Two Treatises of Government, Book I

Reading section 1

PREFACE

Reader, thou haft here the beginning and

end of a difcourfe concerning government; \4

what fate has otherwife difpofed of the

papers that mould have filled up the

middle, and were more than all the reft,

it is not worth while to tell thee. these,

which remain, I hope are fufficient to eftablifti the throne of our great reftorer, our %

prefent King William ; to make good his

title, in the confent of the people^-avhich (J^

being the only one of all lawful governments,

he has more fully and clearly, than any

prince in Chriftendom ; and to juftify to the

world the people of England, whofe love of

their juft and natural rights, with their refolution to preferve them, faved the nation

when it was on the very brink of flavery and

ruin. If these papers have that evidence, I

flatter myfelf is to be found in them, there

will be no great mifs of those which are loft,

and my reader may be fatisfied without them :

for I imagine, I mall have neither the time,

nor inclination to repeat my pains, and fill

up the wanting part of my anfwer, by tracing

Sir Robert again, through all the windings

and obfcurities, which are to be met with

in the feveral branches of his wonderful fyftem. The king, and body of the nation,

have since fo throughly confuted his Hypothefts, that 1 suppose no body hereafter will

I have

V

have cither the confidence to appear againft our common fafety, and be again an advocate for flavery ; or the weaknefs to be deceived with contradictions drefled up in a popular flile, and well-turned periods : for if any one will be at the pains, himfelf, in those parts, which are here untouched, to ftrip Sir Robert's difcourfes of the flourifh of doubtful expreffions, and endeavour to reduce his words to direct, pofitive, intelligible proportions, and then compare them one with another, he will quickly be fatisrled, there was never fo much glib nonfenfe put together in well-founding Englifh. V/If he think it not worth while to examine his works all thro', let him make an experiment in that part, where he treats of ufurpation ; and let him try, whether he can, with all his fkill, make Sir Robert intelligible, and confident with himfelf, or common fenfe. I mould not fpeak fo plainly of a gentleman, long since paft anfwering, had not the pulpit, of late years, publicly owned his doctrine, and made it the current divinity of the times. It is neceffary those men, who taking on them to be teachers, have fo dangeroufly milled others, mould be openly (hewed of what authority this their Patriarch is, whom they have fo blindly followed, that fo they may either retract what upon fo ill grounds they have vented, and cannot be maintained ; or elfe juftify those principles which they preached up for gofpel -, though they had no better an

author

author than an English eourtier : for I fhould not have writ againfr. Sir Robert, or taken the pains to mew his miftakes, inconfiftencies, and want of (what he fo much boafts of, and pretends wholly to build on) scripture-proofs, were there not men amongft us, who, by crying up his books,4 and efpoufing his doctrine, fave me from the reproach of writing againfr. a dead adverfary. They have been fo zealous in this point, that, if I have done him any wrong, I cannot hope they fhould fpare me, I wifh, where they have done the truth and the public wrong, they would be as ready to redrefs it, and allow its juft weight to this reflection, viz. that there cannot be done a greater mifchief to prince and people, than the propagating wrong notions concerning government; that fo at laft all times might not have reafon to complain of the Drum Ecclefiaftic. If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my Hypothecs, I promife him either to recant my miflake, upon fair conviction ; or to anfwer his difficulties. But he muft remember two things,

first, That cavilling here and there, at some exprerlion, or little incident of my difcourfe, is not an anfwer to my book.

Secondly, That I ihall not take railing for arguments, nor think either of these worth my notice, though I shall always look on myfelf as bound to give fatisfacton to any pne, who mall appear to be confcientioufly

fcrupulous

fcrupulous in the point, and mall mew any juft ground0 for his fcruples.

I have nothing more, but to advertife the reader, that Oblervations (lands for Obfervations on Hobbs, Milton, &c. and that a bare quotation of pages always means pages of his Patriarchal Edition 1680. —k $JL*>*

OF GOVERNMENT

BOOK I

Chap. I. §. i . Slavery is fo vile and miferable an eftate of man, and fo directly oppofite to the generous temper and courage of our nation ; that it is hardly to be conceived, that an Englt/hman, much lefs a gentleman, mould ji/j/^ plead for it. And truly I mould have takeiyy '* Sir Robert Fi/mers Patriarcba> as any other fal& treatife, which would perfuade all men, that/ they are flaves, and ought to be fo, for fucfr. another exercife of wit, as was his who writ the encomium of Nero ; rather than for a ferious difcourfe meant in.earneft, had not the gravity of the title and epiftle, the picture in the front of the book, and the applaufe that followed it, required me to believe, that the

B author

V

2 Of Government.

author and publisher were both in earned.

I therefore took it into my hands with all the

expectation, and read it through with all the

attention due to a treatife that made such a

noife at its coming abroad, and cannot but

confefs my self mightily furprifed/f that in a

book, which was to provide chains for all

mankind, I mould find nothing but a rope

of fand, ufeful perhaps to such, whofe fkill

and bullnefs it is to raife a duft, and would

blind the people, the better to miflead them ;*)

but in truth not of any force to draw those

into bondage, who have their eyes open, and

fo much fenfe about them, as to confider,

that chains are but an ill wearing, how much

care foever hath been taken to file and polifli

them.

§. 2. If any one think I take too much liberty in fpeaking fo freely of a man, who is the great champion of abfolute power, and the idol of those who worfhip it ; I befeech him to make this fmall allowance for once, to one, who, even after the reading of Sir Robert's book, cannot but think himfelf, as the laws allow him, a freeman: and I know no fault it is to do fo, unlefs any one better billed in the fate of it, than I, mould have it revealed to him, that this treatife, which has lain dormant fo long, was, when it appeared in the world, to carry, by strength of its arguments, all liberty out of it ^ and that

from

Op Government. 3

from thenceforth our author's fhort modelwas to be the pattern in the mount, and the perfect flandard of politics for the future. His fyftem lies in a little compafs, it is no more but this,

Tbat all government is abfolute monarchy.

And the ground he builds on, is this,

"That no man is born free.

§.3. In this lad age a generation of men has fprung up amongft us, that would flatter princes with an opinion, that they have a divine right to abfolute power, let the laws by which they are conftituted, and are to govern, and the conditions under which they enter upon their authority, be what they will, and their engagements to obferve them never fo well ratified by folemn oaths and promifes. To make way for this doctrine, they have denied mankind a right to natural freedom ; whereby they have not only, as much as in them lies, expofed all subjects to the utmoft mifery of tyranny and opprefTion, but have alfo unfettled the titles, and fhaken the thrones of princes : (for they too, by these mens fyftem, except only one, are all born flaves, and by divine right are fa bj efts to Adam's right heir j) as if they had deHgned to make war upon all government, and fubvert the very foundations of human fbciety, to ferve their prefent turn.

§. 4. However we muft believe them upon their own bare words, when they tell us, we

B 2 are

4 Of Government.

are all born Haves, and we mud continue Co, there is no remedy for it -, life and thraldom we enter'd into together, and can never be quit of the one, till we part with the other. Scripture or reafon I am fure do not any where fay fo, notwithstanding .the noife of divine right, as if divine authority hath fubjected us to the unlimited will of another. An admirable state of mankind, and that which they have not had wit enough to find out till this latter age. For, however Sir Robert Filmer feems to condemn the novelty of the contrary opinion, Patr. p. 3. yet I believe it will be hard for him to find any other age, or country of the world, but this, which has afferted monarchy to be jure divino. And he confeffes, Patr. p. 4. That Heyward, Blackwood, Barclay, and others, that have bravely vindicated the right of kings in mojl points, never thought of this, but with one confent admitted the natural liberty and equality of mankind.

§. 5. By whom this doctrine came at firfc tobe broached, and brought in fafhion amongft us, and what fad effects it gave rife to, I leave to hiftorians to relate, or to the memory of those, who were contemporaries with Sibthorp and Manwering, to recoiled:. My bufinefs at prefent is only to confider what Sir Robert Filmer, who is allowed to have carried this argument farthefl, and is supposed to have brought it to perfection, has faid in it;

for

Of Government. 5

for from him every one, who would be as fafhionable as French was at court, has learned, and runs away with this moit fyftem of politics, viz. Men are not born free, a?id therefore could never have the liberty to choofe either governors, or forms of government. Princes have their power abfolute, and by divine right -, for flaves could never have a right to compact or confent. Adam was an abfolute monarch, and fo are all princes ever lince.

CHAP. IX.

Of Paternal and Regal Power.

§. 6. QIR Robert Filmers great pofition is, O that men are not naturally free. This is the foundation on which his abfolute monarchy {lands, and from which it erects itfelf to an height, that its power is above every power, caput inter nubila, fo high above all earthly and human things, that thought can fcarce reach it; that promifes and oaths, which tye the infinite Deity, cannot confine it. But if this foundation fails, all his fabric falls with it, and governments muft be left again to the old way of being made by contrivance, and the confent of men ^Avz-pwirlvn xriais) making ufe of their reafon to unite together into society. To prove this grand pofition of his, he tells us, p. 12. Men B 3 are

c Or Government.

are born in fubjeBion to ikeir parents, and therefore cannot be free. And this authority of parents, he calls royal authority, p. 12, 14. Fatherly authority, right of fatherhood, p. 12, 20. One would have thought he would, in the beginning of such a work as this, on which was to depend the authority of princes, and the obedience of fubjedts, have told us exprefly, what that fatherly authority is, have defined it, though not limited it, becaufe in some other treatiles of his he tells us, it is unlimited, and * unlimitable ; he mould at leaft have given us such an account of it, that we might have had an entire notion of this fatherhood, or fatherly authority, whenever it came in our way in his writings : this I expected to have found in the first chapter of his Patriarcha. But inflead thereof, having, 1. en paffant, made his obeyfance to the arcana imperii, p. 5. 2. made his compliment to the rights and liberties of this, or any other nation, p. 6. which he is going prefently to null and deftroy ; and, 3. made his leg to those learned men, who did not fee fo far into the matter as himfelf, p. 7. he comes to fall on Bellarmine,

* In grants and gifts that have their original from God or nature, as the power of the father hath, no inferior power of man can limit, nor make any law of prefcription againft :hem. Qbferwaticns, 158.

The scripture teaches, that supreme power was originally the father, without any limitation, Ohftr^atiin:^ 215

Of Government. 7

larmine, p. 8. and, by a victory over him, eftablifhes his fatherly authority beyond any queftion. Bellarmine being routed by his own confeffion, p. 1 1 . the day is clear got, and there is no more need of any forces : for having done that, I obferve not that he Hates the queftion, or rallies up any arguments to make good his opinion, but rather tells us the ftory, as he thinks fit, of this ftrange kind of domineering phantom, called the fatherhood^ which whoever could catch, prefently got empire, and unlimited abfolute power. He allures us how this fatherhood began in Adam, continued its courfe, and kept the world in order all the time of the patriarchs till the flood, got out of the ark with Noah and his fons, made and fupported all the kings of the earth till the captivity of the Ifraelites in Egypt, and then the poor fatherhood was under hatches, till God, by giving the Ifraelites kings, re-efiablifloed the ancient and prime right of the lineal fuccejjion in pate?'nal government. This is his bulinefs from p. 12. to 19. And then obviating an objection, and clearing a difficulty or two with one half reafon, p. 23. to confirm the natural right of regal power, he ends the firfr. chapter. I hope it is no injury to call an half quotation an half reafon ; for God says, Honour thy father and mother ; but our author contents himfelf with half, leaves out thy B 4 mother

8 Of Government.

mother quite, as little ferviceable to his purpofe. But of that more in another place.

§. 7. I do not think our author fo little fkilled in the way of writing difcourfes of this nature, nor fo carelefs of the point in hand, that he by over-light commits the fault, that he himfelf, in his Anarchy of a mixed Monarchy, p. 239. objects to Mr. Hunt on in these words : Where firjl 1 charge the author, that he hath not given us any definition, or defcription of monarchy in general ; for by the rules of method he fiould have firfl defined. And by the like rule of method Sir Robert mould have told us, what his fatherhood or fatherly authority is, before he had told us, in whom it was to be found, and talked fo much of it. But perhaps Sir Robert found, that this fatherly authority, this power of fathers, and of kings, for he makes them both the fame, p. 24. would make a very odd and frightful figure, and very difagreeing with what either children imagine of their parents, or subjects of their kings, if he fhould have given us the whole draught together in that gigantic form, he had painted it in his own fancy; and therefore, like a wary phyiician, when he would have his patient fwallow some harm or corrcfive liquor, he mingles it with a large quantity of that which may dilute it; that the fcattered parts may go down with lefs feeling, ?.nd caufe lefs averfion.

