wild beasts and reptiles, the same words that in the text before us, Gen. i. 28. are translated every moving thing, that moveth on the earth, which by no means can comprehend man, the grant being made to Noah and his sons, all the men then living-, and not to one part of men over another: which is yet more evident from the very next words, ver. 3. where God gives every W21 every moving thing, the very words used, ch. i. 28. to them for food. By all which it is plain that God's donation to Adam, ch. i. 28. and his designation, ver. 26. and his grant again to Noah and his sons, refer to and con- tain in them neither more nor less than the works of the creation the fifth day, and the beginning of the sixth, as they are set down from the 20th to the 26th ver. inclusively of the 1st chap, and so comprehend all the species of irrational animals of the terraqueous globe, though all the words, whereby they are ex- pressed in the history of their creation, are no where used in any of the following grants, but some of them omitted in one, and some in another. From whence I think it is past all doubt, that man cannot be comprehended in this grant, nor any dominion over those of his own species be conveyed to Adam. All the terrestrial irrational creatures are enumerated at their creation, ver. 25. under the names beasts of the earth, cattle and creeping things; but man being not then created, was not con- tained under any of those names; and there- 30 OF GOVERNMENT.
fore, whether we understand the Hebrew words right or uo, they cannot be supposed to comprehend man, in the very same history, and the very next verses following, especially since that Hebrew word ttfS") which, if any in this donation to Adam, ch. i. 28. must comprehend man, is so plainly used in contradistinction to him, as Gen. vi. 20. vii. 14,21, 23. Gen. viii. 17, 19. And if God made all mankind slaves to Adam and his heirs, by giving Adam dominion over every living thing that movelhon the earth, ch. i. 28. as our author would have it, methinks Sir Robert should have carried his monarchial power one step higher, and satisfied the world, that princes might eat their subjects too, since God gave as full power to Noah and his heirs, ch. ix. 2. to eat every living tiling that move/ A, us he did to Adam to have dominion over them, the Hebrew words in both places being the same.
§. 28. David, who might be supposed to understand the donation of God in this text, and the right of kings too, as well as our author in his comment on this place, as the learned and judicious Ainsivorth calls it, in the 8th Psalm, finds here uo such charter of mo- narchial power: his words are, Thou hast made him, i. e. man, the son of man, a little lower than the angels; thou modest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feel, all sheep and oxen, and the beasts of the field, and the fowls of the OF GOVERNMENT.,31 air, and fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the sea. In which words, if any one can find out, that there is meant any monarchial power of one man over another, but only the dominion of the whole species of mankind, over the inferior species of creatures, he may, for aught I know, deserve to be one of Sir Robert's monarch s in habit, for the rareness of the discovery. And by this time, I hope it is evident, that he that gave dominion over every living thing that moveth on the earth, gave Adam no monarchial power over those of his own species, which will yet appear more fully in the next thing I am to shew.
§. 29. 2. Whatever God gave by the words of this grant, Gen. i. 28. it was not to Adam in particular, exclusive of all other men: what- ever dominion he had thereby, it was not a private dominion, but a dominion in common with the rest of mankind. That this donation was not made in particular to Adam, appears evidently from the words of the text, it being made to more than one; for it was spoken in the plural number, God blessed them, and said unto them, Have dominion. God says unto Adam and Eve, Have dominion; thereby, says our author, Adam was monarch of the world: but the grant being to them, i. e. spoke to Eve also, as many interpreters think with reason, that these words were not spoken till Adam had his wife, must not she thereby be lady, as Mill as he lord of the world? If it be said, thai 32 OF GOVERNMENT, Eve was subjected to Adam, it seems she was not so subjected to him, as to binder her do- minion over the creatures, or property in them: for shall we say that God ever made a joint grant to two, and one only was to have the benefit of it I §. 30. But perhaps it will be said, Eve was not made till afterward: grant it so, what ad- vantage will our author get by it? The text will be only the more directly against him, and shew that God, in this donation, gave the world to mankind in common, and not to Adam in parti- cular. The word them in the text must include the species of man, for it is certain them can by no means signify Adam alone. In the 26th verse, where God declares his intention to give this dominion, it is plain he meant, that he would make a species of creatures, that should have dominion over the other species of this terrestrial globe: the words are, And God said, Let ns make man in our image, after our like- ness, and let them have dominion over the Jish, <§c. They then were to have dominion. Who? even those who were to have the image of God, the individuals of that species of man, that he was going to make; for that them should signify Adam singly, exclusive of the rest that should be in the world with him, is against both scripture and all reason: and it cannot possibly be made sense, if man in the former part of the verse do not signify the same with them in the latter; only man there, as is usual, OF GOVERNMENT. 33 OF GOVERNMENT. 33 is taken for the species, and them the indivi- duals of that species: and we have a reason in the very text. God makes him in his own image, after his own likeness; makes him an intellectual creature, and so capable of do- minion: for whereinsoever else the image of God consisted, the intellectual nature was certainly a part of it, and belonged to the whole species, and enabled them to have dominion over the inferior creatures; and therefore David says in the 8th Psalm above cited, Thou hast made him little lower than the angels, thou hast made him to have dominion. It is not of Adam king' David speaks here, for verse 4. it is plain, it is of man, and the son of man, of the species of mankind.
