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
Schemes by which they think they can defend their own Principles After this the Defender passes to consider what is said in the third Chapter of the Examination about Mountains He owns it to be a subject that deserves consideration and He says that if the Examiner can prove that there were Mountains in the primitive Earth He will undertake that the Theorist shall make no further defence of his Theory The Theorists great argument why the face of the primitive Earth was smooth and without Mountains depended on the supposition that the Chaos from whence it took its original was perfectly a fluid Mass This I affirm'd to be a precarious Hypothesis without any foundation in nature since the greatest part of the bodies we have in the Earth are hard and solid and there not being a quantity of Water in Nature sufficient enough to moisten and liquify them the Chaos could not be so fluid as 't was necessary â—t should be to form it self into an uniform smooth body Besides that the greatest part of them such as Stones and Mettals are uncapable of being liquify'd by water The Defender's reply to this is Very good what is this to the Theory Does the Theorist any where affirm that there were Stones or Mettals in the Chaos or that they were liquify'd by Water The Theorist owns no such doctrine or supposition I hope the Defender will not think this any answer to the objection I am sure none of his Readers can I thought that it concern'd the Theorist very much to prove his Chaos to be a fluid Mass of matter for otherwise it is not necessary that it should have its surface smooth regular and uniform at least it is fitting that the objections against its fluidity should be answer'd For if the Examiner can prove that the Chaos was not alltogether so fluid as the Theorist imagines and from thence shew that there was no necessity that the face of the Earth should be smooth and without Mountains then the Theorists argument must be of little force and that objection will still very much weaken the truth of the Theory I freely own indeed that the World was produced from a Chaos such a one namely as is recorded to us in Scripture but I am far from granting that the Theorist's notion is any ways agreeable to it he supposes that all the Elements Air Water and Earth with all the principles of Terrestial Bodies were reduc'd into one fluid Mass and mingled with one another so that the parts of any one sort could not be discern'd as distinct from the rest This I suppose is a new sort of Chaos which never existed any where but in fancy It were easie for me here to assume the Defenders method and argue against it by putting him questions how when and where was this mixing and blending together of all the Materials of Heaven and Earth By whom upon what design and for what purpose was this done Was it to the end that they might all settle themselves again in order and each take its place according to its specifick gravity but if the great parts of the World were for the most part so before what necessity was there for disturbing them only that they might range themselves orderly again He would do well also to tell us from whence he had this account of the Chaos from Sacred or Profane Writers if from the latter we are to value their authority no further than they are agreeable to the Scriptures since it would be no hard task to prove that it was from the Sacred History that the Heathen Writers first drew their knowledge of the Chaos which they afterwards corrupted with their own fancies In the Holy Scriptures I can find no account of the mixing and reducing of all the Materials of the World into one fluid Mass Moses indeed tells us that the Earth was Tohu and Bohu which we render without Form and Void and can we from thence conclude that all the parts of it were fluid and mixed together We may allow that the Jews understood the sense of these words better than we or any Heathen Writers and they give them a contrary meaning for according to the Syriack Translation those words signifie that the Earth was without either Habitation or Cultivation Terra erat deserta inculta in the Chaldaick Paraphrase they signifie deserta vacua The Targum of Jonahan B. Vziel supposes their meaning to be this Terra autem erat stupor inanitas vasta à filiis hominum vacua ab omni jumento with which the Jerusalem Targum does well agree according to which Paraphrase they signifie that the Earth was stupor inanitas desolatio à filiis hominum omni bestia vacua as that Paraphrase is render'd in Latin We may conclude from thence therefore that the Jews thought that all that was mean't by the words Tohu and Bohu was that the Earth was Void and Uncultivated without out Ornaments and Inhabitants Men or Beasts or any sort of Ammals Nor was the opinion of the ancient Christian Fathers any wise different from that of the Jews as to this matter Tertullian in his book against Hermogenes says Vnde compertus es Hermogenes uniformem inconditam illam fuisse 〈◊〉 ateriam quoe ut invisibilis latebat and in the 30th Chapter he plainly proves from Scripture that there was not a confus'd heap of matter mixed and blended together out of which all things were made St. Ambrose in the 8th Chapter of his Hexameron says that the Earth was incomposit a utpote solertis agricolae inarata culturis quia adhuc deerat cultor and again Terra crat incomposita quia nuda gignentium nec thoris herbosa riparum nec opaca nemoribus nec laeta segetibus nec umbrosa superciliis montium nec odora floribus nec grata vinetis St. Basil tells us that the true beauty and composition of the Earth arises from its great fertility * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In his 2d Homily in Hexam near the beginning whereby it is productive of all sorts of Vegetables such as Plants of all kinds lofty and tall Trees as well those that bear Fruit as those that afford us none fragrant and sweet Flowers differing both in colour and smell and the Earth says he being naked and unfurnished with any of those sorts of Ornaments might well be said by the Scriptures to be Void and without Form In those discourses of the ancient Jews and primitive Fathers there is not one word of a perfectly fluid Mass of matter out of which all things were made there is nothing there of the mixing and blending together of the Elements and all the Materials of Heaven and Earth in their Writings we cannot see that such a Chaos as the Theorist fancies was ever either deliver'd or suppos'd we find that their notion about the origination of the World was very different from the Theorists whose Hypothesis is not therefore