§•8.

Of Government. 9

§. 8, Let us then endeavour to find what account he gives us of this fatherly authority, as it lies fcattered in the feveral parts of his writings. And first, as it was vefted in Adam, he lays, Not only Adam, but the fuc. ceeding patriarchs, had, by right of fatherhood, royal authority over their children, p. 12. 'This lordflnp which Adam by command had over the iv hole world, and by right defending from kirn the patriarchs did enjoy, was as large and ample as the abfolute dominion of any monarch, which hath been since the creation , p. 13. Dominion of life and death, making war, and concluding peace, p. 13. Adam and the patriarchs had abfolute power of life and death, p. 35. Kings, in the right of parents, fucceed to the exercife of supreme jurifdiclion, p. 19. As kingly power is by the law of God, fo it hath 7io inferior law to limit it ; Adam was lord of all, p. 40. The father of a family governs by no other law, than by his own will, p. 78. The fuperiority of princes is above laws, p. 79. The unlimited jurifdicTion of kings is fo amply defer i bed by Samuel, p. 80. Kings are above the laws, p. 93. And to this purpofe fee a great deal more which. our author delivers in Bo dins, words : // is certain, that all laws, privileges, and grants of princes, have no force, but during their life ; if they be not ratified by the expref confent, or by fufferance of the prince following, efpecially privileges, Observations, p, 279. The reafon why laws have 4 been

Reading section 2

io Of Government.

been alfo made by kings, was this ; when ki?igs were either bujied with wars, or diflraclcd with fublic cares, fo that every private man could not have accefs to their pcrfons, to learn their wills and pleafure, then were laws tf necejfity invented, that Jo every particular fubjeel might find his prince s pleafure decyphered unto him in the tables of his laws, p. 92. In a monarchy, the king mujl by necejfity be above the laws, p. 100. A perfeel kingdom is that, wherein the king rides all things according to his own will, p. 100. Neither common nor flat ute laws are, or can be, any diminution of that general power, which kings have over their people by right of fatherhood, p. 115. Adam whs the father, king, and lord over his family j a fon, a fubjeel, and a servant or Jlave, were one and the fame thing at firfl.' The father had power to difpofe or fell his children or fervants -, whence we find, that the firfl reckoning up of goods in scripture, the man servant and the maid-servant, are numbred among the pojfefi /ions and fubflance of the owner, as other goods were, Obfervations, Pref. God alfo hath given to the father a right or liberty, to alien his power over his children to any other-, whence we find the fale and gift of children to have much bee?i in ufe in the beginning of the world, when men had their fervants for a pofefjion and an inheritance, as well as other goods; whereupon we find the power of cajlrating and making eunuchs much in ufe in old times, Obn

fervations,

Of Government. ii

fervations, p. 155. Law is nothing elfe but the will of him that hath the power of the supreme father, Obfervations, p. 223. It was God's ordinance that the fupremacy fhould be unlimited in Adam, and as large as all the ac~ls of his will; and as in him fo in all others that have supreme power , Obfervations, p. 245.

§.9.1 have been fain to trouble my reader with these feveral quotations in our author's own words, that in them might be feen his own defcription of his fatherly authority, as it lies fcattered up and down in his writings, which he fuppofes was first vefted in Adam, and by right belongs to all princes ever since. This fatherly authority then, or right of fatherhood, in our author's fenfe, is a divine unalterable right of fovereignty, whereby a father or a prince hath an abfolute, arbitrary, unlimited, and unlimi^able power over the Jives, liberties, and eftates of his children and fubjecls; fo that he may take or alienate their eftates, fell, caftrate, or ufe their perfons as he pleafes, they being all his Haves, and he lord or proprietor of every thing, and his unbounded will their law.

§. io. Our author having placed such a mighty power in Adamy and upon that fuppofition founded all government, and all power of princes, it is reaibnable to expect, that he fhould have proved this with arguments clear and evident, fuitable to the weightinefs of 1 the

#

12 Of Government.

the caufe -, that since men had nothing cKe left them, they might in flavery have such undeniable proofs of its neceffity, that their confciences might be convinced, and oblige them to iubmit peaceably to that abfolute dominion, which their governors had a right to exercife over them. Without this, what good could our author do, or pretend to do, by creeling such an unlimited power, but flatter the natural vanity and ambition of men, too ?.pt of itfelf to grow and encreafe with the porTerlion of any power ? and by perfuading those, who, bv the confent of their fellowmen, are advanced to great, but limited, degrees of it, that by that part which is given them, they have a right to all, that was not fo ; and therefore may do what they pleafe, becaufe they have authority to do more than others, and fo tempt them to do what is neither for their own, nor the good of those under their care ; whereby great mifchiefs cannot but follow.

§. 1 1. The fovereigntv of j$ifam, being that on which, as a fure baric-, olir author builds his mighty abfolute monarchy, I expecled, that in his Patriarcha^ this his main fuppoiition would have been Droved, and eflablifhed with all that evidence of arguments, that such a fundamental tenet required ; and that this, on which the great itrefs of the bufinefs depends, would have been made out with rcaibns lufmient to juftify the confidence

with

Of Government. 13

with which it was affumed. Bat in all that treatife, I could find very little tending that way ; the thing is there fo taken for granted, without proof, that I could fcarce believe myfelf, when, upon attentive reading that treatife, I found there fo' mighty a ftructure raifed upon the bare fuppofition of this foundation : for it is fcarce credible, that in a difcouife, where he pretends to confute the erroneous principle of man's natural freedom, he mould do it by a bare fuppofition of Adams authority, without offering any proof for that authority. Indeed he confidently says, that Adam had royal authority, p. 12, and 13. Abfolute lordfiip and dominion of life and death, p. 13. An univerfal monarchy, p. 33. Abfolute power of life and death, p. 35. He is very frequentin such affertions 5 but, what is flrange, in all his whole Patriarcha I find not one pretence of a reafon to eflablifh this his great foundation of government; not any thing that looks like an argument, but these words: To cojifirm this natural right of regal power, we find in the Decalogue, that the law which enjoyns obedience to kings, is delivered in the terms, Honour thy father, as if all power were originally in the father. And why may I not add as well, that in the Decalogue, the law that enjoyns obedience to queens, is delivered in the terms of Honour thy mother, as if all power were originally in the mother ? The

argument,

14 © 1 Government.

argument, as Sir Robert puts it, will hold as well for one as the other : but of this, more in its due place.

§. 12. All that I take notice of here, is, that this is all our author says in this first, or any of the following chapters, to prove the abfolute power of Adam, which is his great principle : and yet, as if he had there settled it upon fure demonftration, he begins his fecond chapter with these words, By conf erring these proofs and reafons, drawn from the authority of the scripture. Where those proofs and reafons for Adams fovereignty are, bating that of Honour thy father, above mentioned, I confefs, I cannot find -, unlefs what he says, p. 1 1 . In these words we have an evident confejjton, viz. o/Bellarmine, that creation made man prince of his pojlerity, muft be taken for proofs and reafons drawn from scripture, or for any fort of proof at all : though from thence by a new way of inference, in the words immediately following, he concludes, the royal authority of Adam fufficiently settled in him.

§. 13. If he has in that chapter, or any where in the whole treatife, given any other proofs of Adam's royal authority, other than by often repeating it, which, among some men, goes for argument, I defire any body for him to shew me the place and page, that I may be convinced of my miftake, and acknowledge my overfight. If no such arguments

Of Government. 15

ments are to be found, I befeech those men, who have fo much cried up this book, to confider, whether they do not give the world caufe to fufpect, that it is not the force of reafon and argument, that makes them for abfolute monarchy, but some other by intereft, and therefore are refoived to applaud any author, that writes in favour of this doctrine, whether he support it with reafon or no. But I hope they do not expect, that rational and indifferent men fhouid be brought over to

o

their opinion, becaufe this their great doctor of it, in a difcourfe made on purpofe, to fet up the abfolute monarchical power of Adam, in oppofition to the natural freedom of mankind, has faid fo little to prove it, from whence it is rather naturally to be concluded, that there is little to be faid.

§. 14. But that I might omit no care to inform myfelf in our author's full {&n{e, I confulted his Obfervations on Arijiotle, Hobbes, &c. to fee whether in difputing with others he made ufe of any arguments for this his darling tenet of Adam's fovcreignty ; since in his treatife of the Natural Power of Kings, he hath been fo fparing of them. In his Obfervations on Mr. Hobbes 's Leviathan, 1 think he has put, in fhort, all those arguments for it together, which in his writings I find him any where to make ufe of: his words are these : If God created only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman, and if by gene-t

ration

1 6 Of Govern ;,i e n t.

ration from them two, as parts of them, all mankind be propagated : if alfo God gave to Adam not only the dominion over the woman and the children that Jhoidd ifue from them, but alfo over all the earth to fubdue it, and over all the creatures on it, Jo that as long as Adam lived, no man could claim or enjoy any thing but by donation, afjignation or perinijjion from him, I wonder, 6cc. Obfervations, 165. Here we have the fum of all his arguments, for Adam s fiver cignty* and againft natural freedom, which I find up and down in his other treatifes : and they are these following ; God's creation of Adam, the dominion he gave him over Eve, and the dominion he had as father over his children : all which I shall particularly confider.

C H A P. III.

Of Adam'* Title to Sovereignty by Creation.

§• I5- Q * R Robert, in his preface to his O Obfervations on Arijlotles politics, tells us, A natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the creation of Adam: but how Adams being created, which v/as nothing but his receiving a being immediately from omnipotence and the hand of God, gave A.dam a fovereignty over any thing, I cannot fee, nor confequently underfland, how a fuppofition of natural freedom is

Of Government. 17

a denial of Adam\f creation, and would be glad any body elfe (since our author did not vouchfafe us the favour) would make it out for him : for I find no difficulty to suppose the freedom of mankind, though I have always believed the creation of Adam. He was created, or began to exift, by God's immediate power, without the intervention of parents or the pre-exiitence of any of the fame fpecies to beget him, when it pleafed God he mould ; and fo did the lion, the king of hearts, before him, by the fame creating power of God : and if bare existence by that power, and in that way, will give dominion, without any more ado, our author, by this argument, will make the lion have as good a title to it, as he, and certainly the antienter. No ! for Adam had his title by the appointment of God, says our author in another place. Then bare creation gave him not dominion, and one might have supposed mankind free without the denying the creation of Adam, since it was God's appointment made him monarch.

§. 16. But let us fee, how he puts his creation and this appointment together. By the appointment of God, says Sir Robert, as foon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world, though he had, ?to fubjecls -, for though there could not be actual government till there were fubjeBs, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his poflerity:

C though

i8 Of Government.

though not in aB, yet at leajl in habit, Adam was a king from bis creation. I wilh he had told us here, what he meant by God's apf ointment : for whatfoever providence orders, or the law of nature directs, or pofitive revelation declares, may be faid to be by God's appointment : but Ifuppofe it cannot be meant here in the firfl fenfe, /. e. by providence ; becaufe that would be to fay no more, but that as foon as Adam was created he was de faclo monarch, becaufe by right of nature it was due to Adam, to be governor of his poJlerity. But he could not de facia be by providence conftituted the governor of the world, at a time when there was actually no government, no subjects to be governed, which our author here confefTes. Monarch of the world is alfo differently ufed by our author ; for fometimes he means by it a proprietor of all the world exclufive of the reft of mankind, and thus he does in the fame page of his preface before cited : Adam, says he, being commanded to multiply and people the earth, a?id to fubdue it, and having dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole world-, none of his pojlerity had any right to pojjefs any thing but by his grant or permijjion, or by fuccejfion from him. 2. Let us underftand then by monarch proprietor of the world, and by appointment God's actual donation, and revealed poiitive grant made to Adam, i. Gen. 28. as we fee Sir

Robert

Of Government. 19

Robert himfelf does in this parallel place, and then his argument will ftand thus, by the pofitive grant of God: as foon as Adam was created, he was proprietor of the world* becaufe by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his poflerity. In which way of arguing there are two manifefl falfehoods. first, It is falfe, that God made that grant to Adam, as foon as he was created, since, tho' it flands in the text immediately after his creation, yet it is plain it could not be fpoken to Adam, till after Eve was made and brought to him : and how then could he be monarch by appointment as foon as created, efpecially since he calls, if I miftake not, that which God says to Eve, iii. Gen. 16, the original grant of government, which not being till after the fall, when Adam was fomewhat, at leaft in time, and very much diftant in condition, from his creation, I cannot fee, how our author can fay in this fenfe, that by Gods appointment, as foon 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 foon as he was created, yet the reafon here given for it would not prove it; but it would always be a falfe inference, that God, by a pofitive donation, appointed Adam monarch of the world, becaufe by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his pojlerity : for having given him the right of government by nature, there was no need of a pofitive C % docation ;

2o Of Government.

donation j at lead it will never be a proof of such a donation.

