does in this parallel place, and then his argument will stand thus:-"By the positive grant of God, as soon as Adam was created, he was proprietor of the world, because by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity;" in which way of arguing there are two manifest. falsehoods. Firstly, it is false that God made that grant to Adam as soon as he was created, since, though it stands in the text immediately after his creation, yet it is plain it could not be spoken to Adam till after Eve was made and brought to him; and how, then, could he be "monarch by appointment as soon as created," especially since he calls, if I mistake not, that which God says to Eve (Gen. iii. 16), "the original grant of government," which, not being till after the Fall, when Adam was somewhat, at least in time, and very much distant in condition, from his creation, I cannot see how our author can say, in this sense, that, "by God's appointment, as soon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world." Secondly, were it true that God's actual donation "appointed Adam monarch of the world as soon as he was created," yet the reason here given for it would not prove it, but it would always be a false inference, that God, by a positive donation, appointed Adam "monarch of the world because, by right of nature, it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity;" for, having given him the right of government by nature, there was no need of a positive donation, at least it will never be a proof of such a donation.

17. On the other side, the matter will not be much mended if we understand "by God's appointment" the law of nature (though it be a pretty harsh expression for it in this place), and by "monarch of the world" sovereign ruler of mankind; for then the sentence under consideration must run thus: By the law of nature, as soon as Adam was created, he was governor of mankind, for by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity;" which amounts to this he was governor by right of nature because he was governor by right of nature. But supposing we should grant that a man is "by nature governor" of his children, Adam could not hereby be "monarch as soon as created;" for this right of nature being founded in his being their father, how Adam could have a "natural right" to be "governor" before he was a father, by which only he had that "right," is,

methinks, hard to conceive, unless he will have him to be a father before he was a father, and to have a title before he had it.

18. To this foreseen objection our author answers very logically: "He was governor in habit and not in act." A very pretty way of being a governor, without government, a father, without children, and a king, without subjects. And thus Sir Robert was an autho, before he wrote his book-not "in act," it is true, but "in habit ;" for when he had once published, it was due to him "by the right of nature" to be an author, as much as it was "to Adam to be governor of his children" when he had begot them. And if to be such a "monarch of the world"—an absolute monarch "in habit but not in act❞—will serve the turn, I should not much envy it to any of Sir Robert's friends that he thought fit graciously to bestow it upon. Though even this of "act" and “habit,” if it signified anything but our author's skill in distinctions, be not to his purpose in this place; for the question is not here about Adam's actual exercise of government, but actually having a title to be governor. Government, says our author, was "due to Adam by the right of nature." What is this right of nature? A right fathers have over their children by begetting them: "Generatione jus acquiritur parentibus in liberos," says our author, out of "Grotius" (O., 223). The right then follows the begetting, as arising from it; so that, according to this way of reasoning or distinguishing of our author, Adam, as soon as he was created, had a title only "in abit and not in act" which, in plain English, is, he had ctually no title at all.

19. To speak less learnedly and more intelligibly, one may say of Adam: "He was in a possibility of being governor, since it was possible he might beget children, and thereby acquire that right of nature, be it what it will, to govern them that accrues from thence." But what connection this has with "Adam's creation," to make him say that as soon as he was created he was monarch of the world"for it may be as well said of Noah that as soon as he was born he was monarch of the world, since he was in possibility (which, in our author's sense, is enough to make a monarch -a monarch in habit) to outlive all mankind but his own posterity-I say, what such necessary connection there

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., .“ Adanı was a king from his creation," a king, says our author, "not in act but in habit”—¿.e., actually no king at all.

"from

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, 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 whethe king be to be taken, as the words in the beginning of thi 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

Psalmist, hath he given to the children of men,' which shows the title comes from fatherhood."

22. Before I examine this argument and the text on which it is founded, it is necessary to desire the reader to observe that our author, according to his usual method, begins in one sense and concludes in another. He begins here with "Adam's propriety or private dominion by donation," and his conclusion is-" which shows the title comes from fatherhood."

23.. But let us see the argument. The words of the text are these: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth" (Gen. i. 28), from whence our author concludes that Adam, having here dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole world," whereby must be meant that either this grant of God gave Adam property, or, as our author calls it, "private dominion," over the earth and all inferior or irrational creatures, and so consequently that he was thereby monarch; or, secondly, that it gave him rule and dominion over all earthly creatures whatsoever, and thereby over his children, and so he was inonarch; for, as Mr. Selden has properly worded it, "Adam was made general lord of all things," one may very clearly understand him, that he means nothing to be granted to Adam here but property, and therefore he says not one word of Adam's "monarchy." But our author says, "Adam was hereby monarch of the world," which, properly speaking, signifies sovereign ruler of all the men in the world, and so Adam, by this grant, must be constituted such a ruler. If our author means otherwise, he might, with much clearness, have said that "Adam was hereby proprietor of the whole world." But he begs your pardon in that point; clear, distinct speaking not serving everywhere to his purpose, you must not expect it in him as in Mr. Selden, or other such writers.

24. In opposition, therefore, to our author's doctrine, that "Adam was monarch of the whole world," founded on this place, I shall show :--