Wesley Corpus

In the innocent state, no man would have been poisoned or torn by serpents or lions as now. You answer: “The second grant runs,--‘The fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the field, and upon every fowl of the air, and upon all that moves on the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea: Into your hands they are delivered. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you: Even as the green herb I have given you all things. Now, this grant is more extensive than the first.” (Page 191.) It is, as to food; but not as to dominion. The liberty of eating an animal does not necessarily imply any dominion over it at all. “But the “fear’ and “dread of every beast are the effects of dominion in man, and the subjection in brutes.” Nay, neither does fear necessarily imply dominion. I may fear what has not dominion over me, and what I am not subject to. And those animals may fear me, over which, nevertheless, I have not 348 THE DoCTRINE OF dominion, neither are they subject to me. I fear every viper, yea, every poisonous spider; and they fear me: Yet neither has dominion over the other. Fear, therefore, and dread may be in a high degree; and yet no dominion at all. But they are “‘all delivered into our hands.’” Yes; “for meat; ” as the very next words explain that expression. Whatever therefore it may “import in other scriptures,” the meaning of it here is plain and certain. 6. Would God have exposed the pure and innocent works of his hands to such unavoidable perils and miseries as arise from bears, tigers, serpents, precipices, volcanoes, &c. * You answer: “He did expose innocent Adam to a peril and misery greater than all these put together, even to a tempting devil.” (Pages 191,192.) I reply, (1.) This did not imply any unavoidable misery at all. (2.) It implied no more peril than God saw was needful, as a test of his obedience. Therefore this is no parallel case: So this argument also stands unanswered. 7.