prerà, or reptiles, from whence it appears that the words, which we translate here in God's donation (ver. 28), "living creatures moving," are the same which, in the history of the creation (vers. 24 and 25), signify two ranks of terrestrial creatures-viz., wild beasts and reptiles, and are so understood by the Septuagint.

26. When God had made the irrational animals of the world, divided into three kinds, from the places of their habitation-viz., "fishes of the sea, fowls of the air," and living creatures of the earth, and these again into "cattle, wild beasts, and reptiles," He considers of making man, and the dominion he should have over the terrestrial world (ver. 26), and then He reckons up the inhabitants of these three kingdoms; but in the terrestrial leaves out the second rank 'n, or wild beasts; but here (ver. 28), where He actually executes this design and gives him this dominion the text mentions "the fishes of the sea, and fowls of the air," and the terrestrial creatures in the words that signify the wild beasts and reptiles, though translated "living thing that moveth," leaving out cattle. In both which places, though the word that signifies "wild beasts" be omitted in one, and that which signifies" cattle" in the other, yet since God certainly executed in one place what He declares he designed in the other, we cannot but understand the same in both places, and have here only an account how the terrestrial irrational animals, which were already created and reckoned up at their creation in three distinct ranks of "cattle," "wild beasts,' and "reptiles," were here (ver 28) actually put under the dominion of man, as they were designed (O., 26.) Nor do these words contain in them the least appearance of any thing that can be wrested to signify God's giving one man dominion over another, Adam over his posterity.

27. And this further appears from Gen. ix. 2, where God, renewing this charter to Noah and his sons, He gives them dominion over " the fowls of the air," and "the fishes of the sea," and "the terrestrial creatures," expressed by п' and , "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

רמש

yet more evident from the very next words (ver. 3), where God gives every won, "every moving thing," the very words used (chap. i. 28) to them for food. By all which it is plain that God's donation to Adam (chap. i. 28), and His designation (v. 26), and His grant again to Noah and his sons, refer to, and contain 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 ver. 20 to 26, inclusively of chap. i., and so comprehend all the species of irrational animals of the terraqueous globe, though all the words whereby they are expressed in the history of their creation are nowhere 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 contained under any of those names, and therefore whether we understand the Hebrew words right or no, they cannot be supposed to comprehend man in the very same history, and the very next verses following, especially since that Hebrew word, which (if any) in this donation to Adam (chap. 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 moveth on the earth (chap. i. 28), as our author would have it, me thinks Sir Robert should have carried his monarchical power one step higher, and satisfied the world that princes might have eat their subjects too, since God gave as full power to Noah and his heirs (chap. ix. 2), to eat every living thing that moveth as 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 Ainsworth calls it-in Psalm viii. finds here no such charter of monarchical power. His words

are:

"Thou hast made him," i.e., man, the son of man, "a little lower than the angels, Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of Thy hands, Thou hast put all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and the beasts of the field, and the fowl of the 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 inonarchical 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 monarchs 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 monarchical power over those of his own species, which will yet appear more fully in the next thing I am to show.

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; whatever 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 alsoas many interpreters think with reason that these words were not spoken till Adam had his wife-must not she, thereby, be lady, as well as he lord, of the world? If it be said that Eve was subjected to Adam, it seems she was not so to him as to hinder her dominion 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?

30. But, perhaps, it will be said, Eve was not made till afterward. Grant it so; what advantage will our author get by it? the text will be only the more directly against him, and show that God, in this donation, gave the world to mankind in common, and not to Adam in particular. 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 us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fish," &c. 66 "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, is taken for the species, and "them," the individuals of that species; and we have a reason in the very text: for God makes him "in his own image after his own likeness," makes him an intellectual creature, and so capable of dominion. 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 (ver. 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 shows the title comes from fatherhood;" these are Sir Robert's 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 a 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 the words, to have placed the title in the fatherhood; but to conclude that the fatherhood had the right to the earth, be

cause 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

D

go contrary to the sound as well as 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 shown 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 granted to Noah and his sons in that parallel place (Gen. ix. 1, 2, 3), and he endeavours to do it two ways,

1st. 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 between 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 Scripture, 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, 66 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" (O. 211). That, indeed, is best for our author to be understood which best serves to his purpose, but that truly may best be understood by anybody else which best agrees with the plain construction of the words, and arises from the obvious meaning of the place, and then with subordination and in succession will not be best understood 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 fulfilled if the sons either under or after their father enjoyed a private dominion,"