these:-"If God created only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman, and if by generation from them two, as parts of them, all mankind be propagated; if also God gave to Adam, not only the dominion over the woman and the children that should issue from them, but also over the whole earth to subdue it, and over all the creatures on it, so that, as long as Adam lived, no man could claim or enjoy anything but by donation, assignation, or permission from him, I wonder," &c. (O., 165). Here we have the sum of all his arguments for " Adam's sovereignty" and against “ natural freedom," which I find up and down in his other treatises, which are these following:-"God's creation of Adam," "The dominion He gave him over Eve," and "The dominion he had as father over his children," all which I shall particularly consider. CHAPTER III. Of Adam's Title to Sovereignty by Creation. 15. SIR ROBERT in his preface to his "Observations on Aristotle's 'Politics,"" tells us-“ A natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the creation of Adam;" but how Adam's being created, which was nothing but his receiving a being immediately from Omnipotency and the hand of God, gave Adam a sovereignty over anything, I cannot see, nor, consequently, understand how a supposition of natural freedom is a denial of Adam's creation," and would be glad anybody else (since our author did not vouchsafe us the favour) would make it out for him; for I find no difficulty to suppose the "freedom of mankind,” though I have always believed the "creation of Adam." He was created or began to exist by God's immediate power, without the intervention of parents, or the pre-existence of any of the same species to beget him, when it pleased God he should; and so did the lion, the king of beasts, before him, by the same creating power of God; and if bare existence by that power, and in that way, will give dominion without any more ado, our author, by this argument, will make the lion have as good a title to it as he, and certainly the ancienter. No; for " Adam had his title by the appointment of God," says our author in another place. Then, bare creation gave him not dominion; and one might have supposed mankind free without" denying the creation of Adam," since it was God's "appointment" made him monarch. 16. But let us see how he puts "his creation" and this " appointment" together. "By the appointment of God," says Sir Robert, " as soon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world, though he had no subjects; for though there could not be actual government till there were subjects, yet, by the right of nature, it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity, though not in act, yet at least in habit, Adam was a king from his creation." I wish he had told us here what he meant "by God's appointment." For whatsoever Providence orders, or the law of nature directs, or positive revelation declares, may be said to be "by God's appointment;" but I suppose it cannot be meant here in the first sense-that is, by Providence; because that would be to say no more but that, "as soon as Adam was created," he was de facto monarch, because, "by right of nature, it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity." But he could not de facto be by Providence constituted the governor of the world at a time when there was actually no government, no subjects to be governed, which our author here confesses. "Monarch of the world" is also differently used by our author, for sometimes he means by it a proprietor of all the world, exclusive of the rest of mankind, and thus he does in the same page of his preface before cited :-" Adam," says he, "being commanded to multiply and people the earth, and to subdue it, and having dominion given him over all creatures, was there by the monarch of the whole world; none of his posterity had any right to possess anything but by his grant or permission, or by succession from him." (2) Let us understand, then, by "monarch," proprietor of the world, and by "appointment," God's actual donation and revealed positive grant made to Adam (Gen. i. 28), as we see Sir Robert himself is betwixt Adam's creation and his right to government, so that a "natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the creation of Adam," I confess, for my part, I do not see; nor how those words, "by the appointment," &c. (O., 254), however explained, can be put together to make any tolerable sense, at least to establish this position, with which they end-viz., “Adam was a king from his creation," a king, says our author, "not in act but in habit"--i.e., actually no king at all. 20. I fear I have tired my readers' patience by dwelling longer on this passage than the weightiness of any argument in it seems to require; but I have unavoidably been engaged in it by our author's way of writing, who, huddling several suppositions together, and that in doubtful and general terms, makes such a medley and confusion, that it is impossible to show his mistakes without examining the several senses wherein his words may be taken, and without seeing how in any of these various meanings they will consist together and have any truth in them; for, in this present passage before us, how can any one argue against this position of his, that "Adam was a king from his creation," unless one examine whether the words, "from his creation," be to be taken, as they may, for the time of the commencement of his government, as the foregoing words import, as soon as he was created he was monarch,” or for the cause of it, as he says (p. 14): "Creation made man prince of his posterity"? How, farther, can one judge of the truth of his being thus king till one has examined whether king be to be taken, as the words in the beginning of this passage would persuade, on supposition of his "private dominion," which was by God's positive grant, "monarch of the world by appointment;" or king on supposition of his fatherly power over his offspring, which was by Nature "due by the right of nature"-whether I say king be to be taken in both, or one only of these two senses, or in neither of them, but only this, that creation made him prince in a way different from both the other? For though this assertion, that "Adam was king from his creation" be true in no sense, yet it stands here as an evident conclusion drawn from the preceding words, though in truth it be. but a bare assertion joined to other assertions of the same kind, which, confidently put together in words of undetermined and dubious meaning, look like a sort of arguing, when there is indeed neither proof nor connection-a way very familiar with our author, of which, having given the reader a taste here, I shall, as much as the argument will permit me, avoid touching on hereafter, and should not have done it here were it not to let the world see how incoherences in matter and suppositions, without proofs, put handsomely together in good words and a plausible style, are apt to pass for strong reason and good sense till they come to be looked into with attention. CHAPTER IV. Of Adam's Title to Sovereignty by Donation (Gen. i. 28). 21. HAVING at last got through the foregoing passage, where we have been so long detained, not by the force of arguments and opposition, but the intricacy of the words. and the doubtfulness of the meaning, let us go on to his next argument for Adam's sovereignty. Our author tells us, in the words of Mr. Selden, that "Adam, by donation from God (Gen. i. 28), was made the general lord of all things, not without such a private dominion to himself as without his grant did exclude his children. This determination of Mr. Selden," says our author, "is consonant to the history of the Bible and natural reason” (O., 210). And in his preface to his "Observations on Aristotle" he says thus: "The first government in the world was monarchical in the father of all flesh, Adam, being commanded to multiply and people the earth and to subdue it, and, having dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole world; none of his posterity had any right to possess anything but by his grant or permission, or by succession from him; the earth,' saith the is betwixt Adam's creation and his right to government, so 66 20. I fear I have tired my readers' patience by dwelling longer on this passage than the weightiness of any argument in it seems to require; but I have unavoidably been engaged in it by our author's way of writing, who, huddling several suppositions together, and that in doubtful and general terms, makes such a medley and confusion, that it is impossible to show his mistakes without examining the several senses wherein his words may be taken, and without seeing how in any of these various meanings they will consist together and have any truth in them; for, in this present passage before us, how can any one argue against this position of his, that "Adam was a king from his creation," unless one examine whether the words, "from his creation," be to be taken, as they may, for the time of the commencement of his government, as the foregoing words import, as soon as he was created he was monarch,” or for the cause of it, as he says (p. 14): "Creation made man prince of his posterity"? How, farther, can one judge of the truth of his being thus king till one has examined whether king be to be taken, as the words in the beginning of this passage would persuade, on supposition of his "private dominion,” which was by God's positive grant, "monarch of the world by appointment;" or king on supposition of his fatherly power over his offspring, which was by Nature "due by the right of nature"-whether I say king be to be taken in both, or one only of these two senses, or in neither of them, but only this, that creation made him prince in a way different from both the other? For though this assertion, that "Adam was king from his creation" be true in no sense, yet it stands here as an evident conclusion drawn from the preceding words, though in truth it be. but a bare assertion joined to other assertions of the same |