§.17. On the other fide the matter will not be much mended, if we underftand by God's appointment the law of nature, (though it be a pretty harfh expreffion for it in this place) and by monarch of the world, fovereign ruler of mankind : for then the fentence under confederation muft run thus : By the law of nature, as foon as Adam was created he was governor of mankind, for by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his po/ierity ; which amounts to this, he was governor by right of nature, becaufe he was governor by right of nature : but fuppofing we mould grant, that a man is by nature governor of his children, Adam could not hereby be monarch as foon 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, when by being a father only he had that right, is, methinks, hard to conceive, unlefs he will have him to be a father before he was a father, and to have a title before he had it.

Reading section 3

§. 18. To this forefeen objection, our author anfwers very logically, he was governor in habit, and not in ab~i: a very pretty way of being a governor without government, a father without children, and a king without fubjefts. And thu^s Sir Robert was an author before he writ his book ; not in acl it is true, but in habit ; for when be had once published

it,

Of Government. 21

it, 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 abfolute monarch in habit, but not in ac~i, will ferve the turn, I mould not much envy it to any of Sir Robert's friends, that he thought fit gracioufly to beflow it upon, though even this of ac~l and habit, if it iignified any thing but our author's fkill in diftinctions, be not to his purpofe in this place. For the queftion is not here about Adams actual exercife 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 oiGrotius, Obfervations, 223. The right then follows the begetting as arifing from it ; fo that, according to this way of reafoning or diftinguiming of our author, Adam, as foon as he was created, had a title only in habit, a?id not in act, which in plain Englijh is, he had actually no title at all.

§.19. To fpeak lefs learnedly, and more intelligibly, one may fay of Adam, he was in a poffibility of being governor, since it was poffible he might beget children, and thereby acquire that right of nature, be it what it will, to govern them, that accrues from C 3 thence ;

22 Of Government.

thence : but what connection has this with Adams creation, to make him fay, that as foon as he was created, he was monarch of the world? for it may be as well faid of Noah, that as foon as he was born, he was monarch of the world, since he was in pofhbility (which in our author's fenfe is enough to make a monarch, a monarch in habityJ to outlive all mankind, but his own pofterity. What such neceffary connection there is betwixt Adams creation and his right to government, fo that a natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the creation of Adam, I confefs for my part I do not fee; nor how those words, by" the appointment, &c. Obfervations, 254. how ever explained, can be put together, to make any tolerable fenfe, at leaft to eftabliih this portion, with which they end, viz. Adam was a king from his creation > a king, says our author, not in atf, but in habit, i. e. actually no king at all,

§. 20. 1 fear I have tired my reader's patience, by dwelling longer on this paffage, than the weightinefs of any argument in it feems to require : but I have unavoidably been engaged in it by our author's way of writing, who, hudling feveral fuppofitions together, and that in doubtful and general terms, makes such a rnedly and confufion, that it is impoflible to shew his miftakes, without examining the feveral fenfes wherein

his

Of Government. 23

his words may be taken, and without feein how, in any of these various meanings, they will confifl together, and have any truth in them : for in this prefent parTage before us, how can any one argue againfl this pofition of his, that Adam was a king from his creation, unlefs one examine, whether the words, from his creation, be to be taken, as th^ may, for the time of the commencement of his government, as the foregoing words import, asfoon as be was created he wai monarch ; or, for the caufe of it, as he says, p. 11. creation made man prince of his pojlerity ? how farther can one judge of the truth of his being thus king, till one has examined whether king be to be taken, as the words in the beginning of this parTage would perfuade, on fuppofition of his private dominion, which was, by God's politive grant, monarch of the world by appointment ; or king on fuppofition of his fatherly power over his ofF-fpring, which was by nature, due by the right of nature-, whether, I fay, king be to be taken in both, or one only of these two fenfes, or in neither of them, but only this, that creation made him prince, in a way different from both the other ? For though this arTertion, that Ada?n was king from lm creation, be true in no fenfe, yet it flands here as an evident conclufion drawn from the preceding words, though in truth it be but a bare affertion joined to other affertions of the fame kind, which confidently put toC 4 gether

24 Of Government.

gether in words of undetermined and dubious meaning, look like a fort of arguing, when there is indeed neither proof nor connection : a way very familiar with our author: of which having given the reader a tafte here, I shall, as much as the argument will permit me, avoid touching on hereafter ; and mould not have dnne it here, were it not to let the world fee, how incoherences in matter, and fuppofitions without proofs put handfomely together in good words and a plaufible ftile, are apt to pafs for strong reafon and good fenfe, till they come to be looked into with attention.

CHAP. IV.

Of Adams Title to Sovereignty by Donation^ Gen. i. 28.

§. 21.T TAV1NG at lail got frhrougk the foregoing paiTage, where we have been lb long detained, not by the force of arguments and oppofition, but the intricacy of the words, and the doubtfulnefs of the meaning ; let us go on to his next argument, for Adams fovereignty. 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 himjelf as without .his grant did exclude his children. This determination of Mr. Selden, says our author, is 3 confonant

Of Government. g j

confonant to the hijiory of the Bible, and na~ tural reafon, Obfervations, 2 it). And in his Pref. to his Obfervations on Arijktle, he says thus, The jirfi government in the world was monarchical in the father ofallfejh, Adam being commanded to multiply and people the earth, and to fubdue it, and having dominion given him over all creatures, was' thereby the monarch of the whole world ': none of his pojlerity had dny right to poffefs any thing, but by his grant or permijjion, or by fuccefjion from him : The earth, faith the Pfalmift, hath he given to the children of men, which jhew the title comes from fatherhood.

§. 22. Before I examine this argument, and the text oh which it is founded, it is neceffary to defire the reader to obferve, that our author, according to his ufual method, begins in one fenfe, and concludes in another ; he begins here with Adam's propriety, or private dominion, by donation ; and his conclusion is, which Jhew the title comes from fatherhood.

§.23. But let us fee the argument. The words of the text are these ; and God blejfed them, and God faid unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenijh the earth and fubdue it, and have dominion over the fifo of the fea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, i. Gen. 28. from whence our author concludes, that Adam, having here dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the

whole

s6 Of Government.

'whole world: whereby mutt 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 fo confequently that he was thereby monarchy or 2dly, that it gave him rule and dominion over all earthly creatures whatlb-. ever, and thereby over his children ; and fo he was monarch : for, as Mr. Selden has properly worded it, Adam was made general lord of all things, one may very clearly underftand 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 fpeaking, lignifies fovereign ruler of all the men in the world $ and fo Adam, by this grant, mufl be conftitutod such a ruler. If our author means otherwife, he might with much clearnefs have faid, that Adam was hereby proprietor of the whole world. But he begs your pardon in that point : clear diftincl: fpeaking not ierving every where to his purpofe, you muH: not expect it in him, as in Mr. Selden, or ether such writers.

§. 24. In oppofition therefore to our author's doctrine, that Adam was monarch of the k world, founded on this place, I mall iliew,

I. That bv this grant, i. Gen. 28. God gave no immediate power to Adam over men,

• over

Of Government. 27

over his children, over those of his own ipecies ; and fo he was not made ruler, or monarchy by this charter.

2. That by this grant God gave him not private dominion over the inferior creatures, but right in common with all mankind ; fo neither was he monarchy upon the account of the property here given him.

§. 25. 1. That this donation, i. Gen. 28. gave Adam no power over men, will appear if we confider the words of it : for since all pofitive grants convey no more than the exprefs words they are made in will carry, let us fee which of them here will comprehend mankind, or Ada??is pofterity j and those, I imagine, if any, mufh be these, every living thing that maveth : the words in Hebrew are, W2"IH rtfl i. e. Beftiam Reptantem, of which words the icripture itfelf is the befl interpreter : God having created the fifhes and fowls the t;th day, the beginning of the 6th, he creates the irrational inhabitants of the dry land, which, v. 24. are defcribed in these words, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind; cattle and creeping things, and beajls of the earth, after his kind, and, v. 2. and God made the beafls of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thi?ig that creepeth on the earth after his kind : here, in the creation of the brute inhabitants of the earth, he firfl fpeaks of them all under one general name, of living creatures, '

2$ Of Government.

iures, and then afterwards divides them into three ranks, I . Cattle, or such creatures as were or might be tame, and fo be the private pofleffion of particular men ; 2. iW which, ver. 24, and 25. in our Bible, is tranflated beaits, and by the Septuagint (bw«, wild beafts, and is the fame word, that here in our text, Ver. 28. where we have this great charter to Adam, is tranflated living things and is alfo the fame word ufed, Gen. ix. 2. where this <rrant is renewed to Noah, and there like wife tranflated beaji. 3. The third rank were the creeping animals, which ver. 24, and 25. are comprised under the word, rTOTtn, the fame that is ufed here, ver. 28. and is tranflated moving, but in the former verfes creeping, and by the Septuagint in all these places, zpTrerd, or reptils ; from whence it appears, that the words which we tranllate here in God's donation, ver. 28. living creatures moving, are the fame, which in the hiflory of the creation, ver. 24, 25. lignify two ranks of terreflrial creatures, viz. wild beajls and reptils, and are fo underftood 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. fifes of the fea, fowls of the air, and living creatures of the earth, and these again into cattle, wild beafis, and reptils, he confiders of making man, and the dominion he fhould feavt over the terreflrial worlds ver. 26. and

then

Of Government. 29

then he reckons up the inhabitants of these three kingdoms, but in the terreftrial leaves out the fecond rank jrn or wild hearts: but here, ver. 28. where he actually exercifes this defign, and gives him this dominion, the text mentions the ftjhes of the fea, and fowls of the air, and the terreftrial creatures in the words that fignify the wild beafts and reptils, though tr an Hated living thing that movetb, leaving out cattle. In both which places, though the word that fignifies wild beajh be omitted in one, and that which fignifies cattle in the other, yet, since God certainly executed in one place, what he declares he deligned in the other, we cannot but understand the fame in both places, and have here only an account, how the terreftrial irrational animals, which were alreadv created and reckoned up at their creation, in three distinct ranks of cattle, wild beafts, and reptils, were here, ver. 28. actually put under the dominion of man, as they were defigned, *oer. 26. nor do these words contain in them the leaft appearance of any thing that can be wrefted to fignify God's giving to one man dominion over another, to Adam over his pofterity.

