A defence of the Discourse concerning the earth before the flood being a full reply to a late answer to exceptions made against The theory of the earth : wherein those exceptions are vindicated and reinforced, and objections against the new hypothesis of the deluge answered : exceptions also are made against the review of the theory / by Erasmus Warren ...

CHAP. XI.

THat there was an Open Sea before the Flood, the Excepter proved by Scripture and by Reason, in his Eleventh Chapter. But the Answerer inverts the Order of that Chapter, and thinks fit to begin with the last first. As if he designed by altering the Method, to perplex the Matter, and pervert the Arguments. Or at least to raise such a Mist of Confusion, as might dim the Eye of the Reader's Observation, and partly ob∣scure the Weakness of his Answer. But let us follow him in his own way, and not fear in the least, but 'twill be every whit as easy for us. For indeed let him go even which way he pleases, we are bound in Justice to give him this Commendation; that he never leads us into any difficulties.

The Reason offered in proof of an Open Sea, was this. Because otherwise the subterraneous Abyss must have been the Receptacle for Fishes, or the only place of their abode. And that Abyss could by no means have been a fit Dwelling for them, upon Three Accounts: As being too Dark, too Close, and too Cold.

But the Answerer would perswade us to believe otherwise. As for Coldness, methinks, says he, he might have left that out, unless he supposes that there are no Fish in the frozen Seas, towards the North and South; which is against all sense and experience: for Cold Coun∣trys abound most in Fish. But are there any where any frozen Seas, on which the Sun never shin'd for sixteen hundred years together? He must show us such Seas,

if he would bring his Answer home to the Objection. For in whatsoever Seas Fishes do breed, those Seas must certainly at times, feel a great deal of Warmth and In∣fluence from the Sun: else these Creatures, so cold of themselves, could never Multiply. And therefore, we see, that even in our Seas, they breed not in Winter, for want of the Sun. And if the Sun's Declination or withdrawment from us, hinders their Production in our Seas (and Rivers) as sense and experience suffi∣ciently testifie; his total Absence and constant Exclu∣sion, would put a final stop to their Procreation. Yet such was his Absence, and such his Exclusion from the inclos'd Abyss. It may be made a Question, whether Fishes can live and breed in a Deep Well, which is open; by reason of its Coldness. And if they cannot, how much less in the Abyss? which being close, and much Deeper; was answerably colder. In case it be objected, that in such a Well they would lack Nourish∣ment: the Objection turns much more forcibly upon the Abyss. For whereas the smaller Sorts of Fish live on Flies and Worms; where should they have found them so far under ground? And yet necessary it was that the lesser Kinds of Fish should exist; that so they might be food, and sustenance for the Greater.

As for Darkness and Closeness; he opposes to them the Saying of Maimonides, That no man ever would be∣lieve, that a Child could live so many months, shut up in its Mothers Belly, if he had never seen the experience of it. For, says the Answerer, there's Closeness and Dark∣ness in the highest degree: and in Animals, that, as soon as born, cannot live without Respiration. But surely the Difference betwixt Children in the Womb, and Fishes in the Abyss; is very great. For 1st. Children unborn, are imperfect; (and so indeed they are, when new born, and long after; (they may be perfect in

Shape, but they are imperfect in strength:) But with Fishes in the Abyss, it could not be so. Secondly, Children in the Womb, have no local Motion; which to Fishes in the Abyss, must be allowed. Thirdly, Children in the womb, are supply'd with sutable and sufficient Nourishment, by easy and natural Derivati∣on from their Mothers: But Fishes in the Abyss, were to seek out for theirs, and to get it when, and where they could find it. Fourthly, Fishes in the Abyss, were to propagate there; (A sure Indication of their true Perfection in that State:) But Children unborn, were far enough from doing that. Lastly, That great Body of water, being close shut up, and always qui∣escent, and having no way to purge and clarify it self; would have putrified, and poysoned all the Fish; es∣pecially if it inclin'd to any degree of warmth, as the Answerer here surmises: There would he more danger of too much warmth. But from this Inconvenience, in their vital Habitation (supposing it to continue in its natural State) Children in the Womb are free.

