Our author had just now said, that I have advanced two suppositions, neither of which is grounded on facts:  Now, with regard to the one, he has acknowledged, that the mouldering of stones takes place, which is the fact on which that proposition is grounded; and with regard to the other, the only authority given against it is founded expressly upon the moving of soil by means of the rain water, in order to make sloping plains of mountains.  Here, therefore, I have grounded my propositions upon facts; and our author has founded his objections, first, upon a difficulty which he has himself removed; and, secondly, upon nothing but a visionary opinion, with regard to an earth which is not yet made, and which, when once made, is never more to change.

After making some unimportant observations,—­of all water not flowing into the sea,—­and of the travelled materials being also deposited upon the plains, etc. our author thus proceeds:  “Hence the conclusion of our author relative to the imperfect constitution of the globe falls to the ground; and the pains he takes to learn, by what means a decayed world may be renovated, are superfluous.”—­The object of my theory is to show, that this decaying nature of the solid earth is the very perfection of its constitution, as a living world; therefore, it was most proper that I should take pains to learn by what means the decayed parts might be renovated.  It is true, indeed, that this will be superfluous, when once that constitution of the earth, which M. de Luc thinks is preparing, shall be finished; but, in the mean time, while rivers carry the materials of our land, and while the sea impairs the coast, I may be allowed to suppose that this is the actual constitution of the earth.

I cannot help here animadverting upon what seems to be our author’s plan, in making these objections, which have nothing to do with his examination.  He accuses me of giving this world a false or imperfect constitution, (in which the solid land is considered as resolvable, and the materials of that land as being washed away into the sea,) for no other reason, that I can see, but because this may imply the formation of a future earth, which he is not disposed to allow; and, he is now to deny the stratified construction of this present earth to have been made by the deposits of materials at the bottom of the sea, because that would prove the existence of a former earth, which is repugnant to his notion of the origin of things, and is contrary, as he says, to reason, and the tenor of the Mosaic history.  Let me observe, in passing, that M. de Luc, of whose opinions our author expresses much approbation, thinks that he proves, from the express words and tenor of the Mosaic history, that the present earth was at the bottom of the sea not many years ago, and that the former earth had then disappeared.