dissolution, assumed its present form; and that, as soon as the fire or heat operated upon it, its consumption gradually began, and, at some future period, it will be blown up with a dreadful explosion, accompanied with a general conflagration, which will augment the atmosphere, and diminish the diameter of the globe; and then the earth, in place of strata of sand or clay, will consist only of beds of calcined [sic] materials, and mountains composed of amalgams of different metals.
This is a sufficient view of the system which M. Bourguet designed to compose. To guess at [123] the past, and to predict the future, nearly in the same manner as others have guessed and predicted, requires but a small effort of genius. This author had more erudition than sound and general ideas. He appears not to have had the capacity of forming enlarged views, or of comprehending the chain of causes and effects.
In the Leipsic Transactions, the celebrated Leibnitz published a sketch of an opposite system, under the title of Protogaea. The earth, according to Bourguet and others, was to be consumed by fire. But Leibnitz maintains, that it originated from fire, and that it has undergone innumerable changes and revolutions. At the time that Moses tells us the light was divided from the darkness, the greatest part of the earth was in flames. The planets, as well as the earth, were originally fixed and luminous stars. After burning for many ages, he alleges, that they were extinguished from a deficiency of combustible matter, and that they became opaque bodies. The fire, by melting the matter, produced a vitrified crust; and the basis of all terrestrial bodies is glass, of which sand and gravel are only the fragments. The other species of earth resulted from a mixture of sand with water and fixed salts; and, when the crust had cooled, the moist particles, which had been elevated in the form of vapour, fell down, and formed the ocean. These waters at first covered the whole surface, and even overtopped the [124] highest mountains. In the estimation of this author, the shells, and other spoils of the ocean, which every where abound, are indelible proofs that the earth was formerly covered with the sea; and the great quantity of fixed salts, of sand, and of other melted and calcined matters shut up in the bowels of the earth, demonstrate, that the conflagration had been general, and that it had preceded the existence of the ocean. These ideas, though destitute of evidence, are elevated, and bear conspicuous marks of ingenuity. The thoughts have a connection, the hypotheses are not impossible, and the consequences that might be drawn from then are not contradictory. But the great defect of this theory is, that it applies not to the present state of the earth. It only explains what passed in ages so remote, that few vestiges remain; a man may, therefore, affirm what he pleases, and what he says will be accompanied with more or less probability, in proportion to the extent of his talents. To maintain, with Whiston, that the earth was originally a comet, or with Leibnitz, that it was a sun, is to assert what is equally possible or impossible; it would, therefore, be ridiculous to investigate either by the laws of probability. The instantaneousness of the creation destroys the notion of the globe’s being covered with the ocean, and of that being the reason why sea-shells are so much diffused through different parts of the earth; for, it that [125] had been the case, it must of necessity be allowed, that shells, and other productions of the ocean, which are still found in the bowels of the earth, were created long prior to man, and other land-animals. Now, independent of scripture-authority, is it not reasonable to think that the origin of all kinds of animals and vegetables is equally antient?
M. Scheutzer, in a dissertation addressed to the
This author, like Woodward, blends physics and theology; and, though he has made some good observations, the systematic part of his work is weaker and more puerile than that of any of his predecessors. He has even descended to declamation, and absurd pleasantries. The reader, if he desires to see them, may consult his Piscium Quarelae, &c. not to mention his Physica Sacra, in several volumes in folio, a weak performance, fitter for the amusement of children, than the instruction of men.
Steno, and some others, have attributed the origin of mountains, and other inequalities, upon the surface of the earth, to particular inundations, earthquakes, &c. But the effects of these secondary causes could produce nothing but slight changes. These causes may co-operate with the first cause, namely, the tides, and the motion of the sea from east to west. Besides, Steno has given no theory, nor even any general facts, upon this subject.*
Ray alleges, that all mountains have been produced by earthquakes, and has written a treatise to prove it. When we come to the article of volcanos, we shall examine the foundation of this opinion.
