In a subject of great magnitude, whose relative connections are difficult to trace, and where some facts are but partially known, and others uncertain and obscure, it is more easy to form a visionary system, than to establish a rational theory; thus it is that the Theory of the Earth has only hitherto been treated in a vague and hypothetical manner; I shall therefore but slightly mention the singular notions of some authors who have written upon the subject.
The first hypothesis I shall allude to, deserves to be mentioned more for its ingenuity than its reasonable solidity; it is that of an English astronomer, (WHISTON) versed in the system of NEWTON, and an enthusiastic admirer of his philosophy; convinced that every event which happens on the terrestrial globe, depends upon the motions of the stars, he endeavours to prove, by the assistance of mathematical calculations, that the tail of a comet has produced every alteration the earth has ever undergone.
The next is the formation of an heterodox theologician, (BURNET) whose brain was so heated with poetical visions, that he imagined he had seen the creation of the universe. After explaining what the earth was in its primary state, when it sprung from nothing; what changes were occasioned by the deluge; what it has been and what it is, he then assumes a prophetic style, and predicts what will be its state after the destruction of the human race.
The third comes from a writer (WOODWARD) certainly a better and more extensive observer of nature than the two former, though little less irregular and confused in his ideas; he explains the principal appearances of the globe, by an immense abyss in the bowels of the earth, which in his opinion is nothing more than a thin crust that serves as a covering to the fluid it incloses.
The whole of these hypotheses are raised on unstable foundations; have given no light upon the subject, the ideas being unconnected, the facts confused, and the whole confounded with a mixture of physic and fable; and consequently have been adopted only by those who implicitly believe opinions without investigation, and who, incapable of distinguishing probability, are more impressed with the wonders of the marvellous than the relation of truth.