§.31. And that this grant spoken to Adam was made to him, and the whole species of man, is clear from our author's own proof out of the Psalmist. The earth, saith the Psalmist, hath he given to the children of men; which shews the title comes from fatherhood. These are Sir Roberfs words in the preface before cited, and a strange inference it is he makes; God hath given the earth to the children of men, ergo the title comes from fatherhood. It is pity the propriety of the Hebrew tongue had not used fathers of men, instead of children of men, to express mankind, then indeed our author might have had the countenance of the sound of words, to have placed the title in the father- hood. But to conclude, that the fatherhood D 34 OF GOVERNMENT.
had the right to the earth, because God gave it to the children of men, is a way of arguing peculiar to our author: and a man must have a great mind to go contrary to the sound as well as the sense of the words before he could light on it. But the sense is yet harder, and more remote from our author's purpose: for as it stands in his preface, it is to prove Adam's being monarch, and his reasoning is thus, God gave the earth to the children of men, ergo Adam was monarch of the world. I defy any man to make a more pleasant conclusion than this, which cannot be excused from the most obvious absurdity, till it can be shewn, that by children of men, he who had no father, Adam alone is signified; but whatever our author does, the scripture speaks not nonsense.
§. 32. To maintain this property and private dominion of Adam, our author labours in the following page to destroy the community grant- ed to Noah and his sons, in that parallel place, Gen. ix. 1, 2, 3, and he endeavours to do it two ways.
1. Sir Robert would persuade us against the express words of the scripture, that what was here granted to Noah, was not granted to his sons in common with him. His words are, As for the general community betiveen Noah and his sons, which Mr. Selden will have to be granted to them, Gen. ix. 2. the text doth not warrant it. What warrant our author would have, when the plain express words of scrip- OF GOVERNMENT. 35 tare, not capable of another meaning, will not satisfy him, who pretends to build wholly on scripture, is not easy to imagine. The text says, God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, i. e. as our author would have it, unto him: for, saith he, although the sons are there mentioned with Noah in the blessing, yet it may best be understood, with a subordination or benediction in succession, Observations, 21 J. That indeed is best, for our author to be under- stood, which best serves to his purpose; but that truly may best be understood by any body else, which best agrees with the plain construc- tion of the words, and arises from the obvious meaning of the place; and then with subordi- nation and in succession, will not be best under- stood, in a grant of God, where he himself put them not, nor mentions any such limitation. But yet, our author has reasons, why it may best be understood so. The blessing, says he in the following words, might truly be fidjilled, if the sons, either under or after their father, enjoyed a private dominion, Observations, 211. which is to say, that a grant, whose express words give a joint title in present (for the text says, into your hands they are delivered) may best be understood with a subordination, or in succession; because it is possible, that in subordination, or in succession, it may be enjoyed. Which is all one as to say, that a grant of any thing in present possession, may best be understood of reversion; because it is 30 OF GOVERNMENT.
possible one may live to enjoy it in reversion. Ifthe grant be indeed to a father and to his sons after him, who is so kind as to let his children enjoy it presently in common with him, one may truly say, as to the event one will be as good as the other; but it can never be true, that what the express words grant in possession, and in common, may best be un- derstood, to be in reversion. The sum of all his reasoning amounts to this: God did not give to the sons of Noah the world in common with their father, because it was possible they might enjoy it under, or after him. A very good sort of argument against an express text of scripture: but God must not be believed, though he speaks it himself, when he says he does any thing, which will not consist with Sir Robert's hypothesis.
