Circles that have the Axis of the Earth for their Axis for they do so now and must do so whatever position the Earth obtains if the motions of the Stars be only apparent and caused by the real rotation of the Earth round its Axis I fancy therefore that by a concentrical motion he means if he means any thing that which is perform'd in a Circle which has the same Centre that the Earth has as the word implys and I am confirm'd in the opinion that this or some other strange thing is mean't by this word because the Theorist in his Archaeolog asserts that in his Primitive Earth all its Inhabitants would be Ascii that is they would have no shadow at twelve of the Clock or they would have the Sun vertical to them at that time This I dare venture to say is impossible in this or any other of the numberless Worlds that the Defender dreams of among the fixed Stars unless the Sun can be multiply'd or made to appear at many different places at the same time For every one that ever read any one Page about the first principles of Geography knows that all those who live under the same Meridian have twelve of the Clock at the same time and consequently if the Sun were at twelve of the Clock vertical to all those who live under it he must be in every point of that Meridian at the same time I leave the Reader to judge if these men whose notions in Astronomy and Geography are so distinct and clear are not very capable of making Theories and discourses about the posture of the Primitive Earth and the position of its Axis They should be advis'd before ever they venture again to make another Theory or defend this to learn something of the common principles of the Sphere Perhaps they think them too common and easy and such as every body may know that will be at the pains to study and therefore they despise them and go upon higher attempts to find out something that no body else can discover as the method how the Earth was made and what was the state and condition of the Antediluvian World But for my part I would rather be quite ignorant of the posture of the Primitive Earth and the position of its Axis than not know the common principles of Astronomy and the doctrine of the Sphere I am sure if this Author had spent but half the time upon this subject that he has done upon the Theory he might have avoided many absurdities and would not have talk't of the Axis of the Earth being chang'd into a parallelism with the Axis of the Equator and the Heavens seeming to turn round upon an Axis different from that of the Earth For it is well known that the apparent motion of the Heavens is about the Axis of the Earth and that the Axis of the Equator is the same with the Earths Axis and it is impossible that they could ever have been distinct It seems this Defender's acquaintance is only with the Antediluvian World for one would think by his way of writing that he knew nothing at all of this Worlds position or motions His discourse and terms are so odd and strange that I sometimes believe they were terms that were used by the Antediluvian Fathers for I am sure they cannot be accommodated to the present mode and manner of speaking The design of the fifth Chapter of the Examination is to consider the Theorist's method of forming Rivers in the Primitive Earth which according to him were furnished with Vapours drawn from the Abyss thro' the Crust by the heat of the Sun Against this I objected that from thence it would follow that there could be no Rivers for a considerable time after the first Creation of the Earth For one would think that it must necessarily require some time before the Suns heat could penetrate thro' a thick Crust to raise vapours from the Abyss all which time the Inhabitants of the Earth must be without Rivers The Defender thinks this objection may be answered by saying that the Earth was at first soft and moist and therefore could not but furnish store of vapours to supply the Rivers But this is nothing but a shift for if we bring it to a Calculation we shall find the cause no ways answerable to the effect I shew'd in the Examination that the quantity of water evacuated by all the Rivers every Year was at least equal to 263080. Cubical Miles now if we allow no more Rivers in the Primitive Earth than there are now in ours whereas in our proportion to the surface of the Land they ought to be double so many Cubical Miles of water will likewise be necessary every Year to supply the Primitive Rivers and if we admit that the Sun had penetrated the thick Crust in the space of ten Years which is a time little enough in all reason for such an effect the quantity of water that would be necessary to supply the Rivers for such a time must not be less than 263080. Cubical Miles which is such a quantity as would make the Earth very soft and moist indeed But it would be much rather a Marsh and Mire than an habitable Earth I objected also that it was impossible that the Rays of the Sun could ever reach thro' a vast thick Crust so as to be able to raise vapours from the Abyss Or if we should suppose that it did raise them yet it could not do it in such a quantity as would be requisite to furnish the Antediluvian Rivers For who can imagine that the Sun could act as freely upon the Abyss as it does now upon the open Sea Whose surface is expos'd to the continual heat of the Sun whereas the Abyss was inclos'd by a thick Crustation in which were all the Materials of Earth Sand Clay Gravel Ores and Metalline substances And seeing the Sea as it is now laid open to the action of the Sun is but just sufficient to supply us with Rain and Vapours does it not seem a thing against common sense to suppose that the Abyss inclos'd with a thick shell could have sent out a quantity of Vapours great enough for such an effect But I passed from these general words and reduced the matter to Calculation where I shew'd that if we allow'd the mouths of all the Pores Cracks and Chaps thro' which the Sun must have acted on the Abyss to have been 1 10000 part of the Earth's surface there would then have been five thousand times less Vapours to have serv'd twice as great a quantity of dry Land and therefore that in a Country as bigg as Britain there would not have been so much as one River nor so much Rain in a Year as does now fall in a day All the answer the Defender makes to this is that I suppose great cracks and pitts thro' which the Vapours ascended whose dimensions and capacities I examine at pleasure whereas he does not
find that the Theorist makes any mention of these Cracks for that purpose The only question is whither the heat of the Sun could reach so low as the Abyss when the Earth was dry'd and its Pores inlarged Here he is mistaken this is not the only question for there is another material one besides viz. That supposing the heat of the Sun had reached the Abyss whether there could have been vapours enough extracted from it to furnish the Earth And I think I have prov'd that there could not But it seems he will not allow of the Calculation because it supposes that the Sun acted thro' large cracks fissures and chaps which he says the Theorist did not mention for any such purpose but he will have the Sun to have acted only thro' the Pores of the Earth Well let us grant his supposition that the Sun did not act thro' large cracks and fissures which I thought would best serve his designe but only thro' the Pores of the Earth and we will see how much the Theorist will gain by it I am accused of dealing unfairly with the Theorist when I make him suppose that Mountains make way for the motion and dilatation of vapours If this is unfair dealing I cannot tell what will be fair for the Theorist himself has expresly said so in his Book 11. Chap. 5. Parag. 4. of the English Theory Where speaking of the North and South parts of the World which he says draw the vapours to them his words are these The cold of those parts attracting them as we call it that is making way to their motion and dilatation without resistance as Mountains and cold places usually draw vapours from the warmer Tho I quoted these words in the Examination yet the Defender assures us that the Theorist supposes no such thing It seems then that he can say one thing and suppose another If so I wish the Defender would give us two Catalogues one of those things which he says and supposes to be true and another of those things he says without supposing them to be true I hope in this last we should find what is said in the 7th 8th and 9th Chapters of the Archaeologiae concerning the Mosaical account of the Formation of the World its Primitive State and the Fall of Man Our next dispute is about the course of the vapours The Theorist asserted that it would be towards North and South Now I prov'd that it would be from East to West because I demonstrated that there must be a continual wind blowing that way in an Earth where there were no Mountains to change the direction of the wind just as it is now in the Atlantick and Pacisick Oceans And seeing the vapours swim in an Air of the same intensive gravity with themselves it is demonstrable that they must follow the motion of that Air and be likewise carry'd from East to West The Defender grants that their motion would be at first that way But says he the question here is where they would be condensed or where they would fall I think it does not signify any thing where they fall for I am sure they would not fall or be condensed in a place to which they were never carry'd that is towards either of the Poles The Theorist was of the opinion that the cold in the North and South parts attracted the vapours thither that is as he explains it made way for their motion and dilatation But because I shew'd that this method savoured a little of absurdity our Theory-mender says that the vapours