And whereas he urges that Fishes Prey on the night time: That signifies nothing. For first, the Dark∣ness of our nights above the Earth; is not comparable to the Darkness a Mile under it. And Secondly, in very dark nights. 'tis like they prey only upon dead Baits; or upon such living ones, as are set for them, and made so fast that they cannot get away. And to his Objection, of Fishes living in subterraneous Lakes; the reply is as easy. For no subterraneous Lakes in which Fishes live; are so close, and deep into the Earth; as this pretended subterraneous Abyss.

But farther; that there was an Open Sea in the pri∣maeval World, the Excepter prov'd, against the Theo∣ry, from Scripture. And the first Argument, was the Dominion which GOD gave unto Adam, over the Fish

of the Sea. Gen. 1.26, 28. But if there were not an open Sea, impossible it was, that he should have or ex∣ercise such a Dominion as GOD ALMIGHTY gave him. Whereunto it is answered thus. Adam had no more Dominion given him over the Fish of the Sea, than over the Fowls of the Air. And did the Excepter affirm that he had? Let it be granted that he had but as much; and our Business is done, and so is the Theorist's. This, the Gentleman knew very well; and therefore we see how shie he is of a direct Answer, and how aloof he stands in what he says. As for Adam's Power over the Fowls, it was sufficient; such as shewed his Dominion to be real. For he exercis'd it thou, at least as much as we do now. That is, he could take them in Fields, or Fens, or Heaths, or Rivers; and have them in good plenty about Him. But had he an equal power over the Fish, when they kept only in a subterraneous Pond; and that was wall'd round at such a rate, that even through all his long life, he could not command so much as a Pair of Sprats? He adds, con∣cerning the Fowls; that Adam could not come at them. or seize them at his pleasure, unless he could fly into the Air after them. Very much to the purpose. As if he could have had no Dominion over the Fowls, without the use of Wings. And because he had not a Power over the Fowls, above his capacity; and such a Command as neither his Nature and Circumstances, nor theirs would allow: therefore he had none at all over the Fish. Notably argu'd, and with mighty good Consequence. Adam was not tall enough to stand upon the ground, and take the Weather-cock of a Church-steeple; and therefore, good man, he could not stand upon tip-toe neither. Because he had not such a Domi∣nion over the Sea, as was impossible; therefore he could not have one of which he was capable. Cer∣tainly

he must be akin to the Sages of Gotham, who argues that Man is not Lord of the Creatures, because they could not hedge in the poor Cuckow; or drown the Eel as they might have done a Kitling.

When a King makes a Gentleman, Lord-Lieutenant of a County; by virtue of his Commission, is he pre∣sently the strongest man that is in it? Does it inable him to encounter whole Regiments of Souldiers in his single Person; or to vanquish all the Militia under him, at once? Does it impower him to carry a Canon upon his Neck? Or when the great Gun is fir'd off, to catch the Bullet as it flies, and put it up in his Pocket? Can he not hold the place, and execute the Office of a Lord-Lieutenant, without such preternatural and mon∣strous abilities? 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 Hob∣by, as Boys do the Wren? Did he mean that he should hang up Ostritches 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 Hen∣roost? Or else could he have no command over the Fowls? And in like manner when he gave the same 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 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 his Pad? Or to put a slip upon the Crocodiles Neck, and play with him as with a Dog? Or else must he have no Dominion over that Element, and the Crea∣tures in it? Certainly betwixt having Dominion over the Fowls, and flying after them in the Air; there is great difference. And so there is betwixt the real Do∣minion

which Adam had over the Sea, and its Fish; and all excess or extravagance of Rule.