§. 27. And this further appears from Gen.

ix. 2. where God renewing this charter to

Noah and his fons, he gives them dominion

over the fowls of the air, and the ft/ljes of the

fea, and the terrcftrial creatures, exprefTed by

30 Of Government.

PITT and tt*DTT wild hearts and reptils, the fame words that in the text before us, i. Gen. 28. are tranflated every moving thing, that vioveth on the earthy which bv no means can comprehend man, the grant being made to Noah and his fons, all the men then living, and not to one part of men over another : which is yet more evident from the very next words, vcr. 3. where God gives every 1PtT\ every moving thing, the very words ufed, ch. i. 28. to them for food. By all which it is plain that God's donation to Adam, ch. i. 28. and his defignation, ver. 26. and his grant again to Noah and his fons, refer to and contain in them neither more nor lefs than the works of the creation the 5th day, and the beginning of the 6th, as they are fet down from the 20th to 26th ver. inclufively of the id; ch. and fo comprehend all the fpecies of irrational animals of the terraqueous globe, tho* all the words, whereby they are exprelTed in the hiftory of their Creation, are no where ufed in any of the following grants, but some of them omitted in one, and some in another. From whence I think it is pad: all doubt, that man cannot be comprehended in this grant, nor any dominion over those of his own fpecies be conveyed to Adam. All the terreflrial irrational creatures are enumerated at their creation, ver. 25. under the names beafts of the earth, cattle and creeping things j but man,

beiag

Of Government. 31

being not then created, was not contained under any of those names j and therefore, whether we underftand the Hebrew words right or no, they cannot be supposed to comprehend man, in the very fame hiftory, and the very next verfes following, efpecially iince that Hebrew word DOT which, if any in this donation to Adam, ch. i. 28. muft comprehend man, is fo plainly ufed in contradi fUnction to him, as Gen. vi. 20. vii. 14, 21,23. Gen. viii. 17, 19. And if God made all mankind Haves to Adcun and his heirs by giving Adam dominion over every living thing that moveth on the earth, ch. i. 28. as our author would have it, methinks Sir Robert mould have carried his monarchical power one ftep higher, and fatisfied the world, that princes might eat their fubje&s too, since God gave as full power to Noah and his heirs, ch. 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 fame.

Reading section 4

§.28. David, who might be supposed to underftand 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 Ainfworth calls it, in the 8th Pfalm, rinds here nofuch charter of monarchical power, his words are, Thou haft ??iade him, i. e. man, the Son of man, a little lower than the angels ; thou madcjl him to have dominion ever the works of thy hands -, thou haft put all

things

32 Of Government.

things under his feet, all Jheep and oxen, and the beajis of the field, and the fowls of the air, and fifh of the fea, and whatfover paffeth 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 rarenefs 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 Ada?n no monarchical power over those of his own fpecies, which will yet appear more fully in the next thing I am to mew.

§. 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 bleiTed them, and faid 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. fpoke to Eve alfo, as many

interpreters

Of Government. 33

interpreters think with reafon, that these words were not fpoken till Adam had his wife, mutt not me thereby be lady, as well as he lord of the world ? If it be faid, that Eve was fubjecled to Adam, it feems she was not fo fubjecled to him, as to hinder her dominion over the creatures, or property in them : for fliall we fay 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 againft him, and shew that God, in this donation, gave the world to mankind in common, and not to Adam in particular. The word them in the text muft 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 likenefs, and let them have dominion over thejifi, &c. 'They then were to have dominion. Who ? even those who were to have the image of God, the individuals of that fpecies of ?nan, that he was going to make -, for that them mould fignify Adam.

D fingly,

34 Of Government.

fingly, exclufive of the reft that fhould be in the world with him, is againft both scripture and all reafon : and it cannot poffibly be made fenfe, if man in the former part of the vcrfe do not fignify the lame with them in the latter •> only man there, as is ufual, is taken for the fpecies, and them the individuals of that fpecies : and we have a reafon in the very text. God makes him in his own image, after his own like?iefs; makes him an intellectual creature, and fo capable of dominion: for wherein foever elfe the image of God confirmed, 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 says in the 8 th Pfalm above cited, Thou hafi ??iade 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.

§.31. And that this grant fpoken to Adam was made to him, and the whole fpecies of man, is clear from our author's own proof out of the Pfalmijl. The earth, faith the Pfalmift, hath he given to the children of men -, which feews the title comes from fatherhood. these are Sir Robert's words in the preface before cited, and a ftrange inference it is he makes; God hath given the earth to the children of men, ergo the title comes from fatherhood. It is

pity

Of Government. 35

pity the propriety of the Hebrew tongue had not ufed fathers of men, inflead of children of men y to exprefs 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 fatherhood had the right to the earth, becaufe God gave it to the children of men, is a way of arguing peculiar to our author : and a man mufl 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 purpofe : for as it ftands in his preface, it is to prove Adams being monarch, and his reafoning 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 pleafant conclufion than this, which cannot be excufed from the mod obvious abfurdity, till it can be fhewn, that by children of 7neny he who had no father, Adam alone is iignified ; but whatever our author does, the scripture fpeaks not nonfenfe.

§. 32. To maintain tins 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.

I. Sir Robert would perfuade us againfc the exprefs words of the scripture, that what

D 2 was

36 Of Government.

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 scripture, not capable of another meaning, will not satisfy him, who pretends to build wholly on scripture, is not eafy to imagine. The text says, God blejfed Noah and his Jons, 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 blefjing, yet it may beft be underfood, with a fubordination cr benediction in fuccefjion, Obfervations, 211. That indeed is beft, for our author to be undei flood, which bed ferves to his purpofe -, but that truly may beft be underfood 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 fucceffon, will not be bef underfood, in a grant of God, where he himfelf put them not, nor mentions any such limitation. But yet, cur author has reafons, why it may bef be underfood fo. The bleffng, says 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

i*

Of Government. 37

in prcfent (for the text says, into your hands they are deliyered) may befi be underjlood with a fub ordination or in fiiccejjion ; becaufe it is poffible, that \wfub ordination, or infuccejjion, it may be enjoyed. Which is all one as to fay, that a grant of any thing in prefent poffeffion may bejl be underjlood of reveriion ; becaufe it is poffible one may live to enjoy it in reveriion. If the grant be indeed to a father and to his fons after him, who is fo kind as to let his children enjoy it prefently in common with him, one may truly fay, as to the event one will be as good as the other; but it can never be true, that what the exprefs words grant in poffeffion, and in common, may befl be underjlood, to be in reverfion. The fum of all his reafoning amounts to this : God did not give to the fons of Noah the world in common with their father, becaufe it was poffible they might enjoy it under, or after him. A very good fort of argument again (I an exprefs text of scripture : but God mull: not be believed, though he fpeaks ithimfelf, when he says he does any thing, which will not confift with Sir Robert's hypothecs.

§. 33. For it is plain, however he would exclude them, that part of this benediction, as he would have it mfuccejjion, muft: needs be meant to the fons, and not to Noah himfelf at all : Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenijh the earth, says God, in this bleffing. This part of the benediction, as appears by the fequel, conD 3 ccrned

38 Of Government.

cerned not Noah himfelf at all ; for we read not of any children he had after the flood'; and in the following chapter, where his pofterity is reckoned up, there is no mention of any; and fo this benediction in fuccejjion was not to take place till 350 years after : and to fave our author's imaginary monarchy* the peopling of the world mud be deferred 350 years ; for this part of the benediction cannot be underffood with fubordination, unlefs our author will fay, that they mufl afk leave of their father Noah to lie with their wives. But in this one point our author is conftant to himfelf in all his difcourfes, he takes great care there mould be monarchs in the world, but very little that there mould be people ; and indeed his way of government is riot the way to people the world : for how much abfolute monarchy helps to fulfil this great and primary bleffing of God Almighty, Be fruit" July and multiply, and repknijh the earth, which contains in it the improvement too of arts and fciences, and the conveniences of life, may be feen in those large and rich countries which are happy under the Turkiffj government, where are not now to be found one third, nay in many, if not moft. parts of them one thirtieth, perhaps I might fay not one hundredth of the people, that were formerly, as will eafijy appear to any one, who will compare the accounts we have of it at

this

Of Government. 39

this time, with antient hiftory. But this by

the by.

§.34. The other parts of this benediction, or grant, are fo expreffed, that they muft needs be underftood to belong equally to them all ; as much to Noah's fons as to Noah himfelf, and not to his fons with a fubordination, or infuccejjion. The fear of you-, and the dread of you, says God, shall be upon every beafl, &c. Will any body but our author fay, that the creatures feared and flood in awe of Noah only, and not of his fons without his leave, or till after his death? And the following words, into your hands they are delivered, are they to be underftood as our author says, if your father pleafe, or they shall be delivered into your hands hereafter ? If this be to argue from scripture, I know not what may not be proved by it ; and I can fcarce fee how much this differs from that ficlion and fanfe, or how much a furer foundation it will prove, than the opinions of philofophers and poets, which our author fo much condemns in his preface.

§. 35. But our author goes on to prove, that it may bejl be underftood with a fubordination, or a benediBion in fuccefjion ;for, favs he, it is not probable that the private do?ninio7i which God gave to Adam, and by his donation, qjjignation, or ceffton to his children, was abrogated, and a community of all things injlituted between Noah and his fons Noah was left

thefole heir of the world; why fiould it be thought D 4 that

40 Of Government.

that God would difmherit him of his birth-right* end make him of all men in the world the only tenant in common with his children? Obfervations,

21 I.

§.36. The prejudices of our own ill-grounded opinions, however by us called probable, cannot authorife us to underftand scripture contrary to the direct and plain meaning of the words. I grant, it is not probable, that Adams private dominion was here abrogated : becaufe it is more than improbable, (for it will never be proved) that ever Ada?n had any such private dominion ; and since parallel places of scripture are moil probable to make us know how they may be bejl under food, there needs but the comparing this bleffing here to Noah and his fons after the flood, with that to Adam after the creation, i. Gen. 28. to allure any one that God gave Adam no such private dominion. It is probable, I confefs, that Noah mould have the fame title, the fame property and dominion after the flood, that Adam had before it : but since private dominion cannot confift with the bleffing and grant God gave to him and his fons in common, it is a fufficient reafon to conclude, that Adam had none, efpecially since in the donation made to him, there are no words that exprefs it, or do in the lead favour it ; and then let my reader judge whether it may bejl be underjiood, when in the one place there is not one word for it, not to fay what has been above proved, that

the

Of Government. 41

the text itfelf proves the contrary ; and in the other, the words and fenfe are directly againfl it.

§. 37. But our author says, Noah was the file heir of the world 5 why jloould it be thought that God would difinherit' him of his birth-right? Heir, indeed, in England, fignifies the elded fon,whois by the law of England to have all his father's land j but where God ever appointed any such heir of the world, our author would have done well to have (hewed us ; and how God dijinherited him of his birth-i'ight, or what harm was done him if God gave his fons a right to make ufe of a part of the earth for the support of themselves and families, when the whole was not only more than Noah himfelf, but infinitely more than they all could make ufe of, and the poffeffions of one could not at all prejudice, or, as to any ufe, (heighten that of the other.

§.38. Our author probably forefeeing he might not be very fuccefsful in perfuading people out of their fenfes, and, fay what he could, men would be apt to believe the plain words of scripture, and think, as they faw, that the grant was fpoken to Noah and his fons jointly ; he endeavours to infinuate, as if this grant to Noah conveyed no property, no dominion ; becaufe, fubdumg the earth and dommion over the creatures are therein omitted, nor the earth once named. And therefore, says he, there is a confiderablt

4.2 ^ F Government.

Reading section 5

fiderable difference between these two texts ; the Jirfi bleffing gave Adam a dominion over the earth and all creatures ; the latter allows Noah liberty to ufe the living creatures for food : here is no alteration or diminijlmig of his title to a property of all things, but an enlargement only of his commons, Gbfervations, 21 1. 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 mould fay, since God says, to you are they given, though our author says his -3 for as for Noah's fons, they, it feems, by Sir Robert's appointment, during their father's life-time, were to keep farting days.

