fea; and not only the mountain, but all the adjoining country, was formed by fucceffive eruptions: it is rather a theory of mountains raised by fubterraneous heat, than of volcanoes, and does not attempt to explain the origin of the fire, which is the principal difficulty; neither does his theory account for the immenfe height to which matters are fometimes thrown during eruptions. This, indeed, it is impoffible to account for, without fuppofing that the refiftance of the air is diminished. It is well known that the air forms a resistance to all bodies moving in it, according to the velocity with which they move--What ought that refiftance to be, then, on irregular masses of rock, or ftreams of liquid lava? Nevertheless, in the great eruption of Vefuvius in 1779, Sir William Hamilton informs us, that a vast stream of lava was projected to the height of at least 10,000 feet above the top of the mountain. Had the air refifted this liquid matter as it does a cannon-ball, it must have been dashed in pieces almost as soon as it issued from the crater. Either the extreme heat of the lava, therefore, or some other caufe, muft have contributed very much to diminish, or rather, in a manner, to annihilate the refiftance of the atmofphere at that time. As for the lighter materials, though they may be supposed to be carried to a vast distance by the wind, after being projected to a great height in the air, it is inconceivable how their motion was not suddenly stopped, and they scattered all around the top of the volcano by the refiftance of the blaft. Subftançes of this kind, when quietly carried up with smoke, will indeed fly to a great distance; for we are af fured that the afhes of the great fire at London, in 1666, were carried by the wind to the distance of fixteen miles. It is, therefore, the lefs incredible that thofe of the great eruptions of Vefuvius, in 1779, fhould be carried to the diftance of 100 miles, as we are informed was the cafe. To account for the volcanic fire, Dr. Woodward and others have had recourse to the hypothesis of a central fire, to which the volcanoes are fo many chimnies or fpiracles. Dr. Hutton, in his Theory of the Earth, adopts the fame opinion; but as it did not immediately concern the fubject of which he treated, he evades any queftion concerning its origin, by declaring himself fatisfied of its existence, without any inquiry into its origin. Others, as Dr. Lifter, have had recourfe to the well known experiment of the fermentation of fulphur and iron, which will take fire when mixed in confiderable quantity and moistened with water. Pyrites, therefore, which are a natural mixture mixture of these two fubftances, it is fuppofed, may naturally give rife to volcanoes. Inftances are indeed adduced which undeniably prove that these fubitances will spontaneously take fire when thrown together in large heaps. Of this we have a remarkable example in the following anecdote-- "A covetous copperas maker at Deptford, having bought up all the pyrites he could find, in order to ruin the trade of his neighbours, collected a vaft quantity below a fhade, in order to fecure them from the rain. He was soon, however, punished for his avarice; for the pyrites began to fmoke, glowed like red-hot coals, and melted into a kind of vitrified and partly metallic substance, grievously annoying the neighbourhood for a long time with the fulphureous team they emitted." Beds of pyrites, therefore, taking fire in the earth by means of a fermentation occafioned by water, are now generally fuppofed to be the cause of volcanoes; and that volcanoes are generally near the fea, is thought to confirm this hypothefis. When the matter is properly confidered, however, it must be evident that neither of thefe hypothefes can answer the purpofe. The central fire of Dr. Woodward and others is a caufe too magnificent even for volcanoes: if any fuch fire is supposed, we must imagine a burning globe in the centre of the earth, whofe heat is fufficient to vitrify the moft folid and refractory terrestrial substances. But of what dimenfions are we to fuppofe this globe? Is it one, two, three, four, or more thoufand miles in diameter? Very large indeed it must be; for we can scarce fuppofe that ftones could be projected even from the depth of 500 miles, into the air. But even this fuppofition is inadmiffible; for as the fire of volcanoes is at times exceedingly augmented, from fome caufe or other, were the cause general, as it must be in case of a burning central globe, the whole number of volcanoes exifting on the earth would be in a state of eruption at once. Befides, if we were to fuppofe a burning globe of 7000 miles in diameter to fuffer the least dilatation throughout its vaft bulk, which must be the undoubted confequence of an augmentation of heat from an unknown cause, all the volcanoes in the world would not be fufficient to give vent to it, though they should spout forth inceflant cataracts of lava for centuries together. A diffolution of the whole globe muit therefore undoubtedly take place: and though we should leffen the diameter of our burning globe by 1000 miles, our difficulties would be as far from being removed as before. Volcanic fire, therefore, cannot originate from any general collection of burning materials difperfed throughout the vast mass of folid earth which lies between the surface and the centre. All the volcanoes at prefent in an active state would not be such a vent for that fire as a tobacco-pipe would be to a glass house furnace. We must have recourfe, then, to fome operation by which we know that nature can kindle and extinguish fires occafionally; and if we can fuppofe such an operation to take place in the bowels of the earth, we may then reafonably conclude that we have difcovered a caufe adequate to the productions of volcanoes. Such a caufe, however, cannot be pyrites, fulphur, or nitre, in any quantity, under the furface of the earth. It is impoffible that beds of pyrites can remain for thousands of years under the fame part of the furface of the earth, be occafionally inflamed and ejected, and afterwards undergo a renovation, in order to enable them to go through a fimilar operation. Nitre is never found in a foffil ftate; nor can it be inflamed in fuch a manner as to make any confiderable explosion, without a thorough mixture with fulphur and charcoal; neither would all the quantity which we can fuppofe to exist under the base of any mountain in the world be fufficient to give