§. 33. For it is plain, however he would ex- clude them, that part of this benediction, as he would have it in succession, must needs be meant to the sons, and not to Noah himself at all: Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, says God, in this blessing. This part of the benediction, as appears by the sequel, concerned not Noah himself at all: for we read not of any children he had after the flood; and in the following chapter, where his posterity is reckoned up, there is no mention of any; and so this benediction in succession was not to take place till 350 years after: and to save our author's imaginary monarchy, the peopling OF GOVERNMENT. 37 of the world must be deferred 350 years; for this part of the benediction cannot be under- stood with subordination, unless our author will say, that they must ask leave of their father Noah to lie with their wives. But in this one point our author is constant to himself in all his discourses, he takes great care there should be monarchs in the world, but very little that there should be people; and indeed his way of government is not the way to people the world: for how much absolute monarchy helps to fulfil this great and primary blessing of God Almighty, Be fruitful, and multiply, and re- plenish the earth, which contains in it the improvement too of arts and sciences, and the conveniences of life, may be seen in those large and rich countries which are happy under the Turkish government, where are not now to be found one third, nay, in many, if not most parts of them one thirtieth, perhaps I might say not one hundredth of the people, that were formerly, as will easily appear to any one, who will compare the accounts we have of it at this time, with antient history. But this by the by. §. 34. The other parts of this benediction, or grant, are so expressed, that they must needs be understood to belong equally to them all; as much to Noah's sons as to Noah himself, and not to his sons ivith a subordination, or in succession. The fear of you, and the dread of you, says God, shall be upon every beast, &c. Will any body but our author say, that the 38 OF GOVERNMENT.
creatures feared and stood in awe of Noah only, and not of his sons without his leave, or till after his death? And the following words, into your hands they are delivered, are they to be understood as our author says, if your father please, or they shall be delivered into your hands hereafter? If this be to argue from scripture, I know not what may not be proved by it; and I can scarce see how much this differs from that fiction and fansie, or how much a surer foundation it will prove, than the opinions of philosophers and poets, which our author so much condemns in his preface.
§. 35. But our author goes on to prove, that it may best be understood with a subordination, or a benediction in succession; for, says he, it is not probable that the private dominion which God gave to Adam, and by his donation, assig- nation, or cession to his children, teas abrogated, and a community of all things instituted between Noah and his sons Noah was left the sole heir of the world; tvhy shoidd it be thought that God ivould disinherit him of his birth- right, and make him of all men in the icorld the only tenant in common with his children? Observations, 211.
§. 36. The prejudices of our own ill-ground- ed opinions, however by us called probable, cannot authorise us to understand scripture contrary to the direct and plain meaning of the words. 1 grant, it is not probable, that Adam's )>rivale dominion was here abrogated: OF GOVERNMENT.,*>■> OF GOVERNMENT.,*>■> because it is more than probable, (for it will never be proved) that ever Adam had any such private dominion: and since parallel places of scripture are most probable to make us know how they may be best understood, there needs but the comparing this blessing here to Noah and his sons after the flood, with that to Adam after the creation, Gen. i. 28. to assure any one that God gave Adam no such private domi- nion. It is probable, I confess, that Noah should have the same title, the same property and dominion after the flood, that Adam had before it: but since private dominion cannot consist with the blessing and grant God gave to him and his sons in common, it is a suffi- cient reason to conclude, that Adam had none, especially since in the donation made to him, there are no words that express it, or do in the least favour it; and then let my reader judge whether it may best be understood, when in the one place there is not one word for it, not to say what has been above proved, that the text itself proves the contrary; and in the other, the words and sense are directly against it.
§. 37. But our author says, Noah urns the sole heir of the world; why should it be thought that God tvoidd disinherit him of his birth- right? Heir, indeed, in England, signifies the eldest son, who is by the law of England to have all his father's land; but Avhere God ever appointed any such heir of the world, our author would have done well to have 40 OF GOVERNMENT.
shewed us; and how God disinherited him of his birth-right, or what harm was done him if God gave his sons a right to make use of a part of the earth for the support of themselves and families, when the whole was not only more than Noah himself, but infinitely more than they all could make use of, and the pos- sessions of one could not at all prejudice, or, as to any use, streighten that of the other.
§. 38. Our author probably foreseeing he might not be very successful in persuading people out of their senses, and, say what he could, men would be apt to believe the plain words of scripture, and think, as they saw, that the grant was spoken to Noah and his sons jointly; he endeavours to insinuate, as if this grant to Noah conveyed no property, no dominion; because, subduing the earth and dominion over the creatures are therein omit- ted, nor the earth once named. And therefore, says he, there is a considerable difference be- tween these two texts; the first blessing gave Adam a dominion over the earth and all crea- tures; the latter allows Noah liberty to use the living creatures for food: here is no alteration or diminishing of his title to a property of all things, but an enlargement only of his com- mons, Observations, 211. So that in our author's sense, all that was said here to Noah and his sons, gave them no dominion, no pro- perty, but only enlarged the commons; their commons, I should say, since God says, to you OF GOVERNMENT. 41 are they given, though our author says his; for as for Noah's sons, they, it seems, by Sir Ro- bert's appointment, during- their father's life- time, were to keep fasting days.