were diverted towards North and South by an impulse of new vapours This opinion seems to me to be as unnatural as the other for if the vapours were crouded on one another by their mutual impulses they would condense one another and fall down in the places where they were crouded I am sure it is impossible that an attome of vapour however impell'd should make its way thro' an Atmosphere of the same gravity with its self for some thousands of Miles towards either of the Poles when a stone which has some thousand times more density than vapours and consequently some thousands of times also more force to break the resistance of the medium if it were to move to Eternity in the Air yet it would never make any considerable way in the medium by reason of the continual loss of its motion It seems to contradict our senses to suppose that vapours can move thro' the Air without suffering such a resistance as must condense them We observe that those vapours which are in the Clouds when the Air grows light begin to fall no doubt in the form of vapours but afterwards suffering a considerable resistance from the Air they are condensed into drops of Rain If then the resistance the vapours meet with for so small a way be sufficient to condense them is it not naturally impossible that they should travel some thousands of Miles and not be condensed till they arive at the Poles Our Author proceeds in the next place to consider the seventh Chapter of the Examination and answer the arguments that are brought against the Theorist's way of making a Deluge It is suppos'd in the Theory that after some ages the heat of the Sun must have peirced thro' the Crust of the Earth and reached the Abyss where it must have rarify'd the waters there and rais'd an immense quantity of them into vapours these endeavouring to expand themselves and the Pores of the Earth not being sufficient to let them pass thro' would press upon the Crust and break it into peices so that its fall upon the Abyss would produce an universal Deluge Against this I objected that it is impossible the heat of the Sun could reach far into the Earth so as to perform any considerable effect since by observation it was found that in Caves and Vaults there was not any sensible alteration of heat in Summer and Winter and therefore seeing that the heat of the Sun had so little effect in places of the Earth that were so near its surface how could any one imagine that it would have any upon the Abyss which was covered over with a thick Crust But because this argument was propos'd in general terms I endeavour'd to bring it to Calculation in order to which I assumed one postulatum viz. That fewer Rays of heat passed to the Abyss thro' the Crust than if it had been compos'd of several surfaces at some considerable distance from one another suppose 10.20 or 30. feet every one of which reflected half the Rays which fell upon them and transmitted the other half ' This I thought was a postulatum which every body would have granted and if we consider how much of the Suns light and heat is diminished by a thin Cloud of vapours placed between it and us and how much light is reflected by the common Air when it passes thro' it we cannot but own that the diminution of heat in
other causes than the heat of the Sun Tho' the arguments I have already given clearly prove that there was no rarefaction of the vapours caused by the heat of the Sun within the Abyss yet I shew'd that granting the Suns heat had reach't the Abyss even then an Universal Deluge could not follow from thence because I demonstrated by a Calculation that if the Suns heat drew vapours from the Abyss sufficient to furnish the Rivers on the Earth it must have exhausted this great treasure long before the time of the Deluge This manner of Examining the Defender calls contention and going from one extream to another tho' for my part I think there cannot be fairer dealing than first to prove that his Principles and Hypotheses are false and disagreeable to Nature and then supposing them true to shew that his reasonings upon 'em are false and inconclusive and the causes he assigns are no ways proportionable to the effects he would account for However our Author assures us that there are a great many uncertainties in the computation He knows I did not pretend to give an exact estimation of the Water that the Rivers sent into the Sea I can suppose that I have not come within the truth by one two or three Cubical Miles of Water which is as much as I need to allow nay I will grant him that I have erred a twentieth part or even one half if he pleases and yet the argument will be strong enough For according to the computation the Abyss ought to have been exhausted in the space of 460. Years now from the Creation to the time of the Deluge there were 1600. Years By which it is evident that which ever of these Hypotheses he takes the Abyss must have been empty long before the time of the Deluge But he thinks I go in this Calculation on principles that are not allow'd by the Theorist because I suppose the Waters of the present Sea equal to the Waters of the great Abyss whereas says he there was near twice as much Water in the great deep as is now in the Ocean seeing the Abyss was extended under the whole Earth and the Sea reaches but to the half of it I always presum'd that it was the Theorist's Hypothesis that the Crust fell down upon the Abyss and drove the Waters from their place so that the greatest part of the Waters in the Abyss after they had overflowed the Earth came and settled at last in the Sea There might indeed have been some Water left in the Hollows and Cavities of the Earth but 't would be inconsiderable in respect of the whole and the Theorist himself asserts that if the Earth should disgorge all the Waters in its bowels it would not amount to above half an Ocean and in the Latin Edition he thinks that it is altogether incredible that the Water within the Earth should be as great as what is in the Sea and Rivers So that this Gentleman who asserts that there was almost twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean seems never to have read the Theory or to have understood the Theorist's Hypothesis which he endeavours to defend But what if there were twice as much Water in the Abyss as there is now in the Ocean yet even in that case the whole must have been exhausted long before the Deluge since one Ocean could have been drawn up in the space of 460. Years Nay if we suppose that there were but just so many Rivers in the Primitive Earth as there are now in ours whereas in proportion to the dry Land there ought to have been twice as many yet in the space of 1600. Years there is time enough to have the whole Abyss exhausted as is evident by the Calculation The Defender alledges that the Rivers were not supply'd by the vapours only from the Abyss but also from the Earth and Waters upon it This evasion was foreseen and obviated by me in the 165. Page of the Examination where I prov'd that there must be at least the same quantity of vapour exhal'd from the Abyss as was before because the same cause still continuing to act would still produce the same effect and the Abyss having at first furnished the Rivers with a sufficient quantity of Water would still continue to furnish 'em in the same quantity nay rather in a much greater since according to the Theory the heat of the Sun was stronger and stronger every day upon the Abyss and the vapours exhal'd were so many at last that not being all of them able to crowd thro' the Pores they broke the thick Crust of the Earth with their violent effect to expand themselves and fly upwards Thus we see all the shifts and evasions which this Author makes are not of the least weight against my computation But supposing that all the Water in the present Ocean was then in the Abyss yet I prov'd that from the fall of the Crust there could arise no Universal Deluge because the Theorist himself prov'd that there must be at least eight Oceans of Water requir'd to cover the Earth The Defender confesses that the Water in the Abyss was not sufficient to make a Deluge in the nature of a standing Pool over-topping and standing calm over the heads of the highest Mountains as it is usually conceiv'd but the Deluge that rose from the fall of the Crust was rather like a rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping them with its Raging Waves and Impetuous Fluctuations I beg the Theorist's pardon for mistaking him I thought that he design'd to explain Noahs Deluge and not one of his own imagination Now I can easily prove that such a Deluge as this Gentleman conceives is no ways like that which happen'd in the days of Noah For tho' the Theorist computed but eight Oceans of Water that were sufficient to cover the whole Earth above the tops of the highest Mountains yet I determined the quantity more nicely in my Remarks on Mr. Whistons Theory where I prov'd that there must be at least three and twenty Oceans of Water that were necessary for such an effect From which it is evident that the Water in the Abyss could but cover one part of twenty three at a time and the other twenty two parts must remain dry and that after the Water had overflowed this part it must have proceeded to the next and so successively till at last it had overflow'd the whole Earth This is the way that our Author must conceive the Deluge Let us see now what account the Scriptures give us of Noahs Deluge Genes Chap. 7. v. 2. it is said That the fountains of the great deep were broken up and the windows of heaven were opened and the rain was upon the Earth fourty days and fourty nights And again vers 17. And the flood was fourty days upon the Earth and the waters increased and bare up the Ark and it was lift up above the Earth vers 18.
