| OCR Text |
Show KIRWAN-DE LUC. every thm. g to support the eternity of the w· or1l d *· ·" He d t11e pernicious influence of such sceptiCa notiOns, as escants on . " d b · leading to downright infidelity and. atheism, an as em.g nothing less than to depose the Alm1ghty Creator of the um-verse from his office t ·" . Kirwan, president of the Royal Academy of Dublm, ache-mist and mineralogist of som.e merit, but who possessed much greater authority in the scientific world than. he was ent~tled by his talents to enjoy, in the intro~uction to h1s "G~ologw~l ~ssays, 1799," said ''that sound geology graduated m.to rehg~on, and was required to dispel certain ·systems of atheism or mfidelity, of which they had had recent experiencet." He was an uncompromising defender of the aqueous theory of all rocks, and was scarcely surpassed by Burnet and Whiston, in his desire to adduce the Mosaic writings in confirmation of his opinions. De Luc, in the preliminary discourse to his Treatise on Geology§, says, " the weapons have been changed by which revealed religion is attacked; it is now assailed by geology, and this science has become ess('!ntial to theologians." He imputes the failure of former geol9gical systems to their having been anti-mosaical, and directed against a " sublime traditi9n." These and similar imputations, reiterated in the works of De Luc, seem to have been taken for granted by some modern writers : it is therefore necessary to state, in justice to the numerous geologists of different nations, whose works we have considered, that none of them were guilty of endeavouring, by arguments drawil from physics, to invalidate scriptural tenets. On t~1e contrary, the majority of them, who were fortunate enough "to discover the true causes of things," did not deserve another part of the poet's panegyric, " Atque metus omnes subjecit pedibus." The caution, and even timid reserve, of many eminent Italian authors of the earlier period is very apparent; and there can hardly be a doubt that they subscribed to certain dogmas, and particularly to the first diluvian theory, out of deference to popular prejudices, rather than from conviction. If they were guilty of dissimulation, we must not blame their want of moral courage, but reserve our condemnation for the intolerance of the times, and "'p. 577. t p. 59. t Introd. p. 2. 9 London1 1809. INTOLERANCE OF TilE NEPTUNISTS. 69 that inquisitorial power which forced Galileo to abjure, and the two Jesuits to disclaim the theory of Newton*· Hutton answered Kirwan's attacks with great warmth, and with the indign.ation excited by unmerited reproach. He had always displayed, says Playfair, " the utmost disposition to admire the beneficent ·design manifested in the structure of the world, and he contemplated with delight those parts of his theory which made the greatest additions to our knowledge of final causes." We may say with equal truth, that in no scientific works in our language can more eloquent passages be found, concerning the fitness, harmony, and grandeur of all parts of the creation, than in those of Playfair. '~rhey are evidently the unaffected expressions of a mind, which contemplated the study of nature, as best calculated to elevate our conceptions of the attributes of the First Cause. At any other time the force and elegance of rlayfair's style must have insured popularity to the Huttonian doctrines; but, by a singular coincidence, neptunianism and orthodoxy were now associated in the same creed; and the tide of prejudice ran so strong, that the majority were carried far away into the chaotic fluid, and other cosmological inventions of Wemer. These fictions the Saxon ~rofessor had borrowed with little modification, and without any Improvement, from his predecessors. They had not the smallest foundation, either in Scripture, or in common sense, but were ~erhaps approved of by many as being so ideal and unsubstantial, that they could never come into violent collision with any preconceived opinions. 'l'he great object of De Luc's writings was to disprove the * I obscr~c that, in a most able and interesting article "the Life of Galileo," reccnt_ Jy pubhsbed in the " Library of Useful Knowledge," it is asserted that both Gahlco's work, and the book of Copernicus "Nisi corrigatur," were still to be seen on the forlJidden list of the Index atRome in 1828. But! was assured in the same y~ar, by Professor Scarpcllini, at Rome, that Pius VII., a pontiff distinguished for hJs love. of science, procured in 1818 a repeal of the edicts against Galileo and the Cop.ern~can system. He assembled the Congregation, and the late cardinal Tonozz1, nssessor of the Sacred Office, proposed" that they should wipe off this scandal from the church.'' Tho repeal was carried, with the dissentient voice of one. Dominican only. Long before this time the Newtonian theory had been taught in the Sapienza, and all catholic universities in Europe (with the exception, I am told, of Salamanca) ; but it was always required of professors, in deference to the decrees of the church, to use tho term ltypotheaia, instead of theory. They now speak of the Copernican tlteo1'!f• |
