Chapter XX: Book IV (11)

The last Head is of such Things as belong to the natural World. And to this may be reduced innumerable Instances, where we leave the literal Sense, if inconsistent with Science or Experience. And the Truth is, if we should follow the vulgar Style and literal Sense of Scripture, we should all be _Anthropomorphites_, as to the Nature of God: And as to the Nature of his Works in the external Creation, we must renounce Philosophy and natural Experience, if the Descriptions and Accounts given in Scripture, concerning the _Heavens_, the _Earth_, the _Sea_, and other Parts of the World, be received as accurate and just Representations of the State and Properties of those Bodies. Neither is there any Danger, lest this should affect or impeach the Divine Veracity; for Scripture never undertook, nor was ever designed to teach us Philosophy, or the Arts and Sciences: And whatsoever the Light of Nature can reach and comprehend, is improperly the Subject of Revelation. But some Men, out of Love to their own Ease, and in Defence of their Ignorance, are not only for a Scripture Divinity, but also for a Scripture Philosophy. ’Tis a cheap and compendious Way, and saves them the Trouble of farther Study or Examination.

Upon the whole, you see, it is no Fault to recede from the literal Sense of Scripture; but the Fault is, when we leave it without a just Cause: As it is no Fault for a Man to separate from a Church, or for a Prince to make War against his Neighbour, but to do the one or the other, without a just Cause, is a real Fault. We all leave the literal Sense in certain Cases, and therefore that alone is no sufficient Charge against any Man. But he that makes a Separation, if I may so call it, without good Reasons, he is truly obnoxious to Censure. The great Result of all, therefore, is this, to have some common Rule to direct us, when every one ought to follow, and when to leave, the literal Sense. And that Rule which is generally agreed upon by good Interpreters, is this, _Not_ to leave the literal Sense, when the Subject-Matter will bear it, without Absurdity or Incongruity. This Rule I have always proposed to my self, and always endeavoured to keep close to it. But some inconsiderate Minds make every Departure from the Letter, let the Matter or Cause be what it will, to be an Affront to Scripture: And there, where we have the greatest Liberty, I mean in Things that relate to the natural World, they have no more Indulgence or Moderation, than if it was an Intrenchment upon the Articles of Faith. In this Particular I cannot excuse the present Animadverter; yet, I must needs say, he is a very Saint in Comparison of another Animadverter, who hath writ upon the same Subject; but neither like a Gentleman, nor like a Christian, nor like a Scholar. And such Writings answer themselves.

A SHORT CONSIDERATION OF _Mr._ ERASMUS WARREN’S DEFENCE OF HIS
EXCEPTIONS AGAINST THE _THEORY_ of the _EARTH_.

_In a_ LETTER _to a Friend_.

_SIR_,

I have read over Mr. _Erasmus Warren’s_ Defence of his Exceptions against _the Theory of the Earth_; which, it may be, few will do after me; as not having Curiosity or Patience enough to read such a long Pamphlet, of private or little Use. Such Altercations as these, are to you, I believe, as they are to me, a sort of Folly; but the Aggressor must answer for that, who makes the Trouble unavoidable to the Defendant. And ’tis an unpleasant Exercise, a kind of Wild-goose-chase; where he that leads must be followed, through all his Extravagancies.

The Author of this Defence must pardon me, if I have less Apprehensions both of his Judgment and Temper, than I had before: For, as he is too verbose and long-winded ever so make a close Reasoner; so it was unexpected to me to find his Style so captious and angry, as it is in this last Paper. And the same Strain continuing to the End, I was sorry to see that his Blood had been kept upon the Fret, for so many Months together, as the Pamphlet was a making.

He might have made his Work much shorter, without any Loss to the Sense. If he had left out his popular Enlargements, juvenile Excursions, Stories and Strains of Country-Rhetorick, (whereof we shall give you some Instances hereafter) his Book would have been reduc’d to half the Compass: And if from that reduc’d half, you takeaway again trifling Altercations and pedantick Repartees, the Remainder would fall into the Compass of a few Pages. For my part, I am always apt to suspect a Man that makes me a long Answer; for the precise Point to be spoken to, in a multitude of Words, is easily lost, and Words are often multiplied for that very Purpose.

However, if his Humour be verbose, it might have been, at least, more easy and inoffensive; there having been no Provocation given him in that kind. But let us guess, if you please, as well as we can, what it was in the late Answer, that so much discomposed the Exceptor and altered his Style: Either it must be the Words and Language of that Answer, or the Sense of it, without Respect to the Language. As to the Words, ’tis true, he gives some instances of Expressions offensive to him; yet they are but three or four, and those, methinks, not very high, _p._ 31. tho’ he calls them the _Brats of Passion_; they are these, _indiscreet_, _rude_, _injudicious_ and _uncharitable_. These Characters, it seems, are applied to the Exceptor, in some part of the Answer, upon Occasion offer’d; and whether those Occasions were just or no, I dare appeal to your Judgment. As to the Word _rude_, which seems the most harsh, I had said indeed, that he was _rude_ to _Anaxagoras_; and so he was, not to allow him to be a competent Witness in matter of Fact, whom all Antiquity, sacred and prophane, hath represented to us as one of the greatest Men amongst the Antients. I had also said in another Place, that _a rude_, and _injudicious Defence of Scripture_, by _Railing and ill Language_, is the _true way to lessen and disparage it_. This I still justify as true; and if he apply it to himself, much good may it do him. I do not remember that it is any where said, that he was _rude_ to the Theorist; if it be, ’tis possibly upon his charging him with _Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost_, for saying, _the Earth was dissolv’d at the Deluge_. And I appeal to any Man, whether this is not an _uncharitable_, and a _rude_ Charge. If a Man had cursed God, or call’d our Saviour an Impostor, what could he have been charg’d with more, than _Blasphemy, horrid Blasphemy_? And if the same things be charg’d upon a Man, for saying, the Earth was dissolv’d at the Deluge, either all Crimes and Errors must be equal, or the Charge must be rude. But however it must be rude in the Opinion of the Theorist, who thinks this neither Crime nor Error.