§. 39. Any one but our author would be mightily fufpe&ed 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, flail be upon every beaft, which I suppose expreffes the dominion, or fuperiority was deligned 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 rabb,et to satisfy his hunger, and had the herbs but in common with the beafts, as is plain from i Gen. 2, 9, and 30. In the

next

Of Government. 43

next place, it is manifefl: 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 bands they are given, says God to Noah and his fonsj vh'ch words, if they give not property, nay, property in poffeflion, it will be hard to find words that can ; since there is not a way to exprefs a man's being porTefTed of any thing more natural, nor more certain, than to fay, it is delivered into his hands. And ver. 3. to shew, that they had then given them the utmoft property man is capable of, which is to have a right to deftroy any thing by ufing it j Every moving thing that liveth, faith God, Jhall be meat for you -, which was not allowed to Adam in his charter. This our author calls, a liberty of ufing 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 ufing them, is hard to be underflood : fo that if the first bleffing, as our author says, gave Adam dominion over the creatures, and the bleffing to Noah and his fons, gave them such a liberty to life them, as Adam had not ; it muft 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, 3 them

44 O f Government.

them is very narrow and fcanty, who cannot make that ufe of them, which is permitted to another. Should any one who if, abfolute lord of a country, have bidden our authov 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 satisfy his hunger, I guefs, he would fcarce have thought himtelf lord or proprietor of that land, or the cattle on it ; but would have found the difference between having dominion, which a fhepherd 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 such 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 diftincl: 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 ufe 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 suppose it is clear, that neither Adam, nor 2 Noah,

Of Government. 4$

Noah, had any private dominion, any property in the creatures, exclufive of his pofterity, as they mould fucceffively grow up into need of them, and come to be able to make ufe 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 impomble 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 fhewn, how these words, that feemed to fay the quite contrary, gave Adam monarchical abfolute power over other men, or the file property in all the creatures ; and methinks in a bulinefs of this moment, and that whereon he builds all that follows, he mould have done fomething more than barely cite words, which apparently make againft him ; for I confefs, I cannot fee any thing in them, tending to Adams monarchy, or private dominion, but quite the contrary. And I the lefs deplore the dulnefs of my apprehenfi©n herein, since I find the apoftle feems to have as little notion of any such private dominion of Adam

-as

46 Or Government.

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 amongft the Ions of men, which appearing from this donation of God, as well as other places of scripture, the fovereignty of Adam, built upon his private dominion, muft fall, not having any foundation to support 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 porTeffion even of the whole earth, give any one a fovereign arbitrary authority over the perfons of men ? The moil fpecious thing to be faid, is, that he that is proprietor of the whole world, may deny all the reft of mankind food, and fo at his pleafure 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 such property, that God never gave any such private dominion ; iince it is more reafonable to think, that God, who bid mankind

Of Government. 47

kind increafe and multiply, mould rather himfelf give them all a right to make ufe of the food and raiment, and other conveniences of life, the materials whereof he had fo plentifully provided for them ; than to make them depend upon the will of a man for their fubfiftence, who mould have power to deftroy them all when he pleafed, and who, being no better than other men, was in succession likelier, by want and the dependence of a fcanty fortune, to tie them to hard fervice, than byliberal allowance of the conveniences of life to promote the great defign of God, increafe and multiply : he that doubts this, let him look into theabfolute monarchies of the world, and fee what becomes of the conveniences of life, and the multitudes of people.

§. 42. But we know God hath not left one man fo to the mercy of another, that he may ftarve, him if he pleafe : God the Lord and Father of all has given no one of his children luch a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the furplulage of his goods ; fo that it cannot juflly be denied him, when his preffing wants call for it : and therefore no man could ever have a juft power over the life of another by right of property in land or poiTeffions ; since it would always be a lin, in any man of eftate, to let his brother perim for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As

juflict

48 Of Government.

juftice gives every man a title to the product of his honeft induftry, and the fair acquisitions of his ancellors defcended to him -y fo charity gives every man a title to fo much out of another's plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to fubfift otherwife : and a man can no more j ti illy make ufe of another's neceffity, to force him to become his vaffal, by with-holding that relief, God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more strength can feize upon a weaker, matter him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat offer him death or flavery.

§. 43. Should any one make fo perverfe an ufe of God's bleffings poured on him with a liberal hand ; mould any one be cruel and uncharitable to that extremity, yet all this would not prove that propriety in land, even in this cafe, gave any authority over the perfons of men, but only that compact might j since the authority of the rich proprietor, and the fubjecTtion of the needy beggar, began not from the poffeffion of the Lord, but the confent of the poor man, who preferred being his subject. to ftarving. And the man he thus fubmits to, can pretend to no more power over him, than he has confented to, upon cornpad:. Upon this ground a man's having his flores filled in a time of fcarcity, having money in his pocket, being in a velTel at fea, being able to fwim, &c. may as well be

the

Of Government. 49

the foundation of rale and dominion, as being poifefTor of all the land in the world ; any of these being fufficient to enable me to fave a man's life, who would perifh if such affi fiance were denied himj and any thing, by this rule, that may be an occafion of working upon another's neceffity, to fave his life, or any thing dear to him, at the rate of his freedom, may be made a foundation of fovereignty, as well as property. From all which it is clear, that though God fhould have given Adam private dominion, yet that private dominion could give him no fovereignty ; but we have already fufficiently proved, that God gave him no private dominion .

CHAP. V.

Of Adam's Title to Sovereignty by the Subjection of Eve.

§. 44. t 1 ^HE next place of fcriptnre we £_ rind our author builds his monarchy of Adam on, is iii. Gen. 26. And thy dejire Jhall be to thy hnjband, and he foall rule over thee. Here ive have (says he) the original grant of government, from whence he concludes, in the following part of the page, Ob/trvations, 244. That the supreme power is settled in the fatherhood, and limited to one kind cf government, that is, to monarchy. For let his premifes be what they will, this is always the conclusion ; let rule, in any text, be but once named, and prefently abfolute moE natqhy

50 Of Government.

narcby is by divine right eftablifhed. If any one will but carefully read our author's own reafoning from these words, Ohfervations, 244. and conlider, among other things the line and pojkrity of Adam, as he there brings them in, he will find some difficulty to make fenfe of what he says ; but we will allow this at prefent to his peculiar way of writing, and conlider the force of the text in hand. The words are the curfe of God upon the woman, for having been the first and forwardeft in the difobedience ; and if we will confider the occafion of what God says here to our firfl parents, that he was denouncing judgment, and declaring his wrath againft them both, for their difobedience, we cannot suppose that this was the time, wherein Gcd was granting Adam prerogatives and privileges, inverting him with dignity and authority, elevating him to dominion and monarchy : for though, as a helper in the temptation, Eve was laid below him, and fo he had accidentally a fuperiority over her, for her greater punifh. ment j yet he too had his (hare in the fail, as . well as the fin, and was laid lower, as may be feen in the following verfes ; and it would be hard to imagine, that God, in the fame breath, mould make him univerfal monarch over all mankind, and a day-labourer for his life ; turn him cut o$para£fe to till the ground, vcr. i\. and at the fame time advance him to a throne, and all the privileges and eafe of abielute power.

§■ 45Of Government. 51

§.45. This was not a time, when Adam could expect any favours, any grant of privileges, from his offended Maker. If thi; be the original grant of government , as our author tells us, and Adam was now made monarch, whatever Sir Robert would have him* it is plain, God made him but a very poor monarch, such an one, as our author himfelf ■would have counted it no great privilege to be. God fets him to work for his living, and feems rather to give him a fpade into his hand, to fubdue the earth, than a fceptre to rule over its inhabitants. In the fweat of thy face thou fl: alt eat thy bread, says God to him, *ver. 19. This was unavoidable, may it perhaps be anfwered, becaufe he was yet without subjects, and had nobody to work for him 3 but afterwards, living as he did above 900 years, he might have people enough* whom he might command, to work for him -, no, says God, not only whilft thou art with^ out other help, fave thy wife, but .as long as thou liveft, (halt thou live by thy labour, In the fweat of thy face, Jhalt thou eat thy bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out cf it ivaf thou taken, for dujl thou art, and unto dujl Jhalt thou return, v. 19. It will perhaps be anfwered again in favour of our author, that these words are not fpoken perfonally to Adam, but in him, as their reprefentative, to all- mankind, this being a curfe upon mankind, becaufe cf the fall.

§. 46. God, I believe, fpeaks differently from men, becaufe he fpeaks with more truth,

E 2 . more

52 Of Government.

more certaintv : but when he vouchfafes to ipeak. to men, I do not think he fpeaks differently from them, in crorTing the rules of language in ule amongil them : this would not be to condelcend to their capacities, when he humbles himlelf to fpeak to them, but to loie his defign in fpeaking what, thus fpoken, they could not underfland. And yet thus mull we think of God, if the interpretations of scripture, neceiTarv to maintain our author's doctrine, mull be received for good : for by the ordinary rules of language, it will be verv hard to underftand what God favs, if what he fpeaks here, in the lingular number, to Adam, muft be underflood to be fpoken to all mankind, and what he fin in the plural number, i. Gen. 26, and 28. mufl be underflood of Adam alone, exclufive of all others, and what he lavs to Noab and his ion; jointly, mufl be underflood to be meant to Noah alone, Gen. EX.

Reading section 6

^7. Farther it is to be noted, that these words here of iii. Gen. 16. which our author calls tb lal grant of government , in

net fpoken to Adam, neither indeed was there any grant in them made to Adam, but a punifhment laid upon Eve: and if we will take them as they were directed in particular to her, or in her, as their reprefentative, to all other women, thev will at mcll conce the female fex only, and import no more, but that fubjection they lhould ordinarily be

in

_• C_ i.

:■.-•.:- -. . '.:-.: :>-! :r.e:r :: ':. tzt : ~ '« ..:■; :: ::Li?t :: the :::;_~ ::i~:t or contract with her ;.e: ::;r~. .!. :..:". : '-rir.z f:r*J- he; :iL: if there could he : v h:;h i: ill": = :ir: her: for the who!

/;-*■;-_. ;:' :.r-< :: '.:'.::

I :':-•:. ~i-t :;t- i :.i:: r.i::t: :";: 2-;, : i" . :_::_" : : .". i - 1 : : _ ~. z : _: 2

rnr.: :: n:is-:z 1:-'. rr.i". -■:'■ '■■ As..--. :j rr.e.'r ■;-::::;. "-.:>. ■.-. = :: . : .

nor of him: neither will any one, I foppoiic, :y :'/.-. ~z 7r::i-. ::.:.-: ::.-. .*tis.t: :n~. i; : a law, to iobje&ed to the enrte ennrainnri in thetB, that it is their duty sot to cadnwr to avoid it . And wffl any one lay, that Ewe, or any other woman, finned, it £he were r:::::: :: :-ei •"■:;-_: _: zr.::t i.::'.::z'..ti ::.-.G:-j ::.:::::::• r.t: r.t:t -.-.:'- : :: zzi: i.zr.t: .:' :_:: ::rt; :. _V_: . :- £ .: .:. ■ •: . :.:: :;. :. r i:;. -::-;;' :~t.: :'_ r; t . : ? . :.ii :rtr. ':. this text pot into a political fhhjnftino to him ?• or that he thereby lboald hare had - : •;---•.•.::.•.-." -;'..■: :•;: :. ;: '' !-:•: .: ;;.: ::V ::•:; :::. :~i: I :::. ;-.t £j:'~::!ry :: .:' . :-: 1 ;r to men orcr their w;

54 Of Government.

only foretels what mould be the woman's lot. how by his providence he would order it fo, that (he mould be fubjec"t. to her hufband, as we fee that generally the laws of mankind and cuftoms of nations have ordered it fo -, and there is, I grant, a foundation in nature for it.

§. 48. Thus when God says of Jacob and Efau, that the elder fhould ferve the younger, xxv. Gen. 23. no body fuppofes that God hereby made Jacob Efaus fovereign, but foretold what fhould de facto come to pafs.

But if these words here fpoke to Bye muft needs be underftood as a law to bind her and all other women to fubjection, it can be no other fubjection than what every wife owes her hufband ; and then if this be the original grant of government and the foundation of monarchical power, there will be as many monarchy as there are hufbands : if therefore these words give any power to Adam, it can be only a conjugal power, not political ; the power that every hufband hath to order the things of private concernment in his family, as proprietor of the goods and land there, and to have his will take place before that of his wife in all things of their common concernment ; but not a political power of life and death over her, much lefs over any body elfe.

