things under his feet, all sheep and oxen, and the beafts of the field, and the fowls of the air, and fifh of the fea, and whatfover palleth thro' the paths of the fea. In which words, if any one can find out, that there is meant any monarchical power of one man over another, but only the dominion of the whole fpecies of mankind, over the inferior fpecies of creatures, he may, for aught I know, deferve to be one of Sir Robert's monarchs in habit, for the rareness of the difcovery. 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 fpecies, which will yet appear more fully in the next thing I am to fhew. §. 29. 2. Whatever God gave by the words of this grant, i. Gen. 28. it was not to Adam in particular, exclufive of all other men: whatever dominion he had thereby, it was not a private dominion, but a dominion in common with the reft 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 fpoken in the plural number, God blessed them, and faid unto them, Have dominion. God fays unto Adam and Eve, Have dominion; thereby, fays our author, Adam was monarch of the world: but the grant being to them, i. e. fpoke to Eve alfo, as many interpreters interpreters think with reason, that these words were not fpoken till Adam had his wife, must not she thereby be lady, as well as he lord of the world? If it be faid, that Eve was fubjected to Adam, it seems she was not fo fubjected to him, as to hinder her dominion over the creatures, or property in them: for fhall 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 faid, Eve was not made till afterward: grant it fo, what advantage will our author get by it? The text will be only the more directly against him, and fhew 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 fpecies of man, for it is certain them can by no means fignify Adam alone. In the 26th verfe, where God declares his intention to give this dominion, it is plain he meant, that he would make a fpecies of creatures, that fhould have dominion over the other fpecies of this terreftrial globe: the words are, And God faid, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them have dominion over the fifh, &c. They then were to have dominion. Who? even thofe who were to have the image of God, the individuals of that fpecies of man, that he was going to make; for that them fhould fignify Adam D fingly, fingly, exclufive of the reft that should be in the world with him, is against both fcripture and all reafon : and it cannot poffibly be made fenfe, if man in the former part of the verse do not fignify the fame 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. God makes him in his own image, after his own likeness; makes him an intellectual creature, and fo capable of dominion: for wherein foever elfe the image of God confifted, the intellectual nature was certainly a part of it, and belonged to the whole fpecies, and enabled them to have dominion over the inferior creatures; and therefore David fays in the 8th Pfalm above cited, Thou haft made him little lower than the angels, thou haft made him to have dominion. It is not of Adam king David fpeaks here, for verfe 4. it is plain, it is of man, and the fon of man, of the fpecies of mankind. S. 31. And that this grant spoken to Adam was made to him, and the whole fpecies of man, is clear from our author's own proof out of the Pfalmift. The earth, faith the Pfalmist, bath be given to the children of men; which fhews the title comes from fatherhood. Thefe 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 pity pity the propriety of the Hebrew tongue had not ufed fathers of men, inftead of children of men, to express mankind: then indeed our author might have had the countenance of the found of the words, to have placed the title in the fatherhood. But to conclude, that the fatherbood 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 found as well as fenfe of the words, before he could light on it. But the fenfe 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 conclufion than this, which cannot be excused from the most obvious abfurdity, till it can be fhewn, that by children of men, he who had no father, Adam alone is fignified; but whatever our author does, the fcripture speaks not nonsense. §. 32. To maintain this property and private dominion of Adam, our author labours in the following page to deftroy the community granted to Noah and his fons, in that parallel. place, ix. Gen. 1, 2, 3. and he endeavours to do it two ways. 1. Sir Robert would perfuade us against the exprefs words of the fcripture, that what D 2 was was here granted to Noah, was not granted to his fons in common with him. His words are, As for the general community between Noah and his fons, which Mr. Selden will have to be granted to them, ix. Gen. 2. the text doth not warrant it. What warrant our author would have, when the plain exprefs words of fcripture, not capable of another meaning, will not fatisfy him, who pretends to build wholly on fcripture, is not eafy to imagine. The text fays, God blessed Noah and his fons, and faid unto them, i. e. as our author would have it, unto him: for, faith he, although the fons are there mentioned with Noah in the bleffing, yet it may best be understood, with a fubordination or benediction in fucceffion, Obfervations, 211. That indeed is beft, for our author to be understood, which beft ferves to his purpofe; but that truly may best be understood by any body elfe, which beft agrees with the plain conftruction of the words, and arifes from the obvious meaning of the place; and then with fubordination and in fucceffion, will not be beft underflood, in a grant of God, where he himself put them not, nor mentions any fuch limitation. But yet, our author has reasons, why it may best be understood fo. The bleffing, fays he in the following words, might truly be fulfilled, if the fons, either under or after their father, enjoyed a private dominion, Obfervations, 211. which is to fay, that a grant, whofe exprefs words give a joint title in |