What says the _Defence_ of the Exceptions to this; _p._ 153. it makes use of Distinctions for Mitigation of the Censure; and says, it will _indirectly_, _consequentially_, or _reductively be of blasphemous Importance_. Here Blasphemy is changed into _blasphemous Importance_, and _horrid Blasphemy_ into _consequential_, _&c._ But taking all these Mitigations, it seems however, according to his Theology, all Errors in Religion are _Blasphemy_ or of _blasphemous Importance_. For all Errors in Religion must be against Scripture one way or other; at least consequentially, indirectly, or reductively; and all that are so, according to the Doctrine of this Author, must be _Blasphemy_, or of _blasphemous Importance_. This is crude Divinity, and the Answerer had Reason to subjoin what he cited before, that a rude and injudicious Defence of Scripture, is the true way to lessen and disparage it.

Thus much for _rude_ and _uncharitable_; as for the other two Words, _indiscreet_ and _injudicious_, I cannot easily be induc’d to make any Apology for them. On the contrary, I’m afraid I shall have Occasion to repeat these Characters again, especially the latter of them, in the Perusal of this Pamphlet. However, they do not look like _Brats of Passion_, as he calls them; but rather as cool and quiet Judgments, made upon Reasons and Premisses. I had forgot one Expression more: The Answer, it seems, somewhere calls the Exceptor a _Dabler_ in _Philosophy_, which he takes ill: But that he is a Dabler, both in Philosophy and Astronomy, I believe will evidently appear upon this second Examination of the same Passages upon which that Character was grounded. We will therefore leave that to the Trial, when we come to those Passages again, in the following Discourse.

These, _Sir_, as far as I remember, are the Words and Expressions which he hath taken Notice of, as offensive to him, and Effects of Passion. But, methinks, these cannot be of Force sufficient to put him so much out of Humour, and change his Style so much, as we find it to be in this last Pamphlet: And therefore I am inclinable to believe, that ’tis the Sense, rather than the Words, or Language of the Answer, that hath had this Effect upon him; and that some unhappy Passages, that have expos’d his Mistakes, were the true Causes of these Resentments. Such Passages I will guess at, as well as I can, and note them to you as they occur to my Memory.

But give me leave, first, upon this occasion of his new way of Writing, to distinguish and mind you of three sorts of arguing, which you may call _reasoning_, _wrangling_, and _scolding_. In fair reasoning, Regard is had to Truth only, not to Victory, let it fall on whether side it will. But in wrangling and scolding, ’tis Victory that is pursued and aim’d at in the first Place, with little Regard to Truth. And if the Contention be managed in civil terms, ’tis but wrangling; if in uncivil, ’tis scolding. I will not so far anticipate your Judgment, as to rank this Arguer in any of the three Orders: It you have Patience to read over his Pamphlet, you will best see how and where to set him in his proper Place.

We now proceed to those Passages in the Answer, which probably have most exasperated the Author of the Exceptions and the Defence, _Exc._ _p._ 77, _&c._ In his Exceptions he had said, the Moon being present, or in her present Place in the Firmament, at the time of the Chaos, she would certainly trouble and discompose it, as she does now the Waters of the Sea; and, by that Means, hinder the Formation of the Earth. To this we answer’d, that the _Moon that was made the fourth Day, could not hinder the formation of the Earth, which was made the third Day_. This was a plain intelligible Answer, and at the same time discover’d such a manifest Blunder in the Objection, as could not but give an uneasy Thought to him that made it.

However we must not deny, but that he makes some Attempt to silence it off in his Reply; for he says, _Def._ _p._ 12. _The Earth formed the third Day was_ Moses’s _Earth, which the Exceptor contends for; but the Earth he disputes against is the Theorist’s, which could not be formed the third Day_. He should have added, and therefore _would be hinder’d by the Moon_, otherwise this takes off nothing. And now the Question comes to a clear State; for when the Exceptor says, the Moon would have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth, either he speaks upon _Moses_’s Hypothesis, or upon the Theorist’s Hypothesis. Not upon the Theorist’s Hypothesis, for the Theorist does not suppose the Moon present then; _Eccl._ _p._ 77, 78. _Def._ _p._ 73. _l._ 12, 13. And if he speaks upon _Moses_’s Hypothesis, the Moon that was made the fourth Day, must have hinder’d the Formation of the Earth the third Day. So that the Objection is a Blunder upon either Hypothesis.

Furthermore, whereas he suggests that the Answerer makes use of _Moses_’s Hypothesis to confute his Adversary, but does not follow it himself: ’Tis so far true, that the Theorist never said that _Moses_’s six Days Creation was to be understood literally; but however it is justly urged against those that understand it literally, and they must not contradict that Interpretation, which they own and defend.

