Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A30486
|
A short consideration of Mr. Erasmus Warren's defence of his exceptions against the theory of the earth in a letter to a friend.
|
Burnet, Thomas, 1635?-1715.
|
1691
(1691)
|
Wing B5947; ESTC R36301
|
36,168
|
44
|
to another go to let us make Brick and burn them thoroughly And they made Brick for stone and slime had they had mortar But now this argument methinks may be retorted upon the Excepter with advantage For if there were no dissolutions concussions or absorptions at the Deluge instead of the ruines of Ioppa methinks we might have had the ruines of an hundred Antediluvian Cities Especially if according to his Hypothesis they had good stone and good Iron and all other materials fit for strong and lasting building And which is also to be consider'd that it was but a fifteen-cubit Deluge so that Towns built upon eminences or high-lands would be in little danger of being ruin'd much less of being abolisht His last argument p. 163. proves if it prove any thing that God's promise that the world should not be drown'd again was a vain and trifling thing to us who know it must be burnt And consequently if Noah understood the conflagration of the World he makes it a vain and trifling thing to Noah also If the Excepter delight in such conclusions let him enjoy them but they are not at all to the mind of the Theorist Chap. 15. Now we come to his new Hypothesis of Fifteen-cubit Deluge And what shifts he hath made to destroy the World with such a diminutive Flood we have noted before First by raising his water-mark and making it uncertain Then by converting the Deluge in a great measure into Famine And lastly by destroying Mankind and other Animals with evil Angels We shall now take notice of some other incongruities in his Hypothesis When he made Moses's Deluge but fifteen Cubits deep we said that was an unmerciful Paradox and askt whether he would have it receiv'd as a Postulatum or as a Conclusion All he answers to this is That the same question may be askt concerning several parts of the Theory particularly that the Primitive Earth had no Open Sea Whether is that says he to be receiv'd as a Postulatum or as a Conclusion The answer is ready as a Conclusion deduc'd from premises and a series of antecedent reasons Now can he make this answer for his fifteen-Cubit Deluge Must not that still be a Postulatum and an unmerciful one As to the Theory there is but one Postulatum in all viz. That the Earth rise from a Chaos All the other Propositions are deduc'd from premises and that one Postulatum also is prov'd by Scripture and Antiquity We had noted further in the Answer that the Author had said in his Exceptions that he would not defend his Hypothesis as true and real and we demanded thereupon Why then did he trouble himself or the World with what he did not think true and real To this he replies Many have written ingenious and useful things which they never believ'd to be true and real Romances suppose and Poetical fictions Will you have your fifteen-cubit Deluge pass for such But then the mischief is where there is neither Truth of Fact nor Ingenuity of invention such a composition will hardly pass for a Romance or a good fiction But there is still a greater difficulty behind The Excepter hath unhappily said Our supposition stands supported by Divine Authority as being founded upon Scripture which tells us as plainly as it can speak that the waters prevailed but fifteen Cubits upon the Earth Upon which words the Answerer made this remark If his Hypothesis be founded upon Scripture and upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak Why will not he defend it as TRVE and REAL for to be supported by Scripture and by plain Scripture is as much as we can alledge for the articles of our Faith To this he replies now that he begg'd allowance at first to make bold with Scripture a little This is a bold excuse and he especially one would think should take heed how he makes bold with Scripture lest according to his own notion he fall into blasphemy or something of blasphemous importance indirectly consequentially or reductively at least However this excuse if it was a good one would take no place here for to understand and apply Scripture in that sence that it speaks as plainly as it can speak is not to make bold with it but modestly to follow its dictates and plain sence He feels this load to lie heavy upon him and struggles again to shake it off with a distinction When he said his fifteen-cubit Deluge was supported by divine authority c. This he says was spoken by him in an Hypothetick or suppositious way and that it cannot possibly be understood otherwise by men of sence Here are two hard words let us first understand what they signifie and then we shall better judge how Men of sence would understand his words His Hypothetick or suppositious way so far as I understand it is the same thing as by way of supposition Then his meaning is he supposes his fifteen-cubit Deluge is supported by divine authority And he supposes it is founded upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak But this is to suppose the Question and no Man of sence would make or grant such supposition So that I do not see what he gains by his Hypothetick and suppositious way But to draw him out of this mist of words Either he affirms this that his Hypothesis is supported by divine authority and founded upon Scripture as plainly as it can speak or he denies it or he doubts of it If he affirm it then all his excuses and diminutions are to no purpose he must stand to his cause and show us those plain Texts of Scripture If he deny it he gives up his cause and all that divine authority he pretended to If he doubt of it then he should have exprest himself doubtfully as Scripture may admit of that sence or may be thought to intimate such a thing but he says with a plerophory Scripture speaks it as plainly as it can speak And to mend the matter he unluckily subjoyns in the following words Yea tho' it was spoken never so positively it was but to set forth REIPERSONAM to make a more full and lively representation of the supposed thing He does well to tell us what he means by Rei Personam for otherwise no Man of sence as his phrase is would ever have made that translation of those words But the truth is he is so perfectly at a loss how to bring himself off as to this particular that in his confusion he neither makes good sence nor good Latin Now he comes to another inconsistency which was charg'd upon him by the Answer Namely that he rejects the Church-Hypothesis concerning the Deluge and yet had said before I cannot believe which I cannot well endure to speak that the Church hath ever gone on in an irrational way of explaining the Deluge That he does reject this Church-Hypothesis was plainly made out from his own words because he rejects the Common Hypothesis
A SHORT CONSIDERATION OF Mr ERASMVS WARREN's DEFENCE of his EXCEPTIONS Against the THEORY of the EARTH SIR I Have read over Mr. 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 inavoidable to the Defendant And 't is an unpleasant exercise a kind of Wild-goose-chase where he that leads must be followed through all his extravagances 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 to 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 bloud 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 Sence 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 take away 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 easie 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 Excepter and altered his style Either it must be the words and language of that Answer or the Sence of it without respect to the Language As to the Words 't is true he gives some instances of expressions offensive to him yet they are but three or four and those methinks not very high tho' he calls them 〈◊〉 of passion they are these indiscreet rude injudicious and uncharitable These characters it seems are applyed to the Excepter in some part of the answer upon occasion offer'd And whether those occasions were just or no I dare appeal to your judgement 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 ancients 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 justifie 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 't is possibly upon occasion of 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 change 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 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 Answer had reason to subjoyn what we 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 premises I had forgot one expression more The answer it seems somewhere calls the Excepter a Dabbler in Philosophy which he takes ill But that he is a dabbler 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 't is the sence 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 't is victory that is pursued and aim'd at in the first place with little regard to truth And if the contention be manag'd in civil terms 't is but wrangling if in uncivil 't is scolding I will not so far anticipate your