little more than three to one their difference in that case arising only from the more direct action of the Sun in Summer than in Winter whereas in the present case our Summers heat is to our Winters heat in a greater proportion than that of seven to one All the effect that would follow from this attraction is this Both the fluid on the Abyss and the Central solid would be attracted by the Comet but the fluid on the Abyss being nearer to it than the other would be more strongly attracted and because the solid Crust by reason of the firmness and union of its parts cannot move faster to the Comet than the Central solid does it is evident from thence that it must be pressed only by the difference of attraction or by that force by which the fluid in the Abyss is drawn more towards the Comet than the Central solid is and seeing the fluid has acquired no velocity or impetus by motion it is clear from what is already prov'd and by what is more fully demonstrated by Borell in his 24.25 and 26. Chapters of his Book De vi percussionis that the force of the fluid thus pressing will be infinitely less than what it would be if it had acquired any determinate degree of velocity by motion And since Mr. Whiston seems to acknowledge that a great impulse of the fluid would be necessarily required to break and disjoyn the Crust the small force arising from the pressure of the fluid can never be able to produce so great an effect What Mr. Whiston says of a Floor of disjoyn'd Planks laid cross the Thames that may as well be suppos'd to stop the Tide or the ascent of the Waters as the Crust of the Earth the Tide of the Abyss is I think no parallel case For it is not the attraction of the Moon that is the immediate cause of the Tide in the Thames but it arises solely from the check and great impulse that the Waters receive from the motion of the Sea by which they are driven backwards with violence and are made to ascend up the River and produce Tides But if Mr. Whiston will still assert that the Strata or subsiding Columns were separated and disjoyn'd like so many loose Planks tho' it contradicts what he has said in another place * Vinlic pag. 17. yet granting that it was so I shall from thence evidently demonstrate that there could no Water arise upon that very account from the Abyss or Bowels of the Earth as shall be shown in its proper place The New Theory supposes that the fourty days rain mentioned in the History of the Deluge was caused by the vast quantity of Vapours that were in the Comets tail which being very much rarify'd and expanded would immediately mount up again into the Air after their fall upon the Earth and descend again in violent and outragious Rains Against this it was objected that the incredible velocity with which these Vapours descended and the great resistance they met with in their descent thro' the Air together with the force by which they fell upon the ground must of necessity have condensed them into Water Here he answers that tho' the greatest part of the Vapours should be condensed into Rain yet 't is hard that I will not allow many of them to escape the same enough at least to make a constant fourty days Rain for it is strange to him that so thin a Body as our Air lying in so small a compass about the Earth should have the good luck to stop and condense all and every part of so immense and swift a descending Column of Vapours As strange and hard as it is yet I cannot see how its possible any should escape being condensed If there were any void Canals in our Air thro' which some Vapours might descend we might then allow him his Hypothesis but since it is evident from the nature of our Air that its impossible there should be any such empty spaces it is certain that there is not one of these Vapours but must meet with Air wherever it moves in our Atmosphere which it must therefore force out of its way and because it is supposed to move so prodigiously swift as to descend 860. miles in a minute the resistance it will meet with from every particle of Air must be vastly great and must therefore necessarily condense it But if I should allow him that these Vapours were not condensed in their descent thro' the Air yet to imagine that they should be not condensed when they fall with so prodigious a swiftness as he allows them upon the Earth Water or any other thing that will stop their motion is such a fancy as needs no confutation if they had such a strange velocity as he speaks of they must penetrate and destroy all Humane and other Animal Bodies so that such a shower as this one day would have done the business of a Deluge and there would have been no occasion for other thirty nine days Rain But after all this Mr. Whiston grants that the Vapours might be condensed in their fall but yet he says that their heat which at first rarify'd them and had continued their expansion in the Comets tail would immediately after their fall rarify them again and raise them into new Vapour But if so I cannot see how this will answer the account that Moses gives us of the Deluge For he tells us that the encrease of the Waters was gradual and produced in a great measure by fourty days Rain and that they continually encreased and prevailed upon the Earth for the space of 150. days whereas by this Theory the Deluge must have hapned all of a suddain according to it the very first day all the Waters that came from the Comet must have fall'n upon the Earth and by consequence the Waters that were raised from the Abyss must have immediately ascended so that if this Theory were true the Deluge must be accomplished in one day and not in 150 for as to the Vapours which were raised and continu'd to fall for fourty days unless the water was very scalding hot indeed that would be very inconsiderable and would rather diminish than encrease the quantity of Waters upon the Earth untill they again descended in Rain I come now to consider the way Mr. Whiston raises the Fluid from the Abyss He supposes that the great weight of the Water which lay upon the Crust would depress it and make it sink deeper into the Abyss and by that means force and squeeze the Fluid thro' the fissures and cracks of the Earth But against this I positively demonstrated that no pressure of the Fluid whatsoever could make the Crust sink deeper into the Abyss In answer to this he is pleas'd to tell me That my demonstration supposes either that not the water on the Earth but in the Fissures did contribute to the raising of the Fluid thro' them or that the several Columns had
AN EXAMINATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON The Theory of the Earth Together with A DEFENCE of the REMARKS ON Mr. Whiston's New Theory By J. KEILL A. M. of Ball. Coll. Oxon. OXFORD Printed at the THEATER for Henry Clemens Bookseller 1699. Imprimatur Will. Paynter VICE-CAN OXON June 30. 1699. An EXAMINATION OF THE REFLECTIONS ON The Theory of the Earth THE Defence of the Theory which has been lately Published in Answer to my Examination of it is styl'd Reflections on the Theory of the Earth But if its Author had observ'd the Title and made more Reflections on the Theory tho' fewer on the Examiner he had acted more like a true Philosopher and perhaps might have saved himself the labour of Publishing any thing more than an ingenuous acknowledgement of its errors and me the trouble of a Reply But since the Reflecter has been pleas'd to follow another course I must take his work and consider it in the method it lyes He first sets down three propositions which He calls the foundation of the whole work viz. That the Primitive or Antediluvian Earth was of a different form from the present 2dly That the face of the Earth as it rose from a Chaos was smooth regular and uniform without Mountains and Rocks and without an open Sea 3dly That the disruption of the Abyss or the dissolution of the Primeval Earth was the cause of the Universal Deluge To these he adds a Corollary drawn from the primary propositions concerning the position of the Earth in which he says that the posture of the Antediluvian Earth or its Axis was not oblique TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN or of the Ecliptick as it is now BUT LAY PARALLEL TO THE AXIS OF THE SUN and perpendicular to the plane of the Ecliptick These he makes the onely fundamental propositions of the Theory tho' the Theorist in his ninth Chapter Book 2d. makes one more concerning the oval figure of the Earth and tells us That he who will attack it to the purpose must throw down in the first place these leading propositions and that if the Examiner had taken this method and confuted the proofs that are brought in confirmation of each of them he needed have done no more but if instead of this a loose stone be onely picked out here and there or a Pinnacle struck off it will not weaken the foundation I cannot imagine how this Author can assert that I have not followed this method in refuting the Theory for if these he has mentioned be the substantial and vital parts I have examined every one of them as will plainly appear to any one who will read the Examination so that what he has said of me in another case may be very well apply'd to himself That either he never read over or does not remember or which is still worse does willfully misrepresent what I have written on this subject The design of the first Chapter of the Examination is not as this Defender imagines to prove that the Deluge might have been made by a miracle but to answer the general Argument which the Theorist with a boldness little becoming a Divine brought for the truth of his Theory viz. * English Theory Ch. 7. Book I. that it could be made no other way and therefore his method being the onely way possible was the real one To this I answered that I thought it possible the Deluge might come by a miracle and that God Almighty was the immediate cause thereof the Scriptures having given us such an account of it in these emphatical terms Gen. 6.17 Behold saith God I even I do bring a flood of waters upon the Earth But the Defender is displeased because I did not tell him wherein this miracle consisted The truth is I never thought it my business to explain miracles and I wish no Theorists or Philosophers had set up for it I should be well contented to find in their writings a Mechanical and easy account of the common and ordinary Phoenomena of nature But it seems this Author will not be satisfy'd unless I tell him how the increase of waters at the time of the Deluge was made on the Earth I answer that according to the Scripture some of the water was raised from the great deep and sustain'd on the surface of the Earth by the hand of Omnipotence a great part of it descended by fourty days continual rain the waters which occasion'd this rain being either newly created or