So much for the Moon, and this first Passage, which I suppose was troublesome to our Author. But he makes the same Blunder in another Place, as to the _Sun_: Both the Luminaries, it seems, stood in his Way. In the tenth Chapter of his Exceptions, he gives us a new Hypothesis about the _Origin of Mountains_, which, in short, is this; that they were drawn or suck’d out of the Earth by the Influence and Instrumentality of the Sun: Whereas the Sun was not made, according to _Moses_, till the fourth Day, and the Earth was form’d the third Day. ’Tis an unhappy Thing to split twice upon the same Rock, and upon a Rock so visible. He that can but reckon to four, can tell whether the third Day, or fourth Day came sooner.

To cure this Hypothesis about the _Origin of Mountains_, he takes great pains in his _Defence_, _pag._ 97, 98, 99, 100, 101. and attempts to do it by help of a Distinction, dividing Mountains into _Maritime_ and _Inland_. Now ’tis true, says he, _These maritime Mountains, and such as were made with the Hollow of the Sea, must rise when that was sunk or deprest_; namely, the third Day. Yet inland ones, he says, might be raised some earlier, and some later, and by the Influence of the Sun. This is a weak and vain Attempt to defend his Notion; for, betides that this Distinction of _maritime_ and _inland Mountains_, as arising from different Causes, and at different Times, is without any Ground, either in Scripture or Reason, if their different Origin was admitted, the Sun’s extracting these inland Mountains out of the Earth, would still be absurd and incongruous upon other Accounts.

Scripture, I say, makes no such Distinction of Mountains, made at different Times, and from different Causes. This is plain, seeing _Moses_ does not mention Mountains at all in his six Days Creation, nor any where else, till the Deluge: What Authority have we then to make this Distinction; or to suppose that all the great Mountains of the Earth were not made together? Besides, what length of Time would you require, for the Production of these inland Mountains? Were they not all made within the six Days Creation? Hear what _Moses_ says at the end of the sixth Day. _Thus the Heavens and the Earth were finished, and all the Host of them_, Gen. c. xxi. _And on the seventh Day, God ended his Work which he had made._ Now if the Exceptor says, that the Mountains were all made within these six Days, we will not stand with him for a Day or two; for that would make little Difference as to the Action of the Sun. But if he will not confine their Production to _Moses_’s six Days, how does he keep to the _Mosaical_ Hypothesis? Or how shall we know where he will stop in his own Way? For if they were not made within the six Days, for any thing he knows, they might not be made till the Deluge; seeing Scripture no where mentions Mountains before the Flood.

And as Scripture makes no Distinction of _maritime and inland Mountain_, so neither hath this Distinction any Foundation in Nature or Reason: For there is no apparent or discernable Difference betwixt maritime and inland Mountains, nor any Reason why they should be thought to proceed from different Causes, or to be rais’d at different Times. The maritime Mountains are as rocky, as ruderous, and as irregular and various in their Shape and Posture, as the inland Mountains. They have no distinctive Characters, nor any different Properties, internal or external, in their Matter, Form, or Composition, that can give us any Ground to believe, that they came from a different Original. So that this Distinction is merely precarious, neither founded in Scripture nor Reason, but made for the nonce to serve a Turn.

Besides, what Bounds will you give to these maritime Mountains? Are they distinguished from inland Mountains barely by their Distance from the Sea, or by some other Character? If barely by Distance, tell us then how far from the Sea do the maritime Mountains reach, and where do the inland begin, and how shall we know the _Terminalis Lapis_? Especially in a continued Chain of Mountains, that reach from the Sea many hundreds of Miles, inland; as the _Alps_ from the Ocean to _Pontus Euxinus_, and _Taurus_, as he says, _Def._ _p._ 143. fifteen hundred Miles in length, from the _Chinese_ Ocean to the Sea of _Pamphylia_. In such an uninterrupted Ridge of Mountains, where do the Land-Mountains end, and Sea-Mountains begin? Or what Mark is there, whereby we may know that they are not all of the same Race, or do not all spring from the same Original? Such obvious Enquiries as these, shew sufficiently, that the Distinction is merely arbitrary and ficticious.

But suppose this Distinction was admitted, and the maritime Mountains made the third Day, but inland Mountains I know not when: The great Difficulty still remains, _How_ the Sun rear’d up these inland Mountain’s afterward? Or if his Power be sufficient for such Effects, why have we not Mountains made still to this Day? Seeing our Mountain-maker, the Sun, is still in the Firmament, and seems to be as busy at Work as ever. The _Defender_ hath made some Answer to this Question, in these Words, _Def. p._ 99. _The Question is put, why have we no Mountains made now? It might as well have been ask’d_, says he, _Why does not the Fire make a Dough-bak’d Loaf swell and puff up?_ And, he says, _this Answer must be satisfactory to the Question propounded_. It must be, that is, for want of a better; for otherwise this Dough-comparison is unsatisfactory upon many Accounts. First, there was no Ferment in the Earth, as in this Dough-cake: at least it is not prov’d, or made appear, that there was any. Nay, when this Hypothesis was propos’d, there was no Mention at all made of any Ferment or Leaven in the Earth; but the Effect was wholly imputed to _Venus_ and the _Sun_. But to supply their Defects, he now ventures to add the Word, _fermentive_, as he calls it. A _fermentive, flatulent Principle_, which heav’d up the Earth, as Leaven does Dough. But, besides, that this is a mere groundless and gross _Postulatum_, to suppose any such Leaven in the Earth; if there had been such a Principle, it would have swollen the whole Mass uniformly, heav’d up the exterior Region of the Earth every where, and so not made Mountains, but a swollen bloated Globe.