they should be receiv'd as true History all their aim was that we should attend to the Moral for the sake of which the Parable was contriv'd this is plain from the Parable of Jotham of the Trees choosing themselves a King and from all the Parables of our Saviour But the History of the Creation is a very different case from any of them Moses does not give it us as a Fable only contriv'd for the sake of some Moral meaning which he would have thereby understood but delivers it seriously as matter of fact which he would have us believe as firmly and truly as any other part of his History and this a Man of integrity could never have given himself leave to do had he not been satisfied that the History was exactly true But if the Theorists Hypothesis about the Mosaical History of the Creation were true it seems that Moses must have been guilty of imposture in a very high degree for he supposes that History to have been absolutely false and without any foundation in the reality of things and at the same time freely owns that Moses wrote it with a design that it should be receiv'd as true not by one Man only but by a great and populous Nation and that not for one Generation but through all succeeding Ages this I take to be strange doctrine and no ways agreeable to the high esteem we owe either to that great Prophet or to the Veracity of that unerring Spirit that assisted him in writing But it is the Theorists opinion Pag. 320 321. that Moses thought it necessary to give the Jews a Cosmogonia a Theory of the Earth each of their neighbouring Nations as he guesses had one of their own which were generally erroneous and inconsistent with the true Religion and if so some of them might have had his Theory for ought we know now he thinks that without doubt the Jews had taken one from them or had made one for themselves unless they had been otherwise provided by Moses he illustrates this with a very decent similitude Si nuptam non dederis siliam ipsa sibi maritum queret e famulis forsan aut humili plebe if you do not get a Husband for your Daughter she will find one for her self your Foot-man perhaps or some one as mean Well but since the Jews were to have a Cosmogonia why should they not have been taught the true one O says the Theorist that was by no means sitting for they were an ignorant indocible people and could never have been taught true and solid Philosophy such as his own Theory is For let us feign says he at least and 't is but feigning at best that our Theory is true let us suppose the Primitive Earth to have been made in the same form and manner as is describ'd in the Theory had not Moses spent his time well in teaching such Philosophers Can we suppose that those Brick-makers those who still smelt strong of the Oinions and Garlick of Egypt those who could not distinguish a Molten Calf from God Almighty can we says he suppose that ever they could have learnt the true principles of things or the Laws of nature and motion to have deliver'd those things to them would have been to cast Pearls before Swine The Theorist may have as great thoughts of his Theory as he pleases but it is my humble opinion that there is very little skill required either in the Laws of motion or Natural Philosophy to understand it as well as he himself does there is no necessity of a long proof for this since we are sure there are some that have not only Read it but even stood up in the Defence of it that seem to understand as little of real Philosophy and less of Mechanicks than the most ignorant of his Brick-makers Let us now assume the same liberty with the Theorist Pag. 319. that he has done with Moses and let us suppose that the Theorist should get a Congregation of Jews who I believe are still as dull as ever they were and should begin to Harangue them thus Be it known unto you Men Brethren and Fathers That this Earth which we now press with our feet and find so firm and solid under us was once a fluid Chaos that is that I may adapt my discourse to your low capacities a medly or a confused Mass of Earth Water and Air mixed and blended together How it came to be so or how long it continu'd in that state I know as little as you do only I am sure that it was once so and I would have you take my word for it at last this disorderly Mass came to settle and all Bodies took their place according to their weight the great heavy Bodies fell lowest and compos'd the innermost solid next to them the Water took its place and over it the Oil spread it self above all there was a huge thick Orb of Air full of mud and earthy particles those by degrees fell down upon the surface of the Oil and at first made a thick slime which thro' time began to harden and compose a firm and solid Crust over the face of the Waters that was able to sustain the weight of all the rest of the descending particles What deep reach of thought is requir'd for the understanding of this How many and what are the Laws of nature and motion that the Jews must know before they can comprehend it in my mind the less they knew of those things the fitter they would be to understand the Theory at least I am sure they would be more easily perswaded to believe it We see now that this way of reasoning as the Theorist has apply'd it is of no force against the Mosaick History for his refin'd Theory if it had been true might have been as easily comprehended by the Jews as the plain and simple Cosmogonia of Moses The Theorist perhaps may think that I have here and elsewhere treated his Theory with too much contempt and disdain but let him consider how meanly he himself has spoke of some of Moses's writings with how much scorn and derision he has rejected his History of the Creation let him think how plainly and openly he has ridicul'd the state of Innocence and the Fall of Man let him compare what he has said in the 7th 8th and 9th Chapters of his Archeologiae Lib. II. with the hardest Expressions in this discourse against his Theory and I am confident he will find no reason to complain of uncivil usage His Defender 't is true accuses me of hard words and course language in saying that 's false that 's absurd that 's ridiculous whereas most of the Philosophers have been forced to use the same expressions insomuch that they became Philosophical terms and till the Defender began to write so smoothly Men were never accounted rude and uncivil for using of them Nay the Theorist himself has been sometimes pleased to deliver himself in
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