When GOD set Adam over the Fish of the Sea, he plac'd him under his Glorious SELF. For had his Dominion been supreme and absolute, he must have partook of GOD's Nature; as well as he did of his Image, and Empire. But as we very well know, all Subordinate Power must be limited: and so was Adam's. And therefore he could not go beyond his prescribed Bounds; but was to command the Fish, as he did other Creatures. That is, according to the Order of the World, and the Laws of Providence; according to the Capacity of his own Nature, and the Quality of theirs. And if so be he did but act in his Station, in pursuance of his Commission; governing his Subjects as in Duty he was obliged, and as in Power he was inabled; that is, according to the Will of GOD, and the measures of a Man: this will be sufficient for him who had the Do∣minion; and so it will be for us who defend it.

The Answerer proceeds; Adam was made Lord of all Animals upon the Earth, and had a right to use them for his conveniency, when they came into his power. Here he speaks as out of a Cloud; and we may justly suspect that what he says, had need be clear'd from doubtful meaning. For Fishes, if his Hypothesis may be belie∣ved, were never upon this Earth, but always under it, during Adam's time; and so they never came into his power neither. And therefore it may be question'd, whether he means that Adam was Lord of them or not. But if in, all Animals, he includes the Fishes; then we reply as follows. That in case the Doctrine of the Theory be true, Adam could be but a poor and sorry Lord over the Fishes; which are a considerable part of the living Creatures. Pliny attempts, in his Natural History, to reduce all of them, that belong to the Sea, to

an hundred seventy and six kinds; and to particularize the several Names of them respectively. But so mean a Lord was Adam over them, that indeed to call him by this Title, in reference to those Animals; would be but to put an affront upon him, he enjoying no more (if the Theorist errs not) than a meer colour or shadow of that honour. Should an Emperor grant one of his Courtiers a Commission, to be his Vice-Roy, or De∣puty, in a certain Country, which 'tis utterly im∣possible he should ever come at; as this Patent would reproach the Majesty that gives it, so would it not be Mockage to the Favourite that receives it? Yet just such is the Case here. As impossible it was for Adam to come at the Abyss below; as it was for him to dart downward, for a Mile or two's Thickness, through the compact and solid Earth. So that his Lordship over the Fishes there, must be a bare nominal and titular thing. And he might as well have been Lord over the Fish in the Moon (supposing she had any) as over the Fish in the Infernal Sea. For his descent to the one, was as difficult, as his ascent would have been to the other; and his Power was exercis'd alike in both: for he died above seven hundred years, before the Ocean, or so much as one Fish, appeared in the World. Now pray, when, or to whom? in what Ages, and to which of his Servants, did the GOD of Heaven ever assign such mock Seigniories, and pitiful airy Royalties, as this? No, they are windy promises that convey empty Donatives; and neither can proceed from that Glori∣ous Being, which is the fulness of Sincerity and all Munificence. Where GOD is pleas'd to impart Do∣minion; we may assure our selves it shall not be a name or empty notion. But as there shall be a Scaene for Jurisdiction to act in; so there shall be Subjects for it to be exercis'd upon; and Matters also to imploy it about.

And so here is something more suggested (in way of Reply) as to the Favour which GOD bestowed upon Adam, in relation to the Fishes: namely, that he im∣parted to him a Dominion over them. And that I hope, is quite different from a Titular Lordship. And so Ti∣tular was his Lordship (according to the Theory) o∣ver the Fish; that tho he held it near a thousand years, it did not all that time bring one of them to his Sight. A man may have a Title to things, and Right to use them when he can get them; tho he never had, nor ever shall have Dominion over them. I do by no means wish the Answerer to be unjustly barred from his Estate. But if he were so, he would find that a Title to it, and a Right to use it when it should come into his Power; must not be compar'd to a real Dominion or Command over it. But now it was an actual Dominion which GOD gave Adam over the Fish. And therefore he did not say, have thou the Title of Lord over them, and use them for thy conveniency, when they come into thy power; (which yet would have been a plain Jeer (such as Heaven never put upon an Innocent) because into his power they were not to come:) but have DOMI∣NION over the Fish of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing which moveth upon the Earth, Gen. 1.28. Where, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which the Tar∣gum renders, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and have the Dominion; does signify an actual Rule, and the very exercise of it. And the Word is used in this Sense, in too many Places of the H. Bible to be here recited. So that Adam's Dominion over the Fish, was not (as the Answerer would most unreasonably make it) a Titular Lordship, or imagina∣ry Right: which was to hang in the Air, and not be realiz'd even to his Posterity, till above sixteen hun∣dred Years should be past; and till the World in which they lived should be quite destroyed, and a new one