This, Sir, is a second Passage, which I thought might make the Defender uneasy. We proceed now to a third and fourth in his Geography and Astronomy. In the 14th Chapter of his Exceptions, _p._ 289. speaking of the Change of the Situation of the Earth, from a right Posture to an oblique, he says, _according to the Theory, the Ecliptick in the primitive Earth, was its Equinoctial now_. This, he is told by the Answer, is a great Mistake; namely, to think that the _Earth, when it chang’d its Situation, chang’d its Poles and Circles_. What is now reply’d to this? _He speaks against a Change_, says the Defence, _in the Poles and Circles of the Earth; a needless Trouble, and occasioned by his own Oversight. For had he but looked into the Errata’s, he might have seen there, that these Parentheses, upon which he grounded what he says, should have been left out._ So this is acknowledg’d an _Erratum_ it seems, but an _Erratum Typographicum_; not in the Sense, but only in the _Parentheses_, which, he says, should have been left out. Let us then lay aside the Parentheses, and the Sentence stands thus: _For under the Ecliptick, which in the primitive Situation of the Earth, according to the Theory_, was its _Equinoctial, and divided the Globe into two Hemispheres, as the Equator does now. The dry Ground, &c._ How does this alter or mend the Sense? Is it not still as plainly affirm’d, as before, that according to the Theory, the Ecliptick in the primitive Earth was equinoctial? And the same thing is suppos’d throughout all this Paragraph, _Exc._ p. 289, 290. And if he will own the Truth, and give Things their proper Name, ’tis downright Ignorance, or gross Mistake in the _Doctrine of the Sphere_, which he would first father upon the _Theory_, and then upon the _Parentheses_.

And this leads me to a fourth Passage, much-what of the same Nature, where he would have the Earth to have been translated out of the Æquator into the Ecliptick, and to have chang’d the Line of its Motion about the Sun, when it chang’d its Situation. His Words are these, _Exc._ p. 158, 159. _So that in her annual Motion about the Sun, she_, namely the Earth, before her Change of Situation, _was carried directly under the Equinoctial_. This is his Mistake; the Earth mov’d in the Ecliptick, both before and after her Change of Situation; for the Change was not made in the Circle of her Motion about the Sun, but in her Posture or Inclination in the same Circle: Whereas he supposes that she _shifted both Posture, and also her Circuit about the Sun_, Ibid. _p._ 159. as his Words are in the next Paragraph. But we shall have Occasion to reflect upon this again in its proper Place. We proceed now to another astronomical Mistake.

A fifth Passage, which probably might disquiet him, is his false Argumentation at the end of the eighth Chapter concerning _Days_ and _Months_, _Exc._ p. 187. He says there, if the natural Days were longer towards the Flood than at first, (which no body however affirms) fewer than thirty would have made a Month; whereas the Duration of the Flood is computed by Months, consisting of thirty Days a-piece; _Therefore_, says he, _they were no longer than ordinary_. This Argumentation the _Answer_ told him, _was a mere Paralogism, or a mere Blunder_: For thirty Days are thirty Days, whether they are longer or shorter; and Scripture does not determine the Length of the Days. There are several Pages spent in the _Defence_, to get off the Blunder: Let’s hear how he begins, _p._ 78, 79, 80, 81. _Tho’ Scripture does not limit or account for the Length of Days expresly, yet it does it implicitly, and withal very plainly and intelligibly._ This is deny’d: And if he makes this out, that Scripture does very _plainly_ and _intelligibly_ determine the Length of Days at the Deluge, and makes them equal with ours at present, then, I acknowledge, he hath remov’d the Blunder; otherwise it stands the same, unmov’d and unmended. Now observe how he makes this out: _For_, says he, _Scripture gives us to understand, that Days before the Flood, were of the same Length, that they are of now, BY INFORMING US, that Months and Years, which were of the same Length then that they are of at present, were made up of the same Number of Days_. Here the Blunder is still continued, or, at best, it is but transferr’d from Days to Months, or from Months to Years. He says, _Scripture informs us that Months and Years were of the same Length then, that they are of at present_. If he mean by the _same Length_, the same _Number of_ Days, he relapses into the old Blunder, and we still require the Length of those Days. But if Scripture informs us that the Months and Years at the Flood, were of the same Length that they are of now, according to any absolute and known Measure, distinct from the _Number of Days_, then the Blunder is sav’d. Let’s see therefore by whether of these two Ways he proves it in the next Words, which are these: _For how could there be just twelve Months in the Year, at the time of the Deluge; and thirty Days in each of those Months, if the Days then had not consisted, as they do now, of twenty four Hours a-piece?_ We allow a Day might then consist of twenty four Hours, if the Distinction of Hours was so ancient. But what then? the Question returns concerning the Length of those _Hours_, as it was before concerning the Length of the _Days_; and this is either _idem per idem_, or the same Error in another Instance. If you put but _Hours_ in the place of _Days_, the Words of the _Answer_ have still the same Force: _Twenty four Hours were to go to a Day, whether the Hours were longer or shorter, and Scripture does not determine the Length of the Hours._ This, you see, is still the same Case, and the same Paralogism hangs upon both Instances.

