fiderable difference between these two texts; the firft blefing gave Adam a dominion over the earth and all creatures; 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 bis commons, Observations, 211. So that in our author's fenfe, all that was faid here to Noah and his fons, gave them no dominion, no property, but only enlarged the commons; their commons, I should fay, fince God fays, to you are they given, though our author fays his; for as for Noah's fons, they, it seems, by Sir Robert's appointment, during their father's life-time, were to keep fafting days.

§. 39. Any one but our author would be mightily fufpected to be blinded with prejudice, that in all this bleffing to Noah and his fons, could fee nothing but only an enlargement 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 beaft, which I fuppofe expreffes the dominion, or fuperiority was defigned man over the living creatures, as fully as may be; for in that fear and dread feems chiefly to confift what was given to Adam over the inferior animals; who, as abfolute a monarch as he was, could not make bold with a lark or rabbet to fatisfy his hunger, and had the herbs but in common with the beafts, as is plain from i Gen. 2, 9, and and 30. In the

next

next place, it is manifest that in this bleffing to Noah and his fons, property is not only given in clear words, but in a larger extent than it was to Adam. Into your hands they are given, fays God to Noah and his fons; which words, if they give not property, nay, property in poffeffion, it will be hard to find words that can; fince there is not a way to express a man's being poffeffed of any thing more natural, nor more certain, than to fay, it is delivered into his hands. And ver. 3. to fhew, that they had then given them the utmost property man is capable of, which is to have a right to deftroy any thing by ufing it; Every moving thing that liveth, faith God, fhall be meat for you; which was not allowed to Adam in his charter. This our author calls, a liberty of using them for food, and only an enlargement of commons, but no alteration of property, Obfervations, 211. What other property man can have in the creatures, but the liberty of using them, is hard to be underftood: fo that if the firft bleffing, as our author fays, gave Adam dominion over the creatures, and the bleffing to Noah and his fons, gave them fuch a liberty to use them, as Adam had not; it must needs give them fomething that Adam with all his fovereignty wanted, fomething that one would be apt to take for a greater property; for certainly he has no abfolute dominion over even the brutal part of the creatures; and the property he has in

them is very narrow and fcanty, who cannot make that use of them, which is permitted to another. Should any one who is abfolute lord of a country, have bidden our author fubdue 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 fatisfy his hunger, I guefs, he would fcarce have thought himfelf lord or proprietor of that land, or the cattle on it; but would have found the difference between having dominion, which a Thepherd may have, and having full property as an owner. So that, had it been his own cafe, 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 fuch a property given them in the creatures, as Adam had not: For however, in refpect of one another, men may be allowed to have propriety in their diftinct portions of the creatures; yet in refpect of God the maker of heaven and earth, who is fole lord and proprietor of the whole world, man's propriety in the creatures is nothing but that liberty to use them, which God has permitted; and fo man's property may be altered and enlarged, as we fee it was here, after the flood, when other ufes of them are allowed, which before were not. From all which I fuppofe it is clear, that neither Adam, nor

2

Noah,

Noah, had any private dominion, any property in the creatures, exclufive of his pofterity, as they should fùcceffively 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 Adam's monarchy, founded on the bleffing pronounced, i. Gen. 28. Wherein I think it is impoffible for any fober reader, to find any other but the fetting of mankind above the other kinds of creatures, in this habitable earth of ours. It is nothing but the giving to man, the whole fpecies of man, as the chief inhabitant, who is the image of his Maker, the dominion over the other creatures. This lies fo obvious in the plain words, that any one, but our author, would have thought it neceffary to have shewn, how these words, that feemed to fay the quite contrary, gave Adam monarchical abfolute power over other men, or the fole property in all the creatures; and methinks in a bufinefs of this moment, and that whereon he builds all that follows, he should have done fomething more than barely cite words, which apparently make against him; for I confefs, I cannot fee any thing in them, tending to Adam's monarchy, or private dominion, but quite the contrary. And I the lefs deplore the dulnefs of my apprehenfion herein, fince I find the apostle feems to have as little notion of any fuch private dominion of Adam

as

as I, when he says, God gives us 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 fucceffors. To conclude, this text is fo far from proving Adam fole proprietor, that, on the contrary, it is a confirmation of the original community of all things amongst the fons of men, which appearing from this donation of God, as well as other places of feripture, the fovereignty of Adam, built upon his private dominion, muft fall, not having any foundation to fupport it.

§. 41. But yet, if after all, any one will needs have it fo, that by this donation of God, Adam was made fole proprietor of the whole earth, what will this be to his fovereignty? and how will it appear, that propriety in land gives a man power over the life of another? or how will the poffeffion even of the whole earth, give any one a fovereign arbitrary authority over the perfons of men? The most specious thing to be faid, is, that he that is proprietor of the whole world, may deny all the reft of mankind food, and so at his pleasure ftarve them, if they will not acknowledge his fovereignty, and obey his will. If this were true, it would be a good argument to prove, that there never was any fuch property, that God never gave any fuch private dominion; fince it is more reasonable to think, that God, who bid man

kind