force to one of thofe dreadful vollies which are discharged by volcanoes an hundred times in a day. Befides, neither pyrites nor fulphur can be inflamed without access of air, which cannot take place in the bowels of the earth; for it must be remembered, that the first question is concerning the means by which the fire was originally kindled. Moft writers, however, feem to overlook this difficulty, and to be folicitous only about the immediate cause of the explosive force, which is generally ascribed to fteam, of one kind or other; Mr. Houel calls it the force of fire or ftean; though he does not enter very particularly into its nature. Mr. Whitchurch fans, that it is the force of "fire and water, which are the primary agents in all fuch operations of nature." He alfo gives a figure, fhewing how, by means of confined steam, a jet, either of hot water, or of liquid fire may be produced. But this applies only to a particular cafe, which we cannot fuppofe always to happen; but volcanoes are constantly attended with explosions; nay, fo great is the tendency of volcanic matters to this violent operation, that many ftones have been obferved to burft in the air, like bombs, after they are thrown out of the volcano: Mr. Houel even informs us, that fuch have burst three times during their flight. Water, therefore cannot be always the caufe of volcanic explosions. When thrown upon melted lead, falts, or especially copper, it explodes indeed with vaft force. With the laft mentioned metal it is peculiarly and incredibly violent, infomuch, fomuch, that it is faid, that furnaces have been burst, and build ings thrown down, by the mcre circumftacce of fome workmen fpitting among the melted metal; and Mr. Whitchurch calculates the force of aqueous ftream, when thus fuddenly and violently heated, to be no lefs than 28 times ftronger than inflamed gunpowder. Many philofophers attempt to account for the origin and continuance of volcanoes by the agency of the electric fluid; but their theory is fo ill fupported by facts, that we think it would be improper at prefent to take up room with detailing it. It is certain, that volcanoes exhibit many electrical appearances, and that great quantities of the electrical fluid are difcharged at every eruption: but our knowledge of electricity is ftill too limited to draw any certain conclufion from thefe appearances. (To be continued.) SIR, ANSWER TO THE QUERIES OF T. F. HE letter figned T. F. (vol. ii. page 73) I fhould have TH anfwered long before, but thought it proper to clofe the controverfy with Chriftophilus firft; and he having suffered feveral months to pass fince my last without a reply, I deem it a tacit acknowledgment that he is convinced of the truth of the fentiment I contended for, or has quitted the field in hopes that fome more able champion in the caufe of mystery would enter the lifts. But this I am affured of, that the doctrine of the Unity of the Deity has obtained fome fresh advocates, and has been made appear more bright by the efforts of C. to ob fcure or overthrow it. Having faid thus much by way of taking leave of C., I shall proceed to notice the letter in question. T. F. is pleafed to fay, he thinks I have argued the cafe well on the ground I have taken, but is not fully convinced that the doctrine of a plurality in the divine effence is a mistake; he therefore requefts an answer to the query at the close of his letter. In respect to that query, I would fay, that when T. F. can give me an infinite understanding, to be able to comprehend the full extent of infinite power, I will give him an anfwer to his infinite fatisfaction; till then, I must rest satisfied with believing that, and that alone, which my finite powers, affifted by revelation, can comprehend. But if even I were to to admit the truth of his query, viz. that this exertion of infinite power did produce an infinite idea, or image of the perfections of Deity, it would not prove a plurality in the divine effence, any more than a man generating or producing a finite idea, would prove a plurality of finites in him: and even if this fomething produced by Deity was a fomething like himself, with whom he could hold converfe, and fay, Let us make man, it would not prove a plurality in Deity, because the being fo fpeaking must be diftinct from the being, perfon, or thing spoken to; unless we fuppofe Deity addreffing himself. Befide, this fame idea or Word is reprefented by T. F. as being fent by the Father, as being the agent in his hand of creating all things: now he that is fent must be diftinct from him who fends, and the agent cannot be the fame being as he whose agent he is. As the question relates to a plurality in the divine effence, I have never denied or afferted; for as to his effence or nature, I never pretended to understand it: there may or may not, for aught I know, be a plurality in the divine effence: all that I contend for is, that the Logos, who was in the beginning with God, is a distinct being from God, and that God is his God and Father as well as ours. I think my ideas of the Logos much more honorable than those of T. F. for I believe him to be an intelligent being, poffeffed of great power, which he has received from God; while T. F. makes it appear, that he is a mere act of the mind of Deity. He fays, I have mistaken his meaning, in fuppofing he acknowledged the Word to be a diftinct being from the Father. That my readers may judge for themfelves whether was juftified in drawing such a conclufion, I will quote the paffage on which I founded it---"Can any thing less than proper Deity be afcribed to him, (Chrift) feeing he made all things? Yet it is clear he is distinct from him whom we call the Father, because he is faid to be with him. My own judgment is, that he who is called the Word is the real and proper fon of God, and that he was fo before he took flefh." Now, if this does not prove a diftinction of being, I know not what does. But T. F. fays, he did not intend to fuggeft that the Logos is a diftinct being from him he is faid to be with, only the fame being under a different form. How this can agree with the quotation before made, "that he was diftinct from him he was with, even the Father, and that he is the real and proper fon of this Father, whom he was with," I cannot fee; unless it means, he was with himself, was the father of himself, at the fame time that he was his own real and proper fon. This is not only above, but so contrary to VOL. III. reafon, |