But he goes on still in this false Tract, in these Words: _And as Providence hath so ordered Nature, that Days (that depend upon its diurnal Motion) should be measur’d by Circumgyrations of the Earth——So it hath taken Care that each of these Circumrotations should be performed in twenty four Hours; and consequently that every Day should be just so long, that thirty of them (in way of round reckoning) might complete a Month._ Admit all this, that thirty Days complete a Month; still if Scripture hath not determin’d the Length of those Days, nor the Slowness or Swiftness of the Circumgyrations that make them, it hath not determin’d the Length of those Months, nor of the Years that depend upon them. This one would take to be very intelligible; yet he goes on in the same Maze, thus: _But now had the Circumgyrations of the Earth grown more slow towards the Deluge (by such Causes as the Exceptor suggested) so as every Day had consisted of thirty Hours_, &c. But how so, I pray? This is a wild Step; why thirty Hours? Where does Scripture say so, or where does the _Theorist_ say so? We say the Day consisted then, as now, of twenty four Hours, whether the Hours were longer or shorter; and that Scripture hath not determin’d the Length of those Hours, nor consequently of those Months, nor consequently of those Years. So after all this ado, we are just where we were at first, namely, that Scripture not having determin’d the absolute Length of any one, you cannot by that determine the Length of any other. And by his shifting and multiplying Instances, he does but _absurda absurdis accumulare, ne perpluant_.

We offer’d before, in our Answer, to give the Exceptor some Light into his Mistake, by distinguishing in these Things, what is _absolute_ from what is _relative_: The former whereof cannot, under these or any such like Circumstances, be determin’d by the latter. For Instance: A Man hath ten Children, and he will not say absolutely and determinatively what Portion he will give with any one of them; but he says, I will give my eldest Child a tenth Part more than my second; and my second a ninth Part more than my third; and my third an eighth Part more than my fourth; and so downwards, in proportion to the youngest: Not telling you, in any absolute Sum, what Money he will give the youngest, or any other; you cannot, by this, tell what Portion the Man will give with any of his Children. I leave you to apply this, and proceed to a nearer Instance, by comparing the Measures of _Time_ and _Longitude_. If you know how many Inches make a Foot, how many Feet a Pace, how many Paces a Mile, _&c._ you cannot by these Numbers determine the absolute Quantity of any one of the aforesaid Measures, but only their relative Quantity as to one another. So if Scripture had determin’d, of how many Hours a Day consisted; of how many Days a Month; of how many Months a Year; you could not by this alone determine the absolute Duration or Quantity of any one of these, nor whether they were longer or shorter than our present Hours, Days, Months, or Years. And therefore, I say still, as I said at first, thirty Days are thirty Days, whether they are longer or shorter; and thirty Circumgyrations of the Earth are thirty, whether they be slower or swifter: And that no Scripture-Proof can be made from this, either directly or consequentially, that the Days before the Flood were, or were not, longer than they are at present. But we have been too long upon this Head.

We proceed now from his Astronomy to his Philosophy. ’Twas observ’d in the _Answer_, p. 38. that the Exceptor in the Beginning of the ninth Chapter, suppos’d terrestrial Bodies to have _Nitency inwards, or downwards, towards the Center_. This was noted as a false Principle in Philosophy, and to rectify his Mistake, he now replies, _Def._ p. 82. That he understood that Expression only of _self-central_ and _quiescent Bodies_: Whereas, in truth, the Question he was speaking to, was about a fluid Body turning upon its Axis. But however, let us admit his new Sense, his Principle, I’m afraid, will still need Rectification; namely, he affirms now, that _quiescent earthly Bodies_ are _impregnated with a Nitency inward, or downward towards the Center_. I deny also this reform’d Principle; if Bodies be turn’d round, they have a Nitency upwards, or from the Center of their Motion. If they be not turn’d round, nor mov’d, but quiescent, they have no Nitency at all, neither upwards nor downwards, but are indifferent to all Lines of Motion, according as an external Impulse shall carry them, this Way or that Way. So that his _Impregnation with a Nitency downwards_, is an occult and fictitious Quality, which is not in the Nature of Bodies, whether in Motion or in Rest. The Truth is, the Author of the Exceptions makes a great Flutter about the _Cartesian Philosophy_, and the _Copernican System_, but the frequent Mistakes he commits in both, give a just Suspicion that he understands neither.

Lastly, we come to the grand Discovery of a _fifteen-cubit Deluge_, which, it may be, was as uneasy to him upon second Thoughts, as any of the rest; at least one would guess so, by the Changes he hath made in his Hypothesis. For he hath now, in this _Defence_, p. 181, 182. reduc’d the Deluge to a Destruction of the World by _Famine_, rather than by _Drowning_. I do not remember in Scripture any Mention made of _Famine_ in that great Judgment of Water brought upon Mankind; but he thinks he hath found out something that favours his Opinion; namely, _that a good Part of Mankind at the Deluge, were not drown’d, but starv’d for want of Victuals_. And the Argument is this, because in the Story of the Deluge, Men are not said to be _drown’d_, but to _perish_, _die_, or be _destroy’d_. But are they said any where in the Story of the Deluge, to have been _famish’d_? And when God says to _Noah_, Gen. vi. 17. _I will bring a Flood of Waters upon the Earth, to destroy all Flesh_; does it not plainly signify, that that Destruction should be by _drowning_? But however, let us hear our Author; when he had been making use of this new Hypothesis of _starving_, to take off some Arguments urged against his fifteen-cubit Deluge, (particularly, that it would not be sufficient to destroy all Mankind) he adds these Words by way of Proof: _Def._ p. 182. _And methinks there is one Thing which seems to insinuate, that a good Part of the animal World might perhaps came to an End thus; by being driven to such Straights by the overflowing Waters, as to be FAMISH’D or STARV’D to Death. The Thing is this, in the Story of the Deluge, it is no where said of Men and living Creatures, that they were drown’d, but they died, or were destroyed._ Those that are _drown’d_ are _destroy’d_, I imagine, as well as those that are _starv’d_; so this proves nothing. But that the Destruction here spoken of, was by drowning, seems plain enough, both from God’s Word to _Noah_ before the Flood, and by his Words after the Flood, when he makes his Covenant with _Noah_, in this Manner: _I will establish my Covenant with you, neither shall all Flesh be cut off any more by the Waters of a Flood_, Gen. ix. 11. Now, to be cut off, or destroy’d by the Waters of a Flood, is, methinks, to be drown’d; And I take _all Flesh_ to comprehend the animal World, or, at least, all Mankind. Accordingly our Saviour says, _Matth._ xxiv. 39. in _Noah_’s Time, _the Flood came and took them all away_; namely, all Mankind.