§. 49. This I am fure : if our author will have this text to be a grant, the original grant

Of Government. $$

of govermnent , political government, he ought to have proved it by some better arguments than by barely faying, that thy dejire jhall be unto thy hujband, was a law whereby Eve, and all that JJjould come of her, were fub jedted to the abfolute monarchical power of Ada?n and his heirs. 'Thy defire jhall be to thy hujband, is too doubtful an expreffion, of whofe fignification interpreters are not agreed, to build fo confidently on, and in a matter of such moment, and fo great and general concernment : but our author, according to his way of writing, having once named the text, concludes prefently without any more ado, that the meaning is as he would have it. Let the words rule and fubjecl be but found in the text or margent, and it immediately fignifies the duty of a fubjecl: to his prince ; the relation is changed, and though God says hujband, Sir Robert will have it king ; Adam has prefently abfolute monarchical power over Eve, and not only over Eve, but all that ftould come of her, though the fcripturc says not a word of it, nor our author a word to prove it. But Adam mud for all that be an abfolute monarch, and fo down to the end of the chapter. And here I leave- my reader to confider, whether my bare faying, without offering any reafons to evince it, that this text 9;ave not Adam that abfolute monarchical power, our author fuppofes, be not as fufficient to deftroy that power, as his bare af-> ■ E 4 fertion

56 Of Government.

fcrtion is to eftablifh it, since the text mentions neither prince nor people, fpeaks nothing of abfolute or monarchical power, but the fubje&ion of Eve to Adam, a wife to her hufband. And he that would trace our author fo all through, would make a fhort and fufficient anfwer to the greater!; part of the grounds he proceeds on, and abundantly confute them by barely denying ; it being a fufficient anfwer to affertions without proof, to deny them without giving a reafon. And therefore mould I have faid nothing but barely denied, that by this text the supreme power was settled and founded by God hbifelf, in the fatherhood, limited to monarchy, and that to Adam'j- perfon and heirs, all which our author notably concludes from these words, as may be feen in the fame page, Obfrvaiions, 244. it had been a fufficient anfwer : mould I have derired any fober man only to have read the text, and confidered to whom, and on what occafion it was fpoken, he would no doubt have wondered how our author found out monarchical abfolute power in it, had he not had an exceeding good faculty to find it himfelf, where he could not shew It others. And thus we have examined the two places of scripture, all that I remember our author brings to prove Adam's fovereignty, that fupremacy, which he says, it was God's ordinance Jhould be unlimited in Adam, and as large as all the acis of his will, Observations,

254,

Of Government. 5.

254. viz. i. Gen. 28. and iii. Gen. 16. one whereof fignifies only the fubjection of the inferior ranks of creatures to mankind, and the other the fubjection that is due from a wife to her hulband, both far enough from that which subjects owe the governors of political focieties.

CHAP. VI.

Of Adam\r Title to Sovereignty by Fatherhood.

§. 50. ' a ^HERE is one thing more, and J[ then I think I have given you all that our author brings for proof of Adam's fovereignty, and that is a fuppofition of a natural right of dominion over his children, by being their father : and this title of fatherhood he is fo pkaicd with, that you will find it brought in alrnoft in every page, particularly he says, not only Adam, but the fucceeding patriarchs had by right of fatherhood royal authority over their children, p. j2. And in the fame page, this fubjeclion of children being the fountain of all regal authority, &c„ This being, as one would think by his fo frequent mentioning it, the main bafis of all his frame, we may well expect clear and evident reafon for it, since he lays it down as a poiition neceffary to his purpofe, that every man that is bom is fo far from being free, that by his very birth he becomes a fubjeel of him that

begets.

5S Of Government.

begets him, Obfervations, 156. fo that Adam being the only man created, and all ever fmcc being begotten, no body has been born free. If we afk how Adam comes by this power over his children, he tells us here it is "by begetting them : and fo again, Obfervations, 223. this natural dominion of Adam, says he, may be proved out of Grotius himjclf, hvho teacheth, that generatione jus acquiritur parentikus in liberos. And indeed the acl of begetting being that which makes a man a father, his right of a father over his children can naturally arife from nothing elic.

§.51. Grotius tells us not here how far this jus in liberos, this power of parents over their children extends -, but our author, always very clear in the point, allures us, it is supreme power, and like that of abfolute monarchs over their Haves, abfolute power of life and death. He that fhould demand of him, how, or for what reafon it is, that begetting a child gives the father such an abfolute power over him, will find him anfwer nothing : we are to take his word for this, as well as feveral other things; and by that the laws of nature and the conftitutions of government mull: Hand or fall. Had he been an abfolute monarch, this way of talking might have fuited well enough ; pro ratione voluntas might have been of force in his mouth -, but in the way of proof or argument is very unbecoming, and will little

advantage

Of Government. 59

advantage his plea for abfolute monarchy. Sir Robert has too much lefTened a fubjecYs authority to leave himfelf the hopes of eilabliihing any thing by his bare faying it ; one flave's opinion without proof is not of weight enough to difpofe of the liberty and fortunes of all mankind. If all men are not, as I think they are, naturally equal, I am fure all flaves are; and then I may without prefumption oppofe my {ingle opinion to his ; and be confident that my faying, that begetting of children makes them not jlaves to their fathers, as certainly fets all mankind free, as his affirming the contrary makes them all flaves. But that this poiition, which is the, foundation of all their doctrine, who would have monarchy to be jure divino, may have all fair play, let us hear what reafons others give for it, since our author offers none.

§. 52. The argument, I have heard others make ufe of, to prove that fathers, by begetting them, come by an abfolute power over their children, is this; that fathers have a power over the lives of their children, becaufc they give them life and being, which is the only proof it is capable of: lince there can be no reafon, why naturally one man mould have any claim or pretence of right over that in another, which was never his, which he beflowed not, but was received from the bounty of another. 1. I anfwer, that every one who gives another any thing, has not always

thereby

6o Of Cover n m ft n r.

thereby a right to take it away again. But* 2. They who fay the father gives life to his children, are fo dazzled with the thoughts of monarchy, that they do not, as they ought, remember God, who is the author and giver of life : it is in him alone we live, move, unci have our being. Plow can he be thought to give life to another, that knows not wherein his own life confifls ? Philofophers are at a lofs about it after their moil: diligent enquiries ; and anatomifts, after their whole lives and fludies fpent in directions, and diligent examining the bodies of men, confefs their ignorance in the ftructure and ufe of many parts of man's body, and in that operation wherein life confifts in the whole. And doth the rude plough-man, or the more ignorant voluptuary, frame or fafhion such an admirable engine as this is, and then put life and fenfe into it ? Can any man fay, he formed the parts that are neceffary to the life of his child ? or can he fuppoie himfelf to give the life, and yet not know what fubjedfc is fit to receive it, nor what actions or organs are neceffary for its reception or prefervation ?

§.53. To give life to that which has yet no being, is to frame and make a living creature, fafhion the parts, and mould and iuit them to their ufes, and having proportioned and fitted them together, to put into them a living foul. He that could do this, 1 might

Of Government. 6i

might indeed have some pretence to deftroy his own workmanfhip. But is there any one fo bold, that dares thus far arrogate to himfelf the incomprehensible works of the almighty ? Who alone did at firfl, and continues ftill to make a living foul, he alone can breathe in the breath of life. If any one thinks himfelf an artift at this, let him number up the parts of his child's body which he hath made, tell me their ufes and operations, and when the living and rational foul began to inhabit this curious ftructure, when leniQ began, and how this engine, which he has framed, thinks and reafons : if he made it, let him, when it is out of order, mend it, at leaft tell wherein the defects lie. Shall kt that made the eye not fee ? says the Pfalmiil, Pfalm xciv. 9. See these men's vanities! the flruclure of that one part is fumcient to convince us of an all-wife contriver, and he has fo vifible a claim to us as his workmanfhip, that one of the ordinary appellations of God in scripture is, God our Maker, and the Lord our Maker. And therefore though our author, for the magnifying his fatherhood, be pleafed to fay, Obfervations, 159. That even the power which God himfelf exercifeth over mankind Is by right of fatherhood* yet this iatherhood is such an one as utterly excludes all pretence of title in earthly parents ; for he is king, becaufe he is indeed maker of us

all,

62 Of Government.

all, which no parents can pretend to be of their children.

§. 54. But had men (kill and power to make their children, it is not Co (light a piece of workmanfhip, that it can be imagined, they could make them without deiigning it. What father of a thoufand, when he begets a child, thinks farther than the fatisfying his prefent appetite? God in his infinite wifdom has put flrong defires of copulation into the constitution of men, thereby to continue the race of mankind, which he doth moil commonly without the intention, and often againff. the confent and will of the begetter. And indeed thole who defire and defign children, are but the occafions of their being, and when they defign and wiih to beget them, do little more towards their making, than Deucalion and his wife in the fable did towards the making of mankind, by throwing pebbles over their heads.

§. $5. But grant that the parents made their children, £ave them life and beins;, and that hence there followed an abiblute power. This would give xht father but a joint dominion with the mother over them : for no bodv can denv but that the woman hath an equal fhare, if net the greater, as nounming the child a long time in her own body out of her own fubiiance : there it is famioned, and from her it receives the materials and principles of its eosft&ution : and

it

Of Government. 63

it is fo hard to imagine the rational foul mould prefently inhabit the yet unformed embrio, as foon as the father has done his part in the act of generation, that if it muft be supposed to derive any thing from the parents, it muft certainly owe moft to the mother. But be that as it will, the mother cannot be denied an equal fhare in begetting of the child, and fo the abfolute authority of the father will not arife from hence. Our author indeed is of another mind ; for he says, We know that God at the creation gave the fovereignty to the man over the woman, as being the nobler and principal agent in generation, Obfervations, 172. I remember not this in my Bible; and when the place is brought where God at the creation gave the fovereignty to man over the woman, and that for this reafon, becaufe he is the ?iobler .and principal agent in generation, it will be time enough to confider, and anfwer it. But it is no new thing for our author to tell us his own fancies for certain and divine truths, tho* there be often a great deal of difference between his and divine revelations ; for God in the scripture says, his father and his mother that begot him.

Reading section 7

§, 56. They who alledge the practice of

mankind, for expofmg or felling their children,

. as a proof of their power over them, are

with Sir Robert happy arguers ; and cannot

but recommend their opinion, by founding ,

it

64 Of Government.

it on the moft fhameful a&ion, and moft unnatural murder, human nature is capable of. The dens of lions and nurferies of wolves know no such cruelty as this : these favage inhabitants of the defert obey God and nature in being tender and careful of their orT-ipring: they will hunt, watch, fight, and almoft ftarve for the prefervation of their young; never part with them -, never forfake them, till they are able to fhift for themselves. And is it the privilege of man alone to act more contrary to nature than the wild and moft untamed part of the creation ? doth God forbid us under the feverefl penalty, that of death, to take away the life of any man, a ftranger, and upon provocation ? and does he permit us to deftroy those, he has given us the charge and care of; and by the dictates of nature and reafon, as well as his revealed command, requires us to preferve? He has in all the parts of the creation taken a peculiar care to propagate and continue the feveral fpecies of creatures, and makes the individuals act fo flrongly to this end, that they fometimes neglect their own private good for it, and feem to forget that general rule, which nature teaches all things, of self-prefervation ; « and the prefervation of their young, as the ftrongeft principle in them, over-rules the conftitution of their particular natures. Thus we fee, when their young ftand in need of it, the timorous become valiant,

tW

Of Government. 6$

the fierce and favage kind, and the ravenous tender and liberal.

§. $j. But if the example of what hath been done, be the rule of what ought to be, hiftory would have furnifhed our author with inftances of this abfolute fatherly power in its height and perfection, and he might have fhewed us in Peru, people that begot children on purpofe to fatten and eat them. The ftory is fo remarkable, that I cannot but fet it down in the author's words. " In some " provinces, says he, they were fo liquori(h " after man's flefh, that they would not have " the patience to flay till the breath was " out of the body, but would fuck the blood " as it ran from the wounds of the dying " man ; they had public fhambles of man's " flefh, and their madnefs herein was to u that degree, that they fpared not their " own children, which they had begot on " Grangers taken in war : for they made M their captives their miftrefTes, and choicely " nourifhed the children they had by them, " till about thirteen years old they butchered '* and eat them \ and they ferved the mo" thers after the fame faihion, when they <f grew pail child bearing, and ceafed- to <f bring them any more roarers," Garcilaffb de la Vega hijl. des Yncas de Peru, 1. i. c. 12.