risen from other matter turned into that Element or brought from some other place best known to the Divine Omniscience which of all these three methods was used I will not take upon me to determine but I think it might have been done by any of them notwithstanding the reasons alledg'd in the second and third Chapters of the Theory which this Author thinks me oblig'd to answer It seems he thinks them very strong and convincing tho' when I wrote the Examination I thought them so weak and precarious that it would not be worth while to take notice of them * English Theory Ch. 3. Book I. The arguments against a Creation of waters are founded on a notoriously false notion of the Cartesian Philosophy viz. That matter and space are the same according to which principle 't is not easy to understand how either Creation or Annihilation can be possible Nor do I think the arguments against Transmutation of Air or other bodies into water of greater force than the former For if all bodies be onely different in their modifications motions and figures I can see no reason why any body may not be changed and put on the form of another and therefore if according to the Theorists principle there is no vacuity in Nature not onely the Air may be changed into Water but also all the subtil matter which fills its Pores and according to this principle of a Plenum that subtil matter will make as much Water as if the same bulk of absolutely solid matter were transformed The Defender alledges that if I proceed upon such Waters as were already in being and make them either Supercelestial or Subterranneous I must tell him WHAT THESE WATERS ARE and must answer such objections as are brought against either sort in the second and third Chapters of the Theory if he means that I should tell him the nature of this Water and of what sort it was I answer that it might be common Water for that will be sufficient to drown the World but if He designs that I should tell him from what place it was brought and how it came there I must own I know not For to answer the question which he makes in another place I have not yet been all over the Universe to make Observations nor have I had any Revelation made me it is enough both for him and me to suppose this Water like common Water and that 't was brought upon the Earth by the Power of God The arguments which the
World once perished by a Deluge of Waters and that it was to perish again by Fire both which are arguments enough for a Providence and of gods particular care of the World this I take to be his plain meaning except St. Peter be to be understood in an Allegorical sense as well as Moses After this general discourse he comes to a more particular consideration of the inconveniencies alledg'd against the parallelism of the Axis of the Earth with the Axis of the Ecliptick One argument I brought was that by the present position of the Earths Axis we receiv'd more of the Suns heat than if it had mov'd always in the Equator and if our heat at present is not too great for us as without doubt it is not it was a very good reason why the present position should be esteem'd better than that the Theorist calls a right one wherein we should not have so much of the Suns influence as we have The Defender thinks this is no argument against the Theory for says he if the heat was equal and moderate in the temperate and habitable Climates who would desire the extream heats of Summer I answer every one that observes how necessary the Summers heat is to the production of Vegetables and the ripening of their seed which could never be brought to any perfection did the Sun shine always in the Equator whereby the action of the Sun in our Latitude would be little more than half of what it is at present in a Summers day which therefore could never be sufficient for the growth and perfection of Vegetables But says he how does this appear supposing the heat constant Are there no Vegetables in Jupiter which has still the position the Theorist gave the Primitive Earth and which is vastly further distant from the Sun and by consequence must have much less of his heat Whether there are Vegetables in Jupiter neither the Theorist nor I can determine for we were never there to see and I believe it was never revealed to him or any body else that there are But supposing there are vegetables there what is that to us Does he think them of the same nature and texture of parts that ours are of Or that ours if they were transplanted thither could grow and ripen in such a cold soil when it is certain that they require at least twenty five times a greater heat or influence from the Sun than is in that Planet Besides it is requisite as I shew'd in the Examination that our plants and vegetables should have very different degrees of heat and therefore there must be such changes and alterations in the seasons as are necessary to produce the design'd effect for that heat which is requir'd for the first growth and vegetation of a plant will not be sufficient for the ripening and perfecting of the seed thereof and that which is necessary for the bringing the seed to perfection would quite wither the green and tender herb and therefore since this variety of seasons and alterations of heat cannot be obtain'd either in Jupiter or in the Theorist's Antediluvian Earth it is plain that our plants could never have been brought to perfection in either of those places But it seems this Defender is of the opinion that the plants and vegetables of the Primitive Earth were of a different nature and constitution from those we have now so that he must think that the nature of all our plants was perfectly alter'd and chang'd or that God Almighty having destroy'd the old was pleas'd to give us a quite new species of vegetables and plants this is a miracle that is recorded no where in Scripture or any where else that I know of and I hope he will not think us oblig'd on his word to believe it I affirm'd also that if the Earth had such a position as the Theorist assign'd it that the greatest part of it wou'd not be habitable For he himself acknowledges that the Torrid Zone was uninhabitable in that Earth and I am sure that the greatest part of the two temperate Zones would not have sufficient heat to ripen their Corn and Fruits and consequently would be nothing else but a Desart To this he replys with this question How much less habitable would it be than the present Earth where the open Sea which was not then takes up half its surface I answer that upon the same consideration I cannot see how any part of it should be habitable for there being no open Sea whose surface is expos'd to the heat of the Sun I cannot imagine how there could be vapours enough drawn up to furnish the Earth with Waters Dews and Mists For when it is requisite that one half of the Earths surface should be cover'd with water on purpose to furnish vapours enough for Rain and Rivers how can it be supply'd if there were no Sea at all Can any Man suppose that the Sun acted as freely thro' a Crust of an immense thickness to raise vapours as it does now upon the surface of the open Sea This by the way I think is a very good argument against the Theorist who asserted that the Primitive Earth had no Sea But the Defender thinks that it would be very hard if the seasons of the Year were the same as they are now that the Inhabitants of the Earth should be confin'd to Herbs Fruits and Water especially in the colder Climates where the Winters are so long and the cold vehement this he thinks would be a most unmerciful imposition Really as hard and unmerciful as it is there are a very considerable number of people in these cold Countries the greatest part of whose Food is Bread Herbs Roots Milk Cheese and the like and who seldom tast any Flesh-meats And why might not the Antediluvians lead the same kind of life I cannot see that the imposition is harder upon one than the other The Defender says that the change of the position of the Earth's Axis is matter of fact and must be prov'd from History And he wishes the Examiner would consult Antiquity which would give him a more favourable opinion of the Theory as to this point One would imagine by this that this Gentleman had the Observations of some Antediluvian Astronomers to produce who had found that the inclination of the Earths Axis was chang'd from a perpendicular into the present oblique posture But instead of those he only quotes some Philosophers that did not live within some thousands of Years of the time when this change was suppos'd to be made What credit is there to be given to such a Tradition Can we imagine that there can be any thing certainly known from Authors that liv'd so long after the time of this change Especially when these men have said a thousand other things that neither the Theorist nor any body else can believe And yet if we consider what they have said we shall find it but very little to his purpose Diogenes
passing thro' every 20. or 30. foot of a solid Crust must be at least the half of what falls upon it Upon this supposition I shew'd that if there were but one hundred of these surfaces the number of Rays which fell upon the first would be to the number of Rays which fell upon the last as 2 99 to I. or as the 99th power of 2. to unity from whence it followed that if we took the distances as the Logarithms the heat of the Sun at each of these distances would be as the absolute numbers belonging to these Logarithms Thus if A B represented the thickness of the Crust A C the number of Rays which fell upon the surface at A D E the number of Rays which fell upon the surface at D and if we draw thro' the points C and E the Logarithmick curve to the Asymptote A B the Applicate B F will represent the number of Rays which will fall upon the surface at B which in our present case is vastly less than AC Perhaps the Defender will say that the Rays are diminished in passing thro' a medium but yet he does not see how they should be diminished in the proportion I have assign'd viz. so that the Applicates to the Logarithmick curve are always as the quantity of Rays which pass thro' Well that he may see that this is not a precarious assumption I will give him my reason for it Tho' this way of reasoning by a Calculus seems to be plain and obvious enough to those who understand the common principles of Calculation which as I think ought to be unknown to none that pretend either to write or defend a Theory as the Theorist himself owns yet the Defender does whatever he can to find shists and evasions for such arguments and here he tells us that we ought not to consider surfaces but pores Well that he may see how ready I am to please and obey him I have done this already in the 71. Page of this Treatise where I have shew'd that if the Sun shin'd upon any