This is one Expedient our Author hath found out, to help to bear off the Inconveniencies that attend his fifteen-cubit Deluge; namely, by converting a good Part of it into a _Famine_. But he hath another Expedient to join to this, by increasing the Waters; and that is done by making the _common Surface_ of the Earth, or the _highest Parts_ of it, as he calls them, _Def._ 165 and 180, to signify ambiguously, or any Height that pleases him; and consequently fifteen Cubits above that, signifies also what Height he thinks fit. But in reality, there is no Surface common to the Earth, but either the _exterior Surface_, whether it be high or low; or the _ordinary Level_ of the Earth, as it is a Globe or Convex Body. If by his _common Surface_ he mean the _exterior Surface_, that takes in Mountains as well as Lowlands, or any other superficial Parts of the Earth. And therefore, if the Deluge was fifteen Cubits above this common Surface, it was fifteen Cubits above the highest Mountains, as we say it was. But, if by the common Surface he mean the common Level of the Earth, as it is a Globular or Convex Body, then we gave it a right Name, when we call’d it the _ordinary Level_ of the Earth; namely, that Level or Surface that lies in an equal Convexity with the Surface of the Sea: And his fifteen Cubits of Water from that Level, would never drown the World. Lastly, if by the common Surface of the Earth, he understand a third Surface, different from both these, he must define it, and define the Height of it; that we may know how far this fifteen-cubit Deluge rise, from some known Basis. One known Basis is the Surface of the Sea, and that Surface of the Land that ties in an equal Convexity with it: Tell us then, if the Waters of the Deluge were but fifteen Cubits higher than the Surface of the Sea, that we may know their Height by some certain and determinate Measure; and upon that examine the Hypothesis: But tell us they were fifteen Cubits above, not the Mountains or the Hills, but the Highlands, or the _highest Parts of the common Surface of the Earth_, and not to tell us the Height of these highest Parts from any known Basis; nor how they are distinguish’d from Hills and Mountains, which incur our Senses, and are the Measures given us by _Moses_: This, I say, is but to cover his Hypothesis with Ambiguities, when he had made it without Grounds, and to leave room to set his Water-Mark higher or lower, as he should see Occasion or Necessity. And of this indeed we have an Instance in his last Pamphlet; for he has rais’d his Water-Mark there, more than an hundred Cubits higher than it was before. In his _Exceptions_, he said, _p._ 300. _not that the Waters were no where higher than just fifteen Cubits_ above the Ground, they might in most Places be _thirty_, _forty_, or _fifty Cubits higher_. But, in his _Defence_, he says, _p._ 180. the Waters might be an _hundred_ or _two hundred Cubits higher_ than the _general ordinary Plain_ of the Earth. Now what Security have we, but that, in the next Pamphlet they may be five hundred or a thousand Cubits higher than the ordinary Surface of the Earth?

This is his second Expedient, raising his Water-Mark indefinitely. But if these two Methods be not sufficient to destroy Mankind, and the animate World, he hath yet a third, which cannot fail; and that is, _destroying them by evil Angels_, Def. p. 90. _Flectere si nequeo_—This is his last Refuge; to which Purpose he hath these Words, _When Heaven was pleas’d to give Satan leave, he caus’d the Fire to consume_ Job_’s Sheep, and caused the Wind to destroy his Children. And how easily could these Spirits, that are Ministers of God’s Vengeance, have made the Waters of the Flood fatal to those Creatures that might have escaped them, if any could have done it?_ As suppose an Eagle, or a Faulcon; the Devil and his Crew catch them all, and held their Noses under Water: However, methinks, this is not fair Play to deny the Theorist the Liberty to make use of the Ministry of _good Angels_, when he himself makes use of _evil Spirits_.

These, Sir, and such like Passages, where the Notions of the Exceptor have been exposed, were the Causes, I imagine, of his angry Reply. Some Creatures, you know, are more fierce after they are wounded; and some, upon a gentle Chase, will fly from you; but if you press them, and put them to Extremities, they turn, and fly in your face. I see, by our Author’s Example, how easily, in these personal Altercations, Reasoning degenerates into Wrangling, and Wrangling into Scolding. However, if I may judge from these two Hypotheses which he hath made, about the _Rise of Mountains_, and a _fifteen-Cubit Deluge_, of all Trades, I should never advise him to turn _Hypothesis-Maker_. It does not seem at all to lie to his Hand; and Things never thrive that are undertaken, _Diis iratis, Genioque sinistro_.