founded: but it was a real Power actually conferred up∣on, and exercis'd in his own Person; and with him, by his Children, jointly; and after him, by them, suc∣cessively. And truly when in the Grant of this power over the Fish, the Advantage lay so much on Adam's side, more than on his Offspring's; (it being made to him in his Person, and also in his Innocence:) it may seem somewhat strange, that he who shared most in the conveyance of the Priviledge; should (in the Judg∣ment of a wise Civilian) have nothing to do with the Possesion of it. Especially when this Grant was made by the GOD of faithfulness and truth; with Whom, as there is no shadow of Change, so there can be no semblance of Fraud. Yet had the Case here been as the Theory makes it; there must have been wrong on GOD's part, as well as fallacy; and his creatures he must have injured, by imposing upon them; which who can think? As if that righteous Being, whose Nature is the Rule of eternal Justice, could violate that Law which Himself had made: And when he had com∣manded, not to steal; could rob poor men of that com∣mon Right, which his own free Goodness, and his own kind Promise, settled on them.

Not to be too toedious. Either Adam had actual Do∣minion over the Fish; or he had not. If he had not, why did GOD say to him, Have Dominion over the Fish of the Sea? If he had, why does the Answerer so mince it, as if he intended to make away with it? Again; Either Adam had as much Power over the Fish of the Sea, as he had over the Fowls of the Air, and the Living things upon the Earth; or he had not. If he had as much; we have what we contend for. If he had not; the Answerer must show, that the Divine Grant now re∣cited, vesting Adam with Dominion over the Creatures; did confer more Power in the latter part of it, than it did

in the first. But that he cannot do; and therefore his Cause is lost. For if Adam had as much power over the Fish, as he had over the Fowls, and over other Animals; there must be an open Sea at first. And if there was an open Sea; there was Mountains too. And if there was Mountains; there was Clouds also. And if there was Clouds; there was Winds, and Rains, and Hails, and Snows, and Thunders, &c. And then where's the Theorists Primitive Earth, and his Paradisiacal World before the Flood? In the Fourth Chapter of his Answer he reflected upon the Excepter for Dabbling in Philosophy. And now I think he has dabbled in it fairly himself; even till he has drowned his hopeful Hypothesis, in an inclos'd Abyss. And as for Extra∣ordinary Providence, it affords no help in this Case. However it be made too much a Pack-horse to carry the Theory through several Difficulties, which other∣wise must have been impassable: yet here it fails, and is able to yield no manner of assistance. For he who can imagine, that Adam upon the Earth, could have Dominion over the Fish in this inclosed Sea, by Extra∣ordinary Providence; must be guilty of most ama∣zing and unmerciful Extravagance. Yet by another Expedient he may find relief. When, to leave things out, he prints his Theory next; he may leave this in∣clos'd Abyss out of that Edition. And tho he can worse spare it; yet whether he has not as much reason to leave it out, as he had to leave any thing out, which he did leave out; let any unbias'd Person judge.

That there was Open Seas before the Flood, we argu'd Secondly, from the Waters under the Firmament, Gen. 1.7. For had there been none but River-waters in the first World; the Earth might have been said to be un∣der the Firmament, more properly, than the Waters. And the Firmament, which in the 6th. verse, is said to

be in the midst of the Waters, and to divide the Waters from the Waters; might better have been said to be in the midst betwixt the Earth and the Waters; and to divide the Waters from that. For, as for the River-waters, they would have been too inconsiderable, to have had the Partition made by the Firmament, prae∣dicated of them, in exclusion of the Earth, or in prefe∣rence to it.