We cannot omit observing here, that Burnet, Whiston, Woodward, and most other authors, have fallen into an error which deserves to be rectified. They uniformly regard the deluge as [127] an effect within the compass of natural causes, although the scripture represents it as an immediate operation of the Deity. It is beyond the power of any natural cause to produce on the surface of the earth a quantity of water sufficient to cover the highest mountains: And, although a cause could be imagined adequate to this effect, it would still be impossible to find another cause capable of making the waters disappear. Granting that Whiston’s waters proceeded from the tail of a comet, we deny that any of them could issue from the abyss, or that the whole could return into it; for the abyss, according to him, was so environed, and pressed on all sides by the terrestrial crust, that it was impossible the comet’s attraction could produce the least motion in the fluids it contained, far less any motion resembling the tides: Hence, not a single drop could either proceed from, or etner into the great abyss. Unless, therefore, it be supposed, that the waters which fell from the comet were annihilated by a miracle, they would for ever have remained on the surface, and covered the tops of the highest mountains. The impossibility of explaining any effect by natural causes, is the most essential character of a miracle. Our authors have made several vain efforts to account for the deluge. Their errors in physics, and in the secondary causes they employ, prove the truth of the fact, as related in scripture, and demonstrate, that the universal deluge could not be [128] accomplished by any other cause than the will of the Deity.
Besides, it is apparent, that tit was not at one time, nor by the sudden effect of a deluge that the sea left uncovered those continents which we inhabit: It is certain, from the authority of scripture, that the terrestrial Paradise was in Asia, and that Asia was inhabited before the deluge; consequently, the waters, at the period, covered not this large portion of the globe. The earth, before the deluge, was nearly the same as now. This enormous quantity of water, poured out by Divine justice upon guilty men, destroyed every living creature; but it produced no change on the surface of the earth; it destroyed not even the plants which grew upon it; for the pigeon returned to the ark with an olive branch in her bill.
Why then should we suppose, with many naturalists, that the waters of the deluge totally changed the surface of the globe, even to the depth of two thousand feet? Why imagine that the deluge transported those shells which are found at the depth of seven or eight hundred feet, immersed in rocks and in marble? Why refer to this even the formation of hills and mountains? And how is it possible to imagine, that the waters of the deluge transported banks of shells of 100 leagues in length? I perceive not how they can persist in this opinion, unless they admit a double miracle, one to create water, and ano- [129] ther to transport shells. But, as the first only is supported by holy writ, I see no reason for making the second an article of faith.
On the other hand, if the waters of the deluge had retired suddenly, they would
have transported such immense quantities of med and other impurities, as would
have rendered the land unfit for culture till many
ages after the inundation. In the inundation which
happened in
The notion, that the shells were transported and left upon the land by the deluge, is the ge- [130] neral opinion, or rather superstition, of naturalists. Woodward, Scheutzer, and others, call petrified shells the remains of the deluge; they regard them as medals or monuments left us by God of this dreadful catastrophe, that the memorial of it might never be effaced among men. Lastly, they have embraced this hypothesis with so blind a veneration, that they are only anxious to reconcile it with holy writ; and, in place of deriving any light from observation and experience, they wrap themselves up in the dark clouds of physical theology, the obscurity and littleness of which derogates from the simplicity and dignity of religion, and presents to the sceptic [sic] nothing but a ridiculous medley of human conceits and divine truths. To attempt an explanation of the universal deluge and of its physical causes; to pretend to give a detail of what passed during this great revolution; to conjecture what effects have resulted from it; to add facts to the sacred writings, and to draw consequences from these interpolated facts; is not this a presumptuous desire of scanning the power of the Almighty? The natural wonders wrought by his beneficent hand, in a uniform and regular manner, are altogether incomprehensible; his extraordinary operations, or his miracles, ought, therefore, to impress us with an awful astonishment, and a silent respect.
It may be still urged, that as the universal deluge is
an established fact, is it not lawful to rea- [131] son upon its
consequences? True. But you must commence
with acknowledging, that the deluge could not possible be the effect of any
physical cause; you must regard it as an immediate effect of the divine will;
you must content yourself with what is recorded in scripture; and you must,
above all, avoid blending bad philosophy with the purity of divine truth.
After taking these precautions, which a respect for the counsels of the
Almighty requires, what remains for examination upon the subject of the
deluge? Does [sic] the sacred writings tell us that the mountains were formed by the deluge? They tell us the
reverse. Do they inform us, that the agitation of the waters was so
great, as to raise the shells from the bottom of the ocean, and to disperse
them over the face of the earth? No: The ark moved gently on the
surface of the waters. Do they tell us, that the earth suffered a total
dissolution? By no means. The narration of the sacred historian is
simple and true; that of naturalists is fabulous and complicated. [132]
Notes
* See Voyage du Levant, vol. 2. p. 336 [back to page 119].
* Vid. Hist. de l’Acad. 1708, p. 32 [back to page 126].
* Vide Dissert. De Solido intra Solidum nato, &c. [back to page 127].
* Vide acta erudite. Lips. 1691, p. 100 [back to page 130].