§. 58. Thus far can the bufy mind of man

carry him to a brutality below the level of

hearts, when he quits his reaibn, which

F places

66 Of Government.

places him almoft equal to angels. Nor can it be otherwife in a creature, whofe thoughts are more than the fands, and wider than the ocean, whe?e fancy and pafTion muft needs run him into ftrange courfes, if reafon, which is his only ftar and compafs, be not that he fleers by. The imagination is always reftlefs, and fuggefts variety of thoughts, and the will, reafon being laid afide, is ready for every extravagant project ; and in this state, he that goes fartheft out of the way, is thought fitteft to lead, and is fure of moft followers : and when fafhion hath once eftablifhed what folly or craft began, cuftom makes it facred, and it will be thought impudence, or madnefs, to contradict or queftion it. He that will impartially furvey the nations of the world, will find fo much of their religions, governments and manners, brought in and continued amongft them by these means, that he will have but little reverence for the practices which are in ufe and credit amongft men ; and will have reafon to think, that the woods and forefts, where the irrational untaught inhabitants keep right by following nature, are fitter to give us rules, than cities and palaces, where those that call themselves civil and rational, go out of their way, by the authority of example. If precedents are fufficient to eftabliih a rule in this cafe, our author might have found in holy writ children facrinced by their parents, and this

amongft

Of Government. 67

amongft the people of God themielves : the Pfalmijl tells us, Pfal. cvi. 38. They fed innocent bloody even the blood of their fins and of their daughters, whom they facrificed unto the idols of Canaan. But God judged not of this by our author's rule, nor allowed of the authority of practice againft his righteous law; but as it follows there, the land was polluted with blood ; therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled againjl his people, infomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. The killing of their children, though it were fafhionable, was charged on them as innocent blood, and fo had in the account of God the guilt of murder, as the offering them to idols had the guilt of idolatry.

§.59. Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was ufual for men to fell a?id cafirate their children, Obfervations, 155. Let it be, that they expofed them; add to it, if you pleale, for this is ftill greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them : if this proves a right to do fo, we may, by the fame argument, juftify adultery, inceft and fodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern ; fins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they crofs the main intention of nature, which willeth the increafe of mankind, and the continuation of the fpecies in the higheft perfection, and the diftinclion of families, with F 2 the

68 Of Government.

the fecurity of the marriage bed, as neceflfary thereunto.

§. 60. In confirmation of this natural authority of the father, our author brings a lame proof from the politive command of God in scripture : his words are, To confirm the natural right of regal power, we find in the Decalogue, that the law which enjoins obedience to kings, is delivered in the terms, Honour thy father, p. 23. Whereas ?nany confefs, that government only in the abflracl, is the ordinance of God, they are not able to prove any such ordinance hi the scripture, but only in the fatherly power ; and therefore we find the commandment, that enjoins obedience to fuperiors, given in the terms, Honour thy father ; Jo that not only the power and right of government, but the form of the power governing, and the perfon having the power, are all the ordinances of God. The firjl father had not only fimply power, but power monarchical, as he was father immediately from God, Obfervations, 254. To the fame purpofe, the fame law is cited by our author in fevera] other places, and juft after the fame fafhion ; that is, and mother, as apochryphal words, are always left out ; a great argument of our author's ingenuity, and the goodnefs of his caufe, which required in its defender zeal to a degree of warmth, able to warp the facred rule of the word of God, to make it comply with his prefent occalion , a way of proceeding not unufual

to

Of Government. 69

to those, who embrace not truths becaufe reafon and revelation offer them, but efpoufe tenets and parties for ends different from truth, and then refolve at any rate to defend them ; and fo do with the words and fenfe of authors, they would fit to their purpofe, juft as Procrufles did with his guefts, lop or ftretch them, as may beffc fit them to the fize of their notions : and they always prove like those fo ferved, deformed, lame, and ufelefs.

§. 61. For had our author fet down this command without garbling, as God gave it, and joined mother to father, every reader would have feen, that it had made directly againft him ; and that it was fo far from eftablifhing the monarchical power of the father, that it fet up the ?nother equal with him, and enjoined nothing but what was due in common, to both father and mother : for that is the conftant tenor of the scripture, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. He that fmiteth his father or mother, fall furely be put to death, xxi. 15. He that curfeth his father or mother, fiall furely be put to death, ver. ij. Repeated Lev. xx. 9. and by our Saviour, Matth. xv. 4. Te Jljall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. If a man have a rebellious fon, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother -, then fall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and fay, This our fon is ftubrF 3 born

jo Of Government.

bom and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, Deut. xxi. 1 8, 19, 20, 21. Curfed be be that fettcth light by his father or his mother, xxviii. 16. My fon, hear the injlruciions of thy father, and forfake not the law of thy mother, are the words of Solomon, a king who was not ignorant of what belonged to him as a father or a king ; and yet he joins father and mo~ ther together, in all the inftructions he gives children quite thro' his book of Proverbs. Woe unto him, that fay eth unto his father, What begettefl thou, or to the woman, What hajl thou brought forth? Ifa. xi. ver. 10. In thee have they Jet light by father or mother, Ezek. xxviii. 2. And it Jhall come topafs, that when anyJJ:all yet prophefy, then his father and his mother that begat him, jhall fay unto him, Thou shalt not live, and his father and his mother that begat him, floall thrufl him through when he prophe/ieth, Zech. xiii. 3. Here not the father only, but the father and mother jointly, had power in this cafe of life and death. Thus ran the law of the Old Teftament, and in the New they are likewife joined, in the obedience of their children, Eph. vi. 1. The rule is, Children, obey your parents ; and I do not remember, that I any where read, Children, obey your father, and no more : the scripture joins mother too in that homage, which is due from children; and had there been tny text, where the honour or obedience of children had been directed to the father alone,

it

Of Government. ji

it is not likely that our author, who pretends to build all upon scripture, would have omitted it : nay, the scripture makes the authority of father and mother, in refpect of those they have begot, fo equal, that in some places it neglects even the priority of order, which is thought due to the father, and the mother is put firfl, as Lev. xix. 3. from which fo conftantly joining father and mother together, as is found quite through the scripture, we may conclude that the honour they have a title to from their children, is one common right belonging fo equally to them both, that neither can claim it wholly, neither can be excluded.

§. 62. One would wonder then how our author infers from the 5th commandment, that all power was originally in the father ; how he finds monarchical power of government settled and fixed by the commandment. Honour thy father and thy mother. If all the honour due by the commandment, be it what it will, be the only right of the father, becaufe he, as our author says, has thefovereignty over the woman, as being the nobler and priiicipler agent in generation, why did God afterwards all along join the mother with him, to fhare in his honour ? can the father, by this fovereignty of his, difcharge the child from paying this honour to his mother I The scripture gave no such licence to the Jews, and yet there were often breaches wide enough , F 4 betwixt

yz Of Government.

betwixt hufoand and wife, even to divorce and feparation : and, I think, no body will fay a child may with-hold honour from his mother, or, as the scripture terms it, fet light by her, though his father mould command him to do fo ; no more than the mother could difpenfe with him for neglecting to honour his father : whereby it is plain, that this command of God gives the father no fovereignty, no fupremacy.

§.63. I agree with our author that the title to this honour is veiled in the parents by nature, and is a right which accrues to them by their having begotten their children, and God by many pofitive declarations has confirmed it to them : I alio allow our author's rule, that in grants and gifts, that have their original from God a?id nature, as the power of the father, (let me add and mother, for whom God hath joined together, let no man put afunder) no inferior power of men can limit, nor make any law of prefcription againjl them, Obfervations, 158. fo that the mother having, by this law of God, a right to honour from her children, which is not subject to the will of her hufband, we fee this abfolute monarchical power of the jather can neither be founded on it, nor confift with it ; and he has a power very far from monarchical, very far from that abfolutenefs our author contends for, when another has over his fubjecfcs the fame power he hath, and by the

fame

Of Government. 73

fame title : and therefore he cannot forbear faying himfelf that he cannot fee how any mans children can be free from fubjeBion to their parent s^ p. 12. which, in common fpeech, I think, figniftes mother as well as father, or if parents here lignifies only father, it is the first time I ever yet knew it to do fo, and by such an ufe of words one may fay any thing.

§. 64. By our author's doctrine, the father having abfolute jurifdiction over his children, has alfo the fame over their ilfue ; and the confequence is good, were it true, that the father had such a power : and yet I afk our author whether the grandfather, by his fovereignty, could difcharge the grandchild from paying to his father the honour due to him by the 5th commandment. If the grandfather hath, by right of fatherhood, fole fovereign power in him, and that obedience which is due to the supreme magistrate, be commanded in these words, Honour thy father, it is certain the grandfather might difpenfe with the grandfon's honouring his father, which since it is evident in common fenfe he cannot, it follows from hence, that Honour thy father and mother, cannot mean an abfolute fubjeclion to a fovereign power, but fomething elfe. The right therefore which parents have by nature, and which is confirmed to them by the 5th commandment, cannot be that political dominion, which our'

author

74 ^ F CjOVERNME N T.

author would derive from it: for that being in every civil society Supreme fomewhere, can difcharge any Subject from any political obedience to any one of his fellow Subjects. But what law of the magistrate can give a child liberty, not to honour his father and mother? It is an eternal law, annexed purely to the relation of parents and children, and fo contains nothing of the magistrate's power in it, nor is Subjected to it.

§.65. Our author says, God hath given to a father a right or liberty to alien his pozver over his children to any other, Obfervations, 155. I doubt whether he can alien wholly the right of honour that is due from them : but be that as it will, this I am fure, he cannot alien, and retain the fame power. If therefore the magistrate's fovereignty be, as our author would have it, nothing hut the authority of a fupr erne father, p. 23. it is unavoidable, that if the magistrate hath all this paternal right, as he muSt have it fatherhood be the fountain of all authority ; then the subjects, though fathers, can have no power over their children, no right to honour from them : for it cannot be all in another's hands, and a part remain with the parents. So that, according to our author's own doctrine, Honour thy J at her and mother cannot poffibly be understood of political fubjection and obedience; Since the laws both in the Old and New TeStament, that commanded

Reading section 8

Of Government. 75

mancled children to honour and obey their parents ; were given to such, whofe fathers were under civil government, and fellow fubjecls with them in political focieties ; and to have bid them honour and obey their . parents, in our author's fenfe, had been to bid them be fubjecls to those who had no title to it; the right to obedience from subjects, being all veiled in another; and inftead of teaching obedience, this had been to foment fedition, by fetting up powers that were not. If therefore this command, Honour thy fa~ ther and mother, concern political dominion, it directly overthrows our author's monarchy; iince it being to be paid by every child to his father, even in society, every father muffc neceifarily have political dominion, and there will be as many fovereigns as there are fathers : befides that the mother too hath her title, which deftroys the fovereignty of one supreme monarch. But \£ Honour thy father and mother mean fomething diftinct from political power, as neceffarily it muft, it is befides our author's buiinefs, and ferves nothing to his purpofe.