Well, allow this, says the Answerer, that a Firma∣ment was made to divide the Waters from the Waters. Tell us then what that Firmament was, For it is said there, that GOD set the Sun, Moon, and Stars, in the Firma∣ment. We own it is said so, and that GOD did do so. But if he cannot tell what this Firmament was; a few words will inform him. It is plain that Moses, in his Cosmopaeia, makes mention of Two Firmaments; (and we have told him of them once already.)) One we may call the Aeral; the other, the Aethereal Firma∣ment. The First is the Interaqueous Firmament, as lying between Waters: for it is bounded by the Waters here below; and by those supernal Fountains of Water, the Clouds above. And yet it is properly called Hea∣ven; as being not only limited to, but also consisting of the Lowest, or Subnubilar Heaven. The Second is the Firmament of Lights. Because in it the Moon, and all the Planets; the Sun, and all the fixt Stars are placed. And a most stately and glorious Expanse it is; as being of immense and indefinite Amplitude or Extent.

Here the Excepter encountred that New Notion of the Firmament, which the Theorist vouchsaft to re∣commend to the World; where he makes it expressly to be the Orb of his exterior habitable Earth. But what was said against it, he answered the best way, viz. by declaring that the Things cited and opposed, are not in

the Second Edition of the Theory. But the best on't is, when he had been so brisk as to give us all a Magisteri∣al Reprimand; by telling us plainly that Moses's Fir∣mament as commonly understood, is an Ʋnphilosophic thing: on the other-side he was so bashful, that he would not stand by his own opinion, tho more Philosophic, as he thought. But having conceived it, and brought it forth, he very fairly gives it the slip; and leaves the infant Notion, defenceless as it is, to shift for it self.

Concerning what we said in vindication of the Clouds from that contempt which the Thorist threw upon them; he thus pronounceth. With submission to better Judgments, I take it to be a Country-Sermon, about the usefulness of Rain. But I do assure him (tho that's no strange nor new thing with him) he is very much mi∣staken. Yet if he will needs have it be a Sermon; with submission to better Judgments, I take it to be a Funeral-Sermon for one of his Notions. Namely, that the Clouds were no such eminent and remarkable things, as to deserve a particular commemoration by Moses in his six days work.

As for what follows (towards the end of our Chap∣ter) against the Theorist's Objection, touching the dif∣ficult Propagation of Mankind into the Islands and Conti∣nents of the first world; the Answerer declares, that it does but confirm his Objection. But did the Excepter say any thing in confirmation of such a Difficulty in the business of this Propagation; as brings on a Neces∣sity of calling in the help of the Angelic Ministery, to translate or convey men from place to place? He shewed plainly, that a few sorry Sciphs, or rude kind of Boats, might very well do what was here to be done, without making Angels to be Carriers of men, and to transport their Colonies, through the Torrid Zone,

into new Plantations. But this is a Difficulty which attends the Theory: or else the Answerer wrongs his Hypothesis, by flying to those Spirits for such their Assistance.

Notes

• Dsc. p. 224.
• Answ. p. 51.
• Answ. p. 51.
• Ib.
• Ib.
• Disc. p. 219, 220
• Answ. p. 52.
• Ib.
• P. 52••
• Lib. 32. C. 11.
• Disc. p. 226.
• Ibid.
• Answ. p. 52.
• Disc. p. 22••.
• Gen. 1.8.20.
• See Disc. p. 226, 227, 228.
• Answ. p. 52.
• Ausim enim di∣cere quantum rerum natura innotescit adhuc, Firmamentum Mosaicum prout vulgo intelligi∣tur, esse pror∣sus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Theor. Edit. 1. p. 254.
• Answ. p. 53.
• Eng. Theor. p. 234.
• Answ. p. 53••
• See Disc. c. 11. §. 7.
• Answ. p. 30.