Book 4 — A SHORT CONSIDERATION OF Mr. Erasmus Warren’s DEFENCE OF HIS EXCEPTIONS AGAINST THE THEORY of the EARTH. (continued 2)

In the last Place, the Theorist distinguish’d two Methods for explaining the natural World, that of an ordinary, and that of an extraordinary Providence: And those that take the second Way, he said, might dispatch their Task as soon as they pleas’d, if they engag’d Omnipotency in the Work. But the other Method would require Time, it must proceed by distinct Steps, and leisurely Motions, such as Nature can admit; and, in that Respect, it might not suit with the busy Lives, or impatient Studies of most Men, whom he left notwithstanding to their Liberty, to take what Method they pleas’d, provided they were not troublesome in forcing their hasty Thoughts upon all others. Thus the Theorist hath express’d himself at the End of the first Book, c. 12. Interea cum non omnes a natura ita compositi simus, ut Philosophia studiis delectemur: Neque etiam liceat multis, propter occupationes vitæ, iisdem vacare, quibus per ingenium licuisset; iis jure permittendum est, compendiario sapere, & relictis viis naturæ & causarum secundarum, quæ sæpe longiusculæ sunt, per cansas superiores philosophari; idque potissimum, cum ex piis affectivus hoc quandoque fieri possit; quibus, vel male fundatis, aliquid dandum esse existimo, modo non sint turbulenti. Thus the Theorist, you see, sets two Ways before them; and ’tis indifferent to him whether they take, if they will go on their Way peaceably. And he does now, moreover, particularly declare, That he hath no Ambition, either to make the Exceptor, or any other of the same Dispositions of Will, and the same Elevation of Understanding, Proselytes to his Theory.

Thus much for Providence: As to the literal Sense of Scripture, I find, if what was noted before in the Answer, p. 82, 83, &c. had been duly consider’d, there would be little need of Additions upon that Subject. The Matter was stated freely and distinctly, and the Remarks or Reflections which the Exceptor hath made in his Defence upon this Doctrine, are both shallow and partial. I say partial, in perverting the Sense, and separating such Things as manifestly depend upon one another. Thus the Exceptor falls upon that Expression in the Answer, Def. p. 202. Let us remember that this contradicting Scripture, here pretended, is only in natural Things, where he should have added the other Part of the Sentence, and also observe how for the Exceptor himself, in such Things, hath contradicted 519Scripture. Here he makes an odious Declamation, as if the Answerer had confess’d that he contradicted Scripture in natural Things; whereas the Words are contradicting Scripture, here pretended; and ’tis plain by all the Discourse, that ’tis the literal Sense of Scripture that is here spoken of, which the Exceptor is also said to contradict. Such an unmanly Captiousness shews the Temper and Measure of that Spirit, which, rather than say nothing, will misrepresent the plain Sense of an Author. In like manner, when he comes to those Words in the Answer, The Case therefore is this, whether to go contrary to the Letter of Scripture in Things that relate to the natural World, be destroying the Foundation of Religion, affronting Scripture, and blaspheming the Holy Ghost. Def. p. 206. He says, This is not to state the Case truly, for it is not, says he, going contrary to the Letter of Scripture that draws such evil Consequences after it, but going contrary to the Letter of Scripture, where it is understood: And this the Theorist does, he says, and the Exceptor does not. But who says so besides himself? This is fairly to beg the Question; and can he suppose the Theorist so easy as to grant this without Proof? It must be the Subject Matter that determines, what is, and what is not, to be literally understood. However, he goes on, begging still the Question in his own behalf, and says, Those Texts of Scripture, that speak of the Motion and Course of the Sun, are not to be understood literally. But why not? Because the literal Sense is not to his Mind? Of four Texts of Scripture which the Theorist alledg’d against him, for the Motion of the Sun, he answers but one, and that very superficially, to say no worse. ’Tis Psal. xix. where the Sun at his rising is said to be as a Bridegroom coming out of his Chamber, and to rejoice as a strong Man to run his Race: And his going forth is from the end of the Heaven, and his Circuit to the end of it, p. 207. which he answers with this vain Flourish: Then the Sun must be a Man, and must be upon his Marriage, and must be dress’d in fine Clothes, as a Bridegroom is: Then he must come out of a Chamber, and must give no more Light, and cast no more Heat, than a Bridegroom does, &c. If a Man should ridicule at this rate, the Discourse of our Saviour concerning Lazarus in Abraham’s Bosom, and Dives in Hell, with a great Gulph betwixt them, yet talking audibly to one another; Luk. xvi. and that Lazarus should be sent so far, as from Heaven to Hell, only to dip the Tip of 520his Finger in Water, and cool Dives’s Tongue. He that should go about thus to expose our Saviour’s Parable, would have a thankless Office, and effect nothing: For the Substance of it would stand good still; namely, that Mens Souls live after Death, and that good Souls are in a State of Ease and Comfort, and bad Souls in a State of Misery. In like manner, his ridiculing some Circumstances in the Comparison made by the Psalmist, does not at all destroy the Substance of that Discourse; namely, that the Sun moves in the Firmament, with great Swiftness and Lustre, and hath the Circuit of its Motion round the Earth. This is the Substance of what the Psalmist declares, and the rest is but a Similitude, which need not be literally just in all Particulars.