surface that is exposed openly to it its heat on that surface would be 202500. times greater than its heat upon the surface of the Abyss when it shin'd only thro' the Pores of the Crust Which disproportion is great enough to shew that no great store of vapours could be rarify'd in the Abyss But says he those that allow a Comet at its nearest approach to the Sun to be peirced thro' and thro' so as to become hotter than red hot iron will not think it strange that at our distance it should have some proportional effect upon the inward parts of the Earth Let us illustrate his similitude by another Those who allow that a ball of iron ten inches thick when put in a good fire may be made red hot and be peirced by the fire thro' and thro' will not think it strange that this ball of iron remov'd 10. feet from the fire should receive some proportionable heat even in its inward parts as without doubt it would But the question is if this effect is any way sensible or if we should suppose some water inclosed in the middle of this ball whether the heat of the fire could raise it into vapour at such a distance so that the force those vapours have to expand themselves would break or burst the ball I thought that this Gentleman had known so much of the new Experimental Philosophy as not to be ignorant that heat does not pass into the interior parts of a solid of considerable thickness till it has quite dissolv'd the Exterior parts and if the solid is combustible as wood it consumes the outward parts before it has any sensible effect upon the Interior but if its parts are compact as Metals or Stone it loosens and dissolves the frame and texture of the outward parts and so makes its way to the inward But our Philosopher thinks he has found out one remarkable Phoenomenon by which he can prove effectually that the heat of the Sun peirces deep into the Crust and that is in the case of the Earth-quakes He considers the cause of them and their depths and he says that all agree that they arise from the rarefaction of Vapours and Exhalations This rarefaction says he must be made by some heat and no other is prov'd to us yet by this Author than the heat of the Sun Why should I be oblig'd to satisfy him in all his difficulties in Philosophy Did ever I set up to be a Theorist and give an account of all the Phoenomena of Nature Well but it seems he expects it from me and tho' I am no ways oblidg'd to it yet out of abundance of good nature I will give my opinion in this matter I think then that the rarefaction of Vapours within the Earth may arise from another heat than that of the Sun We know that there is an actual fire which always burns in several places of it which sometimes bursts out and makes an horrible eruption as in all Vulcano's and Fiery Mountains and why may not this fire be the cause of the rarefaction This appears to be more probable because Earth-quakes are most common in those places where these Vulcanos are as in the Kingdom of Naples and Sicily But supposing there were no actual fire under ground yet I am of the opinion that heat may arise from other causes than that of the Sun It is observ'd that from a due mixture of some particles of matter with those of another sort there will arise a very considerable heat Some places underground are observ'd to be exceeding hot as some Mines where there is a mixture of Sulphureous Nitrous and Mineral principles the heat is so considerable that a Man cannot easily endure it even in the extremity of Winter There are other places so warm that the waters that run thro' them will scald a Mans hand And may we not suppose that there are some Cavities deeper underground where the Earth is of the same frame and texture of parts Now if some Sulphureous and Nitrous Exhalations should be gathered together within any of these Cavities and by motion or any other accident they should happen to be kindled it is plain they will expand themselves rarify the Air and make that Concussion of the ground we usually observe in Earthquakes Now it is plain that these Exhalations may be kindled without the heat of the Sun from observations that are daily to be made in our Atmosphere where the Sulphureous Exhalations that are the cause of Thunder and Lightning are kindled in the Air when the action of the Sun is not strong This is also observ'd of Meteors which we commonly call falling Stars whose matter is kindled in the night-time when the immediate heat of the Sun can have as little effect as it has within the bowels of the Earth and I hope this will be sufficient to safisfy him that Earthquakes may arise from
And the waters prevail'd and were increased greatly upon the Earth and the Ark went upon the face of the waters vers 19. And the waters prevail'd exceedingly upon the Earth and all the high hills that were under the whole heavens were covered vers 20. Fifteen cubits upwards did the waters prevail and the mountains were covered vers 24. And the waters prevail'd upon the Earth an hundred and fifty days Chap. 8. ver 1. And God made a wind to pass over the Earth and the waters asswaged verss 2. The fountains also of the deep and the windows of heaven were stopped and the rain from heaven was restrained vers 3. And the waters returned from off the Earth continually and after the end of the hundred and fifty days the waters were abated ver 5. And the waters decreased continually until the tenth month In the tenth month on the fifth day of the month were the tops of the mountains seen We may observe from this that the Scriptures inform us that the whole Earth was under a Deluge at the same time that the waters increased and prevailed gradually every where for the space of 150. days that all the high hills under the whole heavens were covered that all these Mountains lay under Water for several months that the Ark swam and was carry'd up above the Mountains and when the Waters began to abate it rested at last upon one of them that it was the eighth month from the beginning of the Deluge when the tops of the Mountains first began to appear till which time they lay all of them hid and covered with Water Now in the Theorist's imaginary Deluge it is plain as I have already observ'd that there was but a twenty third part of the Earth covered with Water at the same time it is also evident that the Waters could not increase gradually in any one place for the space of 150. days since the whole Earth was to be cover'd over with waters in that time His single Ocean of Water could not stay but the three and twentieth part of that time in one place and therefore it must have gone off from that place and left it dry long before the end of those days Nor is this Idea of a Deluge less consistent with Reason and Philosophy than it is with Scripture Is it possible to conceive a moving wandring Mountain of Water For Water naturally settles its self into a surface concentrical to the Earth and by whatever force or however it should be rais'd into an heap it will immediately spread it self uniformly upon the surface of the Earth and descend by whatever ways it can If therefore we should suppose all the waters in the Abyss drawn or forced up to cover the hills of any one place it will immediately descend and form it self into a surface parallel to the Horizon and so spread its self equally every where upon the Valleys of the Earth leaving the Mountains quite uncover'd The Theorist himself acknowledges that a Mountain of Water is an impossible thing and indeed this notion of a Deluge seems to be so extravagant that I can scarce think that any body will be so credulous as to believe it and yet it is impossible that it can be any other ways if we suppose all the Mountains of the Earth to have been cover'd with an Ocean of Water of no greater dimensions than that assign'd in the Theory which cannot cover more than the three and twentieth part of the Earths surface The Defender in vain alledges that we are to conceive this Ocean as a mighty rushing Sea overflowing and sweeping with its Raging waves and Impetuous Fluctuations all the Mountains for this will not at all take away the absurdity because motion can never multiply any body nor make it to be at more places than one at a time Water can only by motion be in many places successively which will give us the Idea of such a moving heap or Mountain of waters as we have just now prov'd impossible Nor is this notion of a Deluge agreeable to the principles of the Theory For let us suppose the Crust to have been broken by the force of vapours endeavouring to expand themselves it must immediately fall down and drive the Water of the Abyss out of its place some one way and some another this Water will ascend with a very considerable force let us suppose as far as five Miles perpendicular height after which it will descend again and fall to the ground and all this will be by computation in much less time than one day These waters having acquired a great force by their fall will descend very swiftly into the Vallies and Cavities of the Earth and leave both Mountains and Upper-grounds quite uncovered And as the Waters that were raised by the fall of the Crust could cover no more than a twenty third part of the Earths surface so it is evident it could remain but a very short time upon the tops of those Mountains it overflow'd whereas in Noah's Deluge all the Mountains of the Earth lay under water for the space of 150. days Thus I have prov'd that the Deluge the Defender endeavour'd to explain is neither consistent with the holy Scriptures true Reason and Philosophy nor the Principles of the Theory from whence he pretends to deduce it Of the Figure of the Earth THO' what the Theorist has said in relation to the Figure of the Earth be one of his grossest and most palpable errors and tho' there is a positive demonstration that it is of a Figure directly contrary to that he assigns yet his Defender thinks himself oblig'd to maintain it and therefore spends more time and paper about it than upon any other point He is not contented with what has been said by several Mathematicians and Philosophers of the present Age upon this Subject tho' one would think that they knew the methods to determine the Figure of the Earth much better than either the Theorist or himself He is afraid that they will give it against him and therefore he appeals from them to some farther Observations that He and the Theorist point out and direct us to make As to observe for instance whether the extent of a degree be the same in different Latitudes or whether the shadow of the Earth in a total Eclipse of the Moon be truly round as also to observe if towards the Poles the return of the Sun to their Horizon be according to the rules of a Sphaerical Surface of the Earth These are the Observations the Theorist would have made to determine the controversy Which I will now consider leaving the Defenders Observations to be examined in a proper place I noted in the Examination that I did not think any Observations that could be made upon different measures of a Degree in different Latitudes could be so nice and exact as would be necessary to determine the point in controversy For supposing that the greatest Diameter of the