But as we have given you some Account of this Author’s philosophical Notions, so it may be you will expect that we should entertain you with some Pieces of his Wit and Eloquence. The Truth is, he seems to delight and value himself upon a certain kind of Country-Wit and popular Eloquence, and I will not grudge you the Pleasure of enjoying them both, in such Instances as I remember. Speaking in Contempt of the Theory and the Answer, (which is one great Subject of his Wit) he expresses himself thus, _Def._ p. 48. _But if Arguments be so weak, that they will fall with a Phillip, why should greater Force be used to beat them down? To draw a Rapier to stab a Fly, or to charge a Pistol to kill a Spider, I think would be preposterous._ I think so too; in this we are agreed. In another Place, being angry with the Theorist, that he would not acknowledge his Errors to him, he hath these Words, p. 128. _’Tis unlucky for one to rest his Head against a Post; but when he hath done, if he will say he did not do it, and stand in, and defend what he says, ’tis a Sign he is as senseless as he was unfortunate, and is fitter to be pitied than confuted._ This Wit, it may be, you’ll say is downright Clownery. The Truth is, when I observ’d, in reading his Pamphlet, the Coarseness of his Repartees, and of that sort of Wit wherein he deals most, and pleases himself, it often rais’d in my Mind, whether I would or no, the Idea of a _Pedant_, of one that had seen little of the World, and thought himself much wittier and wiser than others would take him to be: I will give you but one Instance more of his rustical Wit. Telling the Theorist of an Itch of Writing, _p._ 214. _Methinks_, says he, _he might have laid that prurient Humour, by scratching himself with the Briars of a more innocent Controversy, or by SCRUBBING SOUNDLY against something else than the Holy Scripture._ He speaks very sensibly, as if he understood the Disease, and the Way of dealing with it: But I think _Holy Scripture_ does not come in well upon that Occasion.

All this is nothing, Sir, in comparison of his popular Eloquence: See with what Alacrity he runs it off-hand, in a Similitude betwixt _Adam_ and a Lord Lieutenant of a County, _p._ 113. _When the King makes a Gentleman Lord Lieutenant of a County, by virtue of his Commission is he presently the strongest Man that is in it? Does it enable him to encounter whole Regiments of Soldiers in his single Person? Does it impower him to carry a Cannon upon his Neck? Or when the great Gun is fired off, to catch the Bullet as it flies, and put it up in his Pocket? So when God gave_ Adam _Dominion over the Fowls, did he mean that he should dive like a Duck, or soar like a Falcon? That he should swim as naturally as the Swan, and hunt the Kite or Hobby, as Boys do the Wren? Did he mean that he should hang up Ostriches in a Cage, as People do Linnets, or fetch down the Eagles to feed with his Pullen, and make them perch with his Chickens in the Henroost?_

So much for the Fowls; now for the Fish. _Ibid._ When God _gave_ Adam _Dominion over the Sea, was he to be able to dwell at the Bottom, or to walk on the Top of it? To drain it as a Ditch, or to take all its Fry at once in a Drag-Net? Was he to snare the Shark, as we do young Pickarels; or to bridle the Sea-Horse, and ride him for a Pad; or to put a Slip upon the Crocodile’s Neck, and play with him as with a Dog?_ &c. Sir, I leave it to you, as a more competent Judge, to set a just Value upon his Gifts and Elocution. For my Part, to speak freely, dull Sense, in a phantastick Style, is to me doubly nauseous.

But lest I should cloy you with these luscious Harangues, I will give you but one more; and ’tis a Miscellany of several Pieces of Wit together. _Def._ p. 68. _Should twenty Mariners_, says he, _confidently affirm that they sailed in a Ship from_ Dover _to_ Calais, _by a brisk Gale out of a Pair of Bellows? Or if forty Engineers should positively swear, that the Powder-Mill near_ London _was late blown up, by a Mine then sprung at_ Great Waradin _in_ Hungary, _must they not be grievously perjur’d Persons?——Or if the Historian that writes the_ Peloponnesian _War, had told that the Soldiers who fell in it, fought only with Sun-beams, and single Currants which grew thereabouts, and that hundreds and thousands were stabb’d with the one, and knocked on the Head with the other; who would believe that ever there were such Weapons in that War, that ever there was such a fatal War in that Country? Even so_, &c. These, Sir, are Flights and Reaches of his Pen, which I dare not censure, but leave them to your Judgment.

Thus much is to give you a Taste only of his Wit and Eloquence; and if you like it, you may find more of the same Strain, here and there, in his Writings. I have only one Thing to mind him of, _that_ he was desired by the Theorist, _Eng. Theor._ p. 401. to _write in Latin (if he was a Scholar) as being more proper for a Subject of this Nature_. If he had own’d and follow’d that Character, I’m apt to think it would have prevented a great many Impertinences: His Tongue, probably, would not have been so flippant in popular Excursions and Declamations, as we now find it. Neither is this any great Presumption or Rashness of Judgment, if we may guess at his Skill in that Language by his Translations here and there: _Except,_ _p._ 293. _Cum plurima Religione_ is rendered _with the Principle of their Religion_. And if he say he followed Sir _W. Rawleigh_ in his Translation, he that follows a bad Translator, without Correction or Notice, is suppos’d to know no better himself: And this will appear the more probable, if we consider another of his Translations, in this present Work. _Rei Personam_ he translates _the Representation of the Thing_, instead of the _Person of the Guilty_, or the Person of him that is _Reus_ not _Actor_: And in this, I dare say, he was seduc’d by no Example. But lest we should be thought to misrepresent him, take his own Words, such as they are, _Def._ 168, 169. _Yea, tho’ it was spoken never so positively, it was but to set forth REI PERSONAM, to make the more full and lively Representation of the supposed Thing._ Here, you see, he hath made a double Blunder; first, in jumbling together _Person_ and _Thing_; then, if they could be jumbled together, _Rei Persona_ would not signify the _full and lively Representation of the Thing_, but rather a Disguise or personated Representation of the Thing. However, I am satisfied from these Instances, that he had good Reason, notwithstanding the Caution or Desire of the Theorist to the contrary, to write his Books in his Mother’s Tongue.