After this, he would fain persuade the Theorist, that he hath excused the Exceptor for his receding from the literal Sense, as to the Motion of the Earth; Def. p. 208. Because he hath granted, that in certain Cases, we may and must recede from the literal Sense. But where, pray, hath he granted, that the Motion of the Earth was one of those Cases? Yet suppose it be so, may not the Theorist then enjoy this Privilege of receding from the literal Sense upon occasion, as well as the Exceptor? If he will give, as well as take this Liberty, let us mutually enjoy it; but he can have no Pretence to deny it to others, and take it himself. It uses to be a Rule in Writing, that a Man must not stultum fingere Lectorem. You must suppose your Reader to have common Sense. But he that accuses another of Blasphemy for receding from the literal Sense of Scripture in natural Things, and does himself at the same Time, recede from the literal Sense of Scripture, in natural Things; one would think, quo ad hoc, either had not, or would not exercise common Sense, in a literal Way.

Lastly, he comes to the common known Rule, assign’d to direct us, when every one ought to follow, or leave the literal Sense; which is, p. 215. not to leave the literal Sense, when the Subject Matter will bear it, without Absurdity or Incongruity. This he repeats in the next Page thus. The Rule is, when no kind of Absurdities or Incongruities accrue to any Texts, from the literal Sense. If this be his Rule, to what Text does there accrue any Absurdity or Incongruity, by supposing the Sun to move? For Scripture always speaks upon that Supposition, and not one Word for the Motion of the Earth. Thus he states 521the Rule; but the Answerer supposed, that the Absurdity or Incongruity might arise from the Subject Matter. And accordingly he still maintains, that there are as just Reasons, (from the Subject Matter,) and better Authorities, for receding from the literal Sense in the Narrative of the six Days Creation, than in those Texts of Scripture, that speak of the Motions and Course of the Sun: And to affirm the Earth to be mov’d, is as much Blasphemy, and more contrary to Scripture, than to affirm it to have been dissolv’d, as the Theorist hath done.

Sir, I beg your Excuse for this long letter, and leave it to you to judge whether the Occasion was just or no. I know such Jarrings as these must needs make bad Musick to your Ears: ’Tis like hearing two Instruments play, that are not in Tune, in Concert with one another: But you know Self-Defence, and to repel an Assailant, is always allow’d; and he that begins the Quarrel, must answer for the Consequences. However, Sir, to make amends for this I trouble, I am ready to receive your Commands upon more acceptable Subjects.

Your most humble Servant, &c.

FINIS.

522