may find several hundreds of people that can tell him that there are other causes found for the Coelestial motions than the Vortices which will easily explain all those Phoenomena he has just now mentioned The causes why the Planets move in Elliptical Orbits are now discover'd it is known why they move swiftest at their Perihelia and slowest at their Aphelia The cause of the procession of the Equinox is now no longer a mystery and which is for our purpose it depends upon principles that ruine the Theorist's Figure of the Earth and assert the direct contrary making it in the form of a broad Spheroid The motion of the Moons Apogeon forward and of its Nodes backwards its variation and all its other motions are easily accounted for by the same causes none of which could ever be made out by the Vortices For by them we can't answer the first question the Defender puts viz. What is it that carrys the Planets round the Sun with the same velocity for many Ages Nay supposing that we were altogether ignorant of any other cause yet it is no hard matter to prove that the Vortices can never be the cause of the Coelestial motions and therefore there being no Vortex there can be no such thing as a straitness in the Orbit at the Equator which the Theorist and the Defender suppose But if I should allow them both their Vortices and the straitness of their Orbs I have already prov'd that they will signify nothing to their purpose The Defender tells us that this reasoning about the Figure of the Earth depends upon the Theorists Hypothesis that the Globe of it was once fluid and from thence he pretends to confirm the Theory For says he neither Figure of the Earth oblong or oblate can be proved from the rotation of the Earth and its Gravity without supposing the Globe formed into that shape before it came to be hardened before it came to be loaded and stiffned with Rocks and stony Mountains and therefore upon both Hypotheses it must be allowed that there was such a time such a state of the Earth when its tender Orb was capable of these impressions and modifications and that Orb must have lyen above the waters not under them nor radicated to the bottom of them and in the last place this concretion upon the waters says he must have been throughout all the parts of the Earth for there is no reason why one part of the fluid should be covered more than another so says he that in effect we must suppose that all the watery Globe was at first covered over with an Earthy concretion Now this being admitted says he we have confirmed the main point of the Theory namely that the Abyss was at first covered over with an Orb of earth and if we will grant him this he will compound for the rest He is a little too unreasonable in expecting grants of such things as are altogether precarious and affirm'd without so much as a shew of an argument My business was to prove that he had deduced a wrong conclusion from his own Hypotheses and Principles and therefore supposing that the Globe of the Earth was once fluid I prov'd from thence that it must have settled it self into the figure of a broad Spheroid and not of an oblong one But yet I demonstrated that supposing the Earth to have been partly fluid and partly dry as it is at present that even in that ease the Figure of the Earth must be Spheroidical because we observe that the Land is very nearly of the same Figure with the Sea only raised a little higher that it may not be overflowed and composes with it the same solid but the Sea being fluid will settle its self into just such a figure as if the whole Globe were fluid that is as I have demonstrated its surface will be the same with that of a broad Spheroid and therefore the Land which is of the same figure will be so likewise And thus I hope I have prov'd that whether we suppose the Earth to have been at first intirely fluid or to have been compos'd of parts some solid and some fluid that from either of these suppositions it follows that the Figure of the Earth must be directly contrary to what the Theorist assigns But says our Author if the Earth was from the beginning in this present form firm and solid as it is now Rocky and Mountainous then the question is how the Parts or Regions of the Earth about the Equator could be raised above a Spherical figure or into an oblate Spheroid suppose then the waters raised by the circumvolution of the Earth how was the Terra firma raised or how could it be raised by that or any such cause These questions says he are no matter of difficulty to the Theorist who supposes the first Earth to have covered the Waters and to have taken their shape whatever it was as upon a mould However easy they may be to the Theorist I assure him that they are much easyer to me who suppose that God Almighty raised the Land at the beginning when he form'd the Earth into the Figure it has at present which otherwise could never have risen of its self The dry Land therefore was raised and formed into a Spheroidical Figure by its wise Creator on purpose that it might not be overflow'd by the Sea at the Equator which as I have prov'd must of necessity have been higher there than at the Poles and therefore if the Land at the Equator had remain'd in a Spherical Figure no higher than that which is at the Poles the Sea must of necessity have risen above it and spread its self upon it like an Inundation It was therefore wisely order'd by the Divine Providence that not only the Sea but the Land also should be form'd into a broad Spheroidical Figure on purpose that it might not be overflow'd with Waters That the Readers might observe the Theorist's great skill in drawing of consequences and how well his Oval-figur'd Earth was supported with reasons I gave them his argument thus All bodies by reason of the Earths diurnal rotation do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion but by reason of the pressure of the Air and the straitness of the Orb they cannot recede from the Axis of their motion therefore they will move towards the Poles where they will come nearer to the Axis of their motion that is Because all bodies endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion therefore they will endeavour to go to the Axis of their motion In answer to this the Defender says that the Theorist asserted that all Bodies did conari à centro sui motus recedere which I have render'd endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion and by changing the word Center into Axis of plain sense says he I have made non-sense and then he is so free as to own that the conclusion
will follow from my own words but not from those of the Theorist I own that I chang'd the word Center into Axis not carelesly but willfully with a design not of making it non-sense but better sense than it was before For we never say that a Sphere turns round about its own Center for that would be plain non-sense indeed but round about its own Axis for we cannot so properly say that a Body moves round a Center as round an Axis unless we abstract from its Magnitude and conceive it as a point The reason is plain for when any Body revolves it is evident that every point of it which does not lye in the Plane of another points Orbit must describe a different Periphery which must have also a different Center so that all those Centers are placed in one line which is therefore call'd the Axis of the Bodies motion about which Bodies are said to revolve much more properly than about a Center however this Author says that by changing the word Center into Axis of plain sense I have made non-sense This Gentleman seems to be so extreamly paradoxical that I have often suspected he must have a different method of judging what is sense or non-sense from other people if he has it it were but fair to shew it that we may know when things will be agreeable to his Criterion or when they will not if he thinks it non-sense to say that Bodies do endeavour to recede from the Axis of their motion it is my comfort to have some good Mathematicians on my side who think otherwise I need only mention one of them whose very name is enough to defend me viz. The greatest Geometer and Philosopher of the Age who uses this way of speaking very often in his Philisophiae Naturalis principia Mathematica for which he needs go no further than page 8. where it is said Gyrantium partes omnes conantur recedere ab Axe motus But however let us reassume the word Center and see if the argument will appear more plausible or seem to conclude better than it did by using the word Axis All Bodies by reason of the Earths diurnal rotation do endeavour to recede from the Center of their motion but by reason of the pressure of the Air and the straitness of the Orb they cannot recede from the Center of their motion therefore they will go towards the Poles and move in a Circle where they will be nearer the Center of their motion I hope I have not now chang'd his words but have deliver'd his true meaning I leave the Reader to judge if it is not excellently well concluded and if the connexion be not so evident that it needs no Comment to make it out Now supposing that the Theorist had reasoned well all this time about the Earth and had deduced its true Figure from its true causes yet I demonstrated that all this will not make Rivers run from the Poles to the Equator for a reason that I will take the liberty here to repeat that we may compare it with the Defenders answer The demonstration is this The Defender thinks he has transcrib'd this reason very briefly thus Pag. 55 56. The same causes which cast the Abyss or the Occan towards the Poles will also keep the Rivers from descending from the Poles and then he answers that there is no parity of reason betwixt the Abyss or the Ocean and the Rivers We see says he in the flux and reflux of the Occan it hath not that effect upon Rivers nor upon Lakes nor upon lesser Seas yet the circumrotation of the Earth continues the same He adds That my confounding the Ocean and Rivers in the Antediluvian Earth is so much the worse seeing there never was an Occan and Rivers together in that Earth while says he there was an open Occan there were no Rivers and when there were no Rivers there was no open Ocean but an inclosed Abyss He concludes at last That tho I make large transcripts there and elsewhere out of the Theory yet I do not seem always to have well digisted the method of it I hope the Reader