§. 39. Any one but our author would be mightily suspected to be blinded with preju- dice, that in all this blessing to Noah and his sons, could see nothing but only an enlarge- ment of commons: for as to dominion which our author thinks omitted, the fear of you, and the dread of you, says God, shall be upon every beast, which I suppose expresses the dominion^ or superiority was designed man over the living creatures, as fully as may be; for in that fear and dread seems chiefly to consist what was given to Adam over the inferior animals; who, as absolute a monarch as he was, could not make bold with a lark or rabbet to satisfy his hunger, and had the herbs but in common with the beasts, as is plain from Gen. i. 2, 9, and 30. In the next place, it is manifest that in this blessing to Noah and his sons, property is not only given in clear words, but in a larger extent than it was to Adam. Into your hands they are given, says God to Noah and his sons; which words, if they give not pro- perty, nay, property in possession, it will be hard to find words that can; since there is not a way to express a man's being possessed of any thing more natural, nor more certain, than to say, it is delivered into his hands. And ver. 3. to shew, that they had then given them 42 OF GOVERNMENT.
the utmost property man is capable of, which is to have a right to destroy any thing by using it; Every moving thing that liveth, saith God, shall be meat for you; which was not al- lowed to Adam in his charter. This our au- thor calls a liberty of using them for food, and only an enlargement of commons, but no altera- tion of property, Observations, 21 1. What other property man can have in the creatures, but the liberty of using them, is hard to be understood: so that if the first blessing, as our author says, gave Adam dominion over the creatures, and the blessing to Noah and his sons, gave them such a liberty to use them, as Adam had not; it must needs give them something that Adam with all his sovereignty wanted, something that one would be apt to take for a greater proper- ty; for certainly he has no absolute dominion over even the brutal part of the creatures; and the property he has in them is very narrow and scanty, who cannot make that use of them, which is permitted to another. Should any one who is absolute lord of a country, have bidden our author subdue the earth, and given him dominion over the creatures in it, but not have permitted him to have taken a kid or a lamb out of the flock, to satisfy his hunger, I guess, he would scarce have thought him- self lord or proprietor of that land, or the cattle on it; but would have found the dif- ference between having dominion, which a shepherd may have, and having full property OF GOVERNMENT. 43 as an owner. So that, had it been his own case, Sir Robert, I believe, would have thought here was an alteration, nay, an enlarging of property; and that Noah and his children had by this grant, not only property given them, but such a property given them in the crea- tures, as Adam had not: for however, in re- spect of one another, men may be allowed to have propriety in their distinct portions of the creatures; yet in respect of God the maker of heaven and earth, who is sole lord and pro- prietor of the whole world, man's propriety in the creatures is nothing but that liberty to use them, which God has permitted; and so man's property may be altered and enlarged, as we see it was here, after the flood, when other uses of them are allowed, which before were not. From all which 1 suppose it is clear, that neither Adam, nor Noah, had any private dominion, any property in the crea- tures, exclusive of his posterity, as they should successively grow up into need of them, and come to be able to make use of them.
§. 40. Thus we have examined our author's argument for Adams monarchy, founded on the blessing pronounced, Gen. i. 28. wherein I think it is impossible for any sober reader, to find any other but the setting of mankind above the other kinds of creatures, in this habitable earth of ours. It is nothing but the giving lo man, the whole species of man, as the chief inhabitant, who is the image of hi^ 44 OF GOVERNMENT.
maker, the dominion over the other creatures. This lies so obvious in the plain words, that any one, but our author, would have thought it necessary to have shewn, how these words, that seemed to say quite the contrary, gave Adam monarchial absolute power over other men, or the sole property in all the creatures; and methinks in a business of this moment, and that whereon he builds all that follows, he should have done something* more than barely cite words, which apparently make against him; for I confess, I cannot see any thing in them, tending to Adams monarchy, or private dominion, but quite the contrary. And I the less deplore the dulness of my apprehension herein, since I find the apostle seems to have as little notion of any such private dominion of Adam as 1, when he says, God gives ns all things richly to enjoy, which he could not do, if it were all given away already, to monarch Adam, and the monarchs his heirs and successors. To conclude, this text is so far from proving Adam sole proprietor, that, on the contrary, it is a confirmation of the original community of all things amongst the sons of men, which appear- ing from this donation of God, as well as other places of scripture, the sovereignty of Adam, built upon his private dominion, must fall, not having any foundation to support it.
§.41. But yet, if after all, any one will needs have it so, that by this donation of God, Adam was made sole proprietor of the whole OF GOVERNMENT. 45