Thus we have done with the first Part, which was to mark out such Passages, as we thought might probably have enflam’d the Author’s Style in this Reply: When Men are resolved not to own their Faults, you know there is nothing more uneasy and vexatious to them, than to see them plainly discovered and expos’d. We must now give you some Account of the Contents of his Chapters, so far as they relate to our Subject. _Chap._ i. _Nothing._ _Chap._ II. is against _extraordinary Providence_; or that the Theorist should not be permitted to have Recourse to it upon any Occasion. This Recourse to extraordinary Providence being frequently objected in other Places, and of use to be distinctly understood; we will speak of it apart at the latter end of the Letter. _Chap._ III. is about the _Moon’s hindring the Formation of the Earth before she was formed herself, or in our Neighbourhood_, as we have noted before. Another Thing in this Chapter, is, his urging _oily_ or _oleaginous_ Particles not to have been in the _Chaos_, but made since: I’ll give a short Answer to this; either there was or was not _oleaginous_ Matter in the new-made Earth, (I mean in its superficial Region,) when it came first out of a _Chaos_? If there was, there was also in the _Chaos_, out of which that Earth was immediately made: And if there was no oleaginous Matter in the new-made Earth, how came the Soil to be so fertile, so fat, so unctuous? I say not only _fertile_, but particularly _fat_ and _unctuous_: For he uses these very Words frequently in the Description of that Soil, _Exc._ p. 211. _Def._ p. 69, and p. 98. And all fat and unctuous Liquors are _oleaginous_; and accordingly we have used those Words promiscuously, in the Description of that Region: (_Eng. Theor._ _Chap._ V.) understanding only such unctuous Liquors as are lighter than Water, and swim above it, and consequently would stop and entangle the terrestrial Particles in their Fall or Descent: And seeing such unctuous and oleaginous Particles were in the new-made Earth, they must certainly have been in the Matter out of which it was immediately formed, namely, in the _Chaos_. All the rest of this Chapter we are willing to leave in its full Force; apprehending the Theory, or the Answer, to be in no Danger from such Argumentations or Reflections.

The fourth Chapter is very short, and hath nothing argumentative. The fifth Chapter is concerning the Cold in the circumpolar Parts, which was spoken to in the Answer sufficiently, and we stand to that: What is added about extraordinary Providence, will be treated of in its proper Place. The sixth Chapter is also short, against this Particular, _that it is not safe to argue upon Suppositions actually false_. And I think there needs no more to prove it, than what was said in the Answer. Chap. VII. is chiefly about Texts of Scripture, concerning which I see no Occasion of saying any more than what is said in the _Review of the Theory_. He says, (_p._ 49.) that the Theorist catches himself in a Trap, by allowing that _Ps._ xxxiii. 7. is to be understood of the ordinary Posture of the Waters, and yet applying it to their extraordinary Posture under the Vault of the Earth: But that was not an extraordinary Posture according to the Theorist, but their natural Posture in the first Earth: Yet I allow the Expression might have been better thus, in _a level or spherical Convexity, as the Earth_. He interprets גן יהוה (_p._ 53.) which we render _the Garden of the Lord_, Gen. xiii. x. not to be Paradise, but any pleasant Garden; yet gives us no Authority either of ancient Commentator or Version, for this novel and paradoxical Interpretation. The Septuagint render it παράδεισος τοῦ θεοῦ: The _Vulgate_, _Paradisus Domini_, and all ancient Versions that I have seen, render it to the same Sense. Does he expect then that his single Word and Authority should countervail all the ancient Translators and Interpreters? To the last Place alledged by the Theorist, _Prov._ viii. 28. he says, the Answerer charges him unjustly, that he understands by that Word חון no more than the _Rotundity_ or _spherical Figure_ of the Abyss; which, he says, is a _Point of Nonsense_: I did not think the Charge had been so high however, seeing some Interpreters understand in so: But if he understand by תונ the _Banks_ or _Shores_ of the sea, then he should have told us how those Banks or Shores are על פבי תהום _super faciem Abissi_, as it is in the Text.

_Page_ 59. He says the Exceptor does not misrepresent the Theorist when he makes him to affirm the Construction of the first Earth to have been merely mechanical; and he cites to this purpose two Places, which only prove, that the Theorist made use of no other Causes, nor see any Defect in them; but never affirm’d that these were the only Causes. You may see his Words to this purpose expressly, _Eng. Theor. p._ 88. whereof the Exceptor was minded in the _Answer_, p. 3. In the last Paragraph of this Chapter, _p._ 60. if he affirms any Thing, he will have _the Pillars of the Earth_ to be understood _literally_. Where then, pray, do these Pillars stand that bear up the Earth? Or if they bear up the Earth, what bears them up? What are their Pedestals, or their Foundations? But he says Hypotheses must not regulate Scripture, though in natural Things, but be regulated by it, and the by the Letter of it: I would gladly know then, how his Hypothesis of the Motion of the Earth, is regulated by Scripture, and by the Letter of it? And he unhappily gives an Instance, just contrary to himself, namely, of the Anthropomorphites; for they regulate natural Reason and Philosophy, by the Letter or literal Sense of Scripture, and therein fall into a gross Error: Yet we must not call the Author _injudicious_, for fear of giving Offence.