will observe how unfairly this Author is pleased to deal with me for in all the argument I have not so much as once mentioned the Ocean but the demonstration was universal and reach't all sorts of Bodies whether they be in the Abyss or on the surface of the Earth My words were that whatever Bodies either fluid or solid if brought and lay'd upon the furface at B being drawn or pusht with the same accelerating force that the first fluid had which was constituted at B the same causes continuing to act upon both they will rest there also and not descend to the Equator Where is it now that I have confounded the Ocean with the Rivers Or is there any thing in these words by which it appears that I have not digested the method of the Theory There is one of this Authors acquaintance that is pleas'd to tell us that disingenuity in examining the Writings of another Person falls more heavy in the construction of fair Readers upon him that uses them than upon him that suffers them If it be so Reslections pag. last line last this Gentleman may easily know what these Readers will think of him However it seems he thinks that tho' none of the water return'd to the Equator while the Earth was at first fluid and had put on its Oval-shape yet when the first concretion was settled upon it whatever water was after that upon its surface would then descend towards the Equator Why so I pray What reason does he give for this Had not the fluid which lay at B the very same causes to keep it from descending to the Equator that it had before when the Earths surface was all fluid Was not there the same diurnal rotation of the Earth in the same time and by consequence the same Centrifugal force Was there not the same pressure of the Atmosphere and the same straitness of the Orb that was before And in a word every thing the same that kept it from descending in the former case would also preserve it in this in the same position what reason then can this Author give us for this assertion Indeed he offers us none if he has any he keeps it as a secret which it seems he will not communicate but to his friends I think he will do well to keep it secret for ever But tho' he will neither shew us his own reasons nor answer mine yet that we may not be altogether dissatisfy'd he is pleased to give us a similitude to explain it Pag. 55 56. We see says he in the flux and reflux of the Ocean let the cause be what it will it hath not that effect upon Rivers nor upon Lakes nor upon lesser Seas yet the circumrotation of the Earth continues the same Is there any parity of reason here between the flux and
what can be accounted for by natural causes is no Miracle However I know no Miracles I am fond of save those mention'd in Scripture and at present I am only engag'd in the Defence of two of them viz. The Creation and the Deluge and a fondness for them seems not to be peculiar to me since till this Age of Worldmakers Christians have always thought them such works as could never be produced by the Laws of Nature and Mechanism I know indeed that there are some who are not only for explaining the above mentioned but even most of the other extraordinary events recorded in the holy Scriptures by natural principles But I dare suppose Mr. Wh. would not willingly be put into a Catalogue with such Authors I could and I think with just reason too tell him that if he had not a peculiar fondness for his own Theory he would easily perceive that all those things which he endeavours to deduce from Mechanical principles are not to be explain'd by such causes But I am willing to pass by his preliminaries and enter upon his argument I first objected against the New Theory that the Chaos which was the origination of our Earth could not have been the Atmosphere of a Comet since the one is represented as a dark caliginous Body having darkness on the face of its Abyss and the other was a transparent fluid and was enlightned if not from its own Central Body from within yet at least by the Sun from without To this he Answers that Comets cannot be changed into Planets till their return from the vast and cold Regions beyond Saturn and he says that we need not think that they will be then so vehemently hot that they must be light also If what he says in another place is true I cannot but still think that they must be hot to such a degree that they will also be extreamly Luminous for according to him the heat is so great even after their return towards the Sun that all the parts of their Atmospheres are in a violent agitation heavy and light dense and rare fluid and solid parts are jumbled and mixed together in the greatest confusion thro' the violence of the heat This I think is sufficient to make us believe them very lucid likewise But says he solids preserve some of their heat after their light is gone But is it credible that the heat of the Central solid should be so great as to preserve its Atmosphere at the distance of some hundred thousands of miles in a continual agitation and at the same time not be light Can we suppose that it will raise vapours into its tail to the distance of many millions of miles and after all imagine that it is not so hot as to be lucid This I think would be as great a paradox as any that is to be met with among the Philosophers It 's known that the intenseness of light and heat is always proportional to the density of Rays that produce them and that this density is in all places in a reciprocal proportion to the squares of the distance of the Body from which they proceed and by consequence it is plain that heat and light must be prodigiously stronger at or near the surface of the hot or lucid Body than at a great distance from it and therefore it is no wonder if the heat of a solid be very sensible to a hand that is laid upon its surface when the eye placed at a distance from it cannot perceive its light But let us bring this point into numbers that we may see it more evidently It follows from Mr. Whiston's own positions that the heat of the Central solid must be so great even before the Comet arives at its Perihelion as to act upon the Atmosphere at the distance of 10000. miles and from thence to raise vapours into its tail for many millions more and therefore the intenseness of its heat at that distance must be to the intenseness of the heat at the distance of ten miles for example as the square of ten is to the square of 100000. miles that is as one to 100000000. If therefore the heat of the Central solid at the distnace of 100000. miles had any sensible effect upon its Atmosphere it must be prodigiously stronger at the distance of ten miles and therefore cannot be supposed to be without light He allows the Sun to shine thro' the Atmosphere of the Comet whilst it remains such But then upon the Commencement of the Creation when it began to move in a Circular Orbit it lost its pellucidness and became a dark and opake fluid How this should come to be I know not nor can I discover why upon the change of the Comet 's Orbit from an Ellipsis to a Circle its Atmosphere should be likewise changed on a suddain from a clear and transparent fluid to a dark and caliginous one Immediately before the change of the Orbit even after it had descended from the cold Regions beyond Saturn he allows its Atmosphere to have been so bright and diaphanous as that the Central solid might have been seen thro' it It must be then a miracle and an unaccountable one too that could have caused such an immediate darkness It was also objected to him that his dense and heavy fluid could not be the Mosaical Abyss for it was at first dark and afterwards enlightned whereas his new Abyss after it was once dark never again became visible being always covered with an opake Crust Here he owns that the word Abyss is not to be restrained to his dense fluid but that it comprehends all that heterogenous and hitherto muddy fluid which was beneath the Earths future surface where the Spectator in the Historical Journal of the Creation is suppos'd to have been But I desire him to tell us whither this muddy fluid was afterwards enlightned whither the same collection of Opake and Earthy Corpuseles which produced a darkness on the surface of the dense and heavy fluid would not create also a thick darkness upon the surface of the muddy one whither this darkness would not continually encrease as those Earthy and Opake particles came closer together and when at last they fell upon and inclosed this muddy fluid and form'd a Crust according to him of 60. or 70. miles depth whither they would not exclude the light from it for ever I had urg'd to him that 't was said in Scripture Darkness was upon the face or the exterior surface of the Abyss and that afterwards there was light upon it Now if Mr. Whiston cannot shew us clearly an Abyss from his principles whose exterior surface was first dark and afterwards luminous I hope he will grant that his Theory is not conform'd to the Mosaick History Another Argument against the Theory was to this purpose If the Earth was form'd by the principles of Mechanism out of the Atmosphere of a Comet we must allow the whole subsidence to be as
free liberty and could subside as far as occasion should be which he has in his Book shewed they could not or that a pressure from a Column specifically heavier than the Fluid is necessary to raise it upwards Because Mr. Whiston answers my demonstration as if he did not rightly understand it I will here put it into a clearer light and apply it more particularly to the present case Mr. Whiston says That this demonstration supposes that the several Columns of Earth had their free liberty and could subside as far as occasion should be which he has shewed in his Book they could not It seems then that he owns that the Columns would not subside if they had their free liberty but if they had not their free liberty to subside then he thinks they would subside or sink deeper into the Abyss that is in short Those Columns would not sink deeper if there was nothing to hinder them but if there was any thing that could hinder them from sinking deeper then indeed they would and must sink deeper This is so strange and surprising a way of reasoning that I scarcely believe it could have come from Mr. Whiston It looks much more like the reasoning of his learned friend I should have thought that if he had been left to himself to argue the case he would have concluded that because the Crust could not sink deeper when it was left at its liberty or when there was nothing to hinder it It would have certainly so much the rather not sunk further when there was an impediment Let us now suppose this Cylinder bored with holes parallel to its Axis then indeed it would sink so far within the fluid till the water within the holes came to be of such a height as to press as strongly upon the fluid under them as the solid Cylinder does upon the fluid under it and there it would rest at the height for example of half the Cylinder if the water were twice as heavy as the wood Let us suppose in the next place that there were long Tubes fixed in the holes to preserve the fluid which is to be poured afterwards above on the Cylinder from running into the holes and then let Oil or any other fluid lighter then wood be poured on as high as the very top of the Vessel this Oil would indeed press upon the Cylinder and make it sink deeper into the fluid which would rise up within the holes till it pressed as strongly upon the surface of the water under it as the Oil and Cylinder both together doe upon the surface of the water under them Now in this case since the water is of a greater intensive gravity than both the Cylinders of Wood and Oil it is evident that it is impossible the fluid within the holes can rise so high as the top MN for then the fluid which lyes immediately under that which is contain'd within the holes and the Tube suffering a greater pressure than the rest of the fluid under the Cylinder will immediately descend and force that which is under the Cylinder to ascend So that tho' the solid Body must in this case sink deeper yet it is plain that none of the water within the Vessel can by this means be brought upon the surface Mr. Whiston says that it is evident that the pressure of two entire miles over each Columns being so prodigiously great must squeeze the fluid upwards thro' the fissures and thereby throw out the incumbent water and perhaps it self upon the face of the Earth But as evident as he says this matter is I must sincerely declare that I cannot see how any such effect can follow from a pressure after this manner I hope Mr. Whiston does not act here like some new Philosophers who when they are to deliver some false dark or incomprehensible notion generally usher it in with a speech about clearness and distinctness and tell us That 't is evident 't is plain 't is demonstrative But rather than suspect such dealing from him I could suppose that the fault was in my own apprehension if I had not demonstration on my side to shew that from such positions no such effect can follow Does not he suppose this Crust to be composed of Columns of 200. miles in depth Did not they subside close by one another and form a solid Arch upon the Abyss according to him If so those fissures and cracks upon the Mountains like so many windows in a Vault would not much weaken the strength of the Fabrick but still it would be able to sustain a much greater weight Would not the water that came from the Comet immediately spread it self equally over the face of the Crust And by this every Column would be equally pressed and therefore one could not sink deeper than another What is it then that could force the fluid thro' the fissures However let us suppose the pressure much stronger upon one place than the rest if the solid Column upon which this pressure lay was closely united and cemented to all the other circumambient ones how could it be broken off from the rest It is impossible to imagine that the weight of the waters above it could do this But if it was before separated and disjoyn'd by the Tide on the Abyss or any other cause would not the water run down in the fissures which separate it from the rest and instead of depressing elevate the loose Crust as I have already demonstrated We cannot well suppose this part which was most pressed if it was loose from the rest to be so closely joyn'd to them as to leave no space for the fluid to descend For it would be a strange chance that would make the surfaces of the Columns so exactly fitted and adjusted to each other Besides if they were so because the Arch A B is greater than C D it is impossible that in such a case it could descend or be forced downwards But after all if it could descend I have already demonstrated that none of the water in the Abyss or Bowels of the Earth could by that pressure be raised so high as the tops of the Mountains that it might from thence spread it self upon the surface of the Earth If Mr. Whiston does not see the evidence of this reasoning I must leave him to be satisfy'd by his own experiment * Pag. 307. only instead of a Cylinder of Stone or Marble I desire him to take one of Wood and if by pouring Oil upon it he can raise any water from the bottom to the surface of the Cylinder I will give over all reasoning upon this subject but if he finds that his experiment will not succeed as it certainly cannot I hope he will own that he is in an error and then I doubt not but he will think I had reason to speak peremptorily upon this point when I said that it was demonstratively evident that by no sort of pressure of the incumbent fluid the
Abyss could be forced upwards to spread it self upon the surface of the Earth which words I do not think fit to retract I have already considered the ways Mr. Whiston has taken to bring waters upon the Earth to make a Deluge Let us next see how dexterous he is in removing them In my Remarks on his New Theory by Calculation I shew'd that there must have been at least twenty three Oceans of water to drown the Earth at the time of the Deluge One would think that it were a hard task to remove such a load of waters Mechanically Yet he tells us that he thinks there is no manner of difficulty in it In his Theory he supposes that the waters descended thro' the perpendicular fissures and cracks which were out-lets to so great a part of them before and by that means Saturated all the Pores of the dry Earth that was capable to contain mighty quantities of water Now in the Remarks on the New Theory I showed that none of the waters could descend thro' the cracks and fissures of the Earth for they of necessity must have been all full at the time of the Deluge since water cannot lye upon the surface of the Earth till all the cracks holes and fissures in it be first filled This is so evident both to sense and experience that it is beyond all contradiction true it being as impossible to make water lye on the Earth before all its cracks pitts and holes are filled as it is to make a Vessel retain water whose bottom is bored thro' with many holes Instead of answering this Argument Mr. Whiston tells us That certainly the Pores and Interstices of thirty or fourty miles of dry Earth are capable of receiving three or four miles of water into them and certainly the same fissures that permitted the ascent of the fluids from beneath before would after the ceasing of that force permit the descent of the waters of the Deluge and by degrees and length of time draw them off I find Mr. Whiston is generally most certain where other men are most doubtful How can he be certain or so much as suppose that the waters could lye above the mouths of the cracks and fissures to the height of two miles perpendicularly and none of them run in to fill them all the while What new Laws of Hydro-staticks has he discovered It is generally supposed to be the nature of a fluid to descend thro' whatever holes and fissures it can find and 'till they be once fill'd it is impossible it should rest above the mouths of those fissures especially to the height of two perpendicular miles For so high it must have been above most of those cracks since most part of the Hills in which he supposes those fissures were do not exceed above a miles height Before the water could have risen to such a height not only the perpendicular holes and fissures but even the Horizontal ones must have been absolutely filled I cannot therefore enough wonder how he can imagine so much water forced thro' the Earth upon its surface and all those cracks and fissures remaining empty all the time I am surpriz'd to hear him tell us of dry Earth that was capable of receiving vast quantities of water for I cannot suppose an Earth that has been watered by eleven Oceans of water gushing thro' its Pores to be very dry Another man would rather think that it must have been very wet for it is not to be imagined that so much water could pass thro' the Crust without leaving as much of it self as the Crust could hold behind it since water rather than ascend will remain in any Pore or empty space that can contain it But let us now allow that the Earth or the Crust was as dry as if there had not one drop of water remained in it yet the Earth thro' which water generally can sink is but a few feet in depth the rest of the Crust is composed of a tough Clay common Stone Whinstone Coal Metalline Ores and the like and I believe he can never perswade Mankind that there are so many Pores in such heavy close solid Bodies as are capable to contain twenty two Oceans of water But after all let us suppose that the fissures were empty and that they were capable to receive the whole twenty two Oceans of water Let us suppose that the water lay over them without descending into them that is let us grant to Mr. Whiston so many impossibilities Yet even all these suppositions will not answer the Phaenomena of the draining of the waters from the Earth after the Deluge This I think I can prove easily since that according to the Mosaical account of the Deluge the waters were removed from off the face of the Earth in one half year whereas if they had been removed by the method of the New Theory they could not have been drained from the Earth in many hundred years And therefore upon this account Mr. Whiston's suppositions will not answer the Phaenomena To shew this let us suppose the mouths of all the cracks and fissures to have been just equal to the mouths of all the Rivers in the Earth tho' if we consider how narrow and small they are in respect of the mouths of the Rivers we cannot allow them to have been near so much It was proved in the Examination of Dr. Burnet's Theory that all the waters that run thro' the Rivers would fill the Ocean if it were empty in the space of 812. years and consequently if at the time of the Deluge the water descended no faster thro' the fissures it is evident that upon the former supposition it would be 812. years before the Earth had received one Ocean into its Bowels and therefore it would be 17864. years before twenty two Oceans could be removed thro' those fissures But let us now suppose that the velocity of the water descending was ten times greater than the velocity of the Rivers we shall still find that the waters would take 1786. 4. years to run thro' the fissures So that altho' Mr. Whiston has been pleas'd to ridicule my fondness for Miracles yet since all the natural causes he has assign'd are so vastly disproportionate to the effects produc'd he may at last perhaps be convinc'd that the easiest safest and indeed the only way is to ascribe 'em to Miracles FINIS