§.66. The law that enjoins obedience to kings is delivered, says our author, in the terms, Honour thy father, as if all power were originally in the father, Obfervations, 254 : and that law is alio delivered, fay I, in the terms, Honour thy mother, as if all power were originally in the mother. I appeal whether

the

y6 Of Government.

the argument be not as good on one fide as the other, father and mother being joined all along in the Old and New Teftament where-ever honour or obedience is injoined children. Again our author tells us, Obferr vations, 254. that this command, Honour thy father, gives the right to govern, and makes the form, of government monarchical. To which I aniwer, that if by Honour thy father be meant obedience to the political power of the magiftrate, it concerns not any duty we owe to our natural fathers, who are subjects ; becaufe they, by our author's doctrine, are diverted of all that power, it being placed wholly in the prince, and fo being equally fubjedts and flaves with their children, can have no right, by that title, to any such honour or obedience, as contains in it political fubjeclion : if Honour thy father and mother iignifies the duty we owe our natural parents, as by our Saviour's interpretation, Matth. xv. 4. and all the other mentioned places, it is plain it does, then it cannot concern political obedience, but a duty that is owing to peribns, who have no title to fovereignty, nor any political authority as magiftrates over subjects. For the perfon of a private father, and a title to obedience, due to the iupreme magiftrate, are things inconfiftent -, and therefore this command, which muft neceffarily comprehend the peribns of our natural fathers, muft. mean a duty we owe

1 them

Of Government. 77

them diilincT: from our obedience to the magiftrate, and from which the moft abfolute power of princes cannot abfolve us. What this duty is, we (hall in its due place examine. §. 67. And thus we have at laft got thro* all, that in our author looks like an argument for that abfolute unlimited /over eignty defcribed, feci:. 8. which he fuppofes in Adam; fo that mankind ever since have been all born Jlaves, without any title to freedom. But if creation, which gave nothing but a being, made not Adam prince of his pojlerity : if Adam, Gen. i. 28. was not conftituted lord of mankind, nor had a private dominion given him exclufive of his children, but only a right and power over the earth, and inferiour creatures in common with the children of men ; if alfo Gen. iii. 16. God gave not any poli* tical power to Adam over his wife and children, but only fubjected Eve to Adam, as a punimment, or foretold the fubjection of the weaker fex, in the ordering the common concernments of their families, but gave not thereby to Adam% as to the hufband, power of life and death, which neceilarily belongs to the magiftrate : if fathers by begetting their children acquire no such power ove them ; and if the command, Honour thy fa? ther and mother^ give it not, but only enjoins a duty owing to parents equally, whether fubjecls or not, and to the mother as well as the father -, if all this be 10, as I ,

think,

j% Of Government.

think, by what has been faid, is very evident j then man has a natural freedom, notwithftanding all our author confidently says to the contrary ; since all that ihare in the fame common nature, faculties and powers, are in nature equal, and ought to partake in the fame common rights and privileges, till the manifefl appointment of God, who is Lord over all, bleffed for ever, can be produced to shew any particular perfon's fupremacy ; or a man's own confent subjects him to a fuperiour. This is fo plain, that our author confeffes, that Sir John Hayward, Blackwood and Barclay, the great vindicators of the right of kings, could not deny it, but admit ivith one confent the natural liberty and equality of mankind, for a truth unquestionable. And our author hath been fo far from producing any thing, that may make good his great poiition, that Adam was abfolute monarch, and fo men are not naturally free, that even his own proofs make againft him ; fo that, to ufe his own way of arguing, the firji erroneous -principle failing, the whole fabric of this vajl engine of abfolute power and tyranny drops down of it f If and there needs no more to be faid in anfwer to all that he builds upon fo falfe and frail a foundation.

§. 68. But to fave others the pains, were there any need, he is not fparing himfelf to shew, by his own contradictions, the weaknefs of his own do&rine. Adams abfolute

and

Of Government. 79

and fole dominion is that, which he is every where full of, and all along builds on, and yet he tells us, p. 12. that as Adam was lord of his children, fo his children under him had a command and power over .their own children. The unlimited and undivided fovereignty of Adams fatherhood, by our author's computation, flood but a little while, only during the first generation, but as foon as he had grand-children, Sir Robert could give but a very ill account of it. Adam, as father of his children, faith he, hath an abfolute, unlimited royal power over them, and by virtue thereof over those that they begot, and fo to all generations ; and yet his children, viz. Cain and Seth, have a paternal power over their children at the fame time ; fo that they are at the fame time abfolute lords, and yet vaffhls and /laves ; Adam has all the authority, as grand-father of the people, and they have a part of it as fathers of a part of them : he is abfolute over them and their pofteriry, by having begotten them, and yet they are abfolute over their children bv the fame title. No, says our author, Adams children under him had power over their own children, but ft ill with fubordination to the jirft parent. A good diftinclion that founds well, and it is pity it iigniries nothing, nor can be reconciled with our author's words. I readily grant, that fuppofing Adams abfolute power over his pofterity, any of his children might have 1 frona

8o Op Government.

from him a delegated, and fo a fubordinate power over a part, or all the reft : but that cannot be the power our author fpeaks of here j it is not a power by grant and commiflion, but the natural paternal power he fuppofes a father to have over his children. For 1 . he says, As Adam was lord of his children, fo his children under him had a power over their own children : they were then lords over their own children after the fame manner, and by the fame title, that Adam was, i. e. by right of generation, by right of fatherhood. 2. It is plain he means the natural power of fathers, becaufe he limits it to be only over their own children ; a delegated power has no such limitation, as only over their own children, it might be over others, as well as their own children. 3. If it were a delegated power, it muff appear in scripture ; but there is no ground in scripture to affirm, that Adam's children had any other power over theirs, than what they naturally had as fathers.

§. 69. But that he means here paternal power, and no other, is paft doubt, from the inference he makes in these words immediately following, I fee not then how the children of Adam, or of any man elfey can be free from fubjeclion to their parents. Whereby it appears that the power on one fide, and the fubjeclion on the other, our author here fpeaks of, is that natural power and fubjeclion between

Of Government. Si

tween parents and children : for that which every man's children owed, could be no other; and that our author always affirms to be abfolute and unlimited. This natural power of parents over their children, Adam had over his pofteritv, says our author ; and this power of parents over their children, his children had over theirs in his life-time, says our author alfo ; fo that Adam, by a natural right of father, had an abfolute unlimited power over all his pofterity, and at the fame time his children had by the fame right abfolute unlimited power over theirs. Here then are two abfolute unlimited powers exifting together, which I would have any body reconcile one to another, or to common fenfe. For the faho he has put in of fubordination, makes it more abfurd : to have one abfolute, unlimited, nay unlimitable power in fubordination to another, is fo manifeft a contradiction, that nothing can be more. Adam is abfolute prince with the ufilimited authority of fatherhood over all his pofterity-, all his pofterity are then abfolutely his fubje&s ; and, as our author says, his (laves, children, and grand-children, are equally in this state of fubjection and flavery; and yet, says our author, the children of Adam have paternal, i. e. abfolute unlimited power over their own children: Which in plain Engliflo is, they are (laves and abfolute princes at the fame time, and in the fame government ; and one

G part

82 Of Government.

part of the fubje&s have an abfolute unlimited power over the other by the natural right of parentage.

§. jo. If any one will suppose, in favour of our author, that he here meant, that parents, who are in fubjeclion themselves to the abfolute authority of their father, have yet some power over their children ; I confefs he is fomething nearer the truth : but he will not at all hereby help our author : for he no where fpeaking of the paternal power, but as an abfolute unlimited authority, cannot be supposed to underftand any thing elfe here, unlefs he himfelf had limited it, and mewed how far it reached. And that he means here paternal authority in that large extent, is plain from the immediate following words ; This fubjeclion of children being, says he, the foundation of all regal authority, p. 12. the fubjeclion then that in the former line, he says, every mail is in to his parents, and confequently what Adams grand-children were in to their parents, was that which was the fountain of all regal authority, i. e. according to our author, abfolute unlimitable authority. And thus Adams children had regal authority over their children, whilft they themselves were fubjetts to their father, and fell ow-fubj eels with their children. But let him mean as he pleafes, it is plain he allows Adam's children to have paternal power, p. 12. as alfo all other fathers to have paternal 'power

over

Of Government. 8$

over their childre?i, Obfervations, 156. From whence one of these two things will neceffarily follow, that either Adam's children.- sven in his life-time, had, and fo all other fathers have, as he phrafes it, p. 12. by right of fatherhood, royal authority over their children, or elfe, that Adam, by right of fatherhood, had not royal authority. For it cannot be but that paternal power does, or does not, give royal authority to them that have it : if it does not, then Adam could not be fovereign by this title, nor any body elfe ; and then there is an end of all our author's politics at Once : if it does give royal authority, then every one that has paternal power has royal authority, and then, by our author's patriarchal government, there will be as many kings as there are fathers.

§.71. And thus what a monarchy he hath fet up, let him and his difciples confider. Princes certainly will have great reafon to thank him for these new politics, which fet up as many abfolute kings in every country as there are fathers of children. And yet who can blame our author for it, it lying unavoidably in the way of one difcourfing upon our author's principles ? For having placed an abfolute power in fathers by right of begetting, he could not eafily refolve how much of this power belonged to a fon over the children he had begotten ; and fo it fell out ■ to be a very hard matter to give all the power,

G 2 as

84 Of Government.

as he does, to Adatn, and yet allow a part in his life-time to his children, when they were parents, and which he knew not well how to deny them. This makes him fo doubtful in his expreffions, and fb uncertain where to place this abfolute natural power, which he calls fatherhood* Sometimes Ada??; alone has it all, as p. 13. Obfervations, 244, 245. & Pref.

Sometimes parents have it, which word fcarce fignifies the father alone, p. i2, 19. • Sometimes children during their fathers life-time, as p. 12.

Sometimes fathers of fa?7?ilicsi as p. 78, and 79.

Sometimes fathers indefinitely, Obfervations, 155.

Sometimes the heir to Adam, Obfervations,

Sometimes the pofierity of Adam, 244, 246.

Sometimes pri?ne fathers, all fins or grandchildren of Noah, Obfervations, 244.

Sometimes the e/de/i parents, p. 12.

Sometimes all kings, p. 19.

Sometimes ail that have supreme power, Obfervations, 245.

Sometimes heirs to those firjl progenitors, who were at frjl the natural pare??ts of the whole people, p. 19.

Sometimes an elective king, p. 23.

Sometimes those, whether a few or a multitude, that govern the com?no?i- wealth, p. 23.

Sometimes

Of Government. 8$

Sometimes he that can catch it, an ufurper, p. 23. Obfervations, 155.

§.72. Thus-this new nothing, that is to carry with it all power, authority, and government; this fatherhood, which is to defign the perfon, and eftablifh the throne of monarchs, whom the people are to obey, may, according to Sir Robert, come into any hands, any how, and fo by his politics give to democracy royal authority, and make an ufurper a lawful prince. And if it will do all these fine feats, much good do our author and all his followers with their omnipotent fatherhood, which can ferve for nothing but to unfettle and deftroy all the lawful governments in the world, and to eftabliih in their room diforder, tyran-r ny, and ufurpation.

CHAP. VII.

Of Fatherhood and Property conjidered together as Fountains of Sovereignty.

%. y^. TN the foregoing chapters we have X feen what Jdam's monarchy was, in our author's opinion, and upon what titles he founded it. The foundations which he lays the chief ftrefs on, as thofefrom which he thinks he may beft derive monarchical power to future princes, are two, viz. FatherG 3 hood

86 Of Government.

hood and property : and therefore the way he propofes to remove the abfurdities and inconveniencies of the doclrine of natural freedom, is, to maintain the natural and private dominion of Adam, Obfervations, 222. Conformable hereunto, he tells us, the grounds and principles of government necefjarily depend upon the original of property, Obfervations, 108. 'The fubjeflion of children to their parents is the fountain of all regal. authority ', p. 12. And all power on earth is either derived or ufurpedjrom the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whaffocver, Obfervations, 158. I will not fland here to examine how it can be faid without a contradiction, that the firf grounds and principles of gbverftmeni necefjarily dcpendiipon the original of property ', and yet, that there is no other original of any power whatfocver, but that of the father : it being hard to understand how there can be no other original but fatherhood, and yet that the grounds and principles of government depend upon the original of property ; property and fatherhood being as far different as lord of a manor and father of children. Nor do I fee how they will either of them agree with what our author iays, Obfervations, 244.. of God's fentence againfl Eve, Gen. iii. 16. That it is the original grant cf government : fo that if that were the original, government had not its original, by our author's iv.vn confeiTion, either from property or fatherhood '3

Reading section 9

Of Government. Sy

therhood ; and this text, which he brings as a proof of Adam's power over Eve, neceflarily contradicts what he says of the fatherhood, that it is the file fountain of all power : for if Adam had any such regal power over Eve, as our author contends for, it muft be by some other title than that of begetting.

§. 74. But I leave him to reconcile these contradictions, as well as many others, which may plentifully be found in him by any one, who will but read him with a little attention 5 and mall come now to confider, how these two originals of government, Adam's natural and private dominion, will con lift, and ferve to make out and eftablim the titles of fucceeding monarchs, who, as oar author obliges them, muft all derive their power from these fountains. Let us then suppose Adam made, by Gods donation, lord and fole proprietor of the whole earth, in as large and ample a manner, as Sir Robert could wifli ; let us suppose him alfo, by right of fatherhood, abfolute ruler over his children with an unlimited fupremacy; I afk then, upon Adam's death what becomes of both his natural and private dominion ? and I doubt not it will be anfwered, that they defcended to his next heir, as our author tells us in fevr.ral places. But this way, it is plain, cannot poffibly convey both his natural and private dominion to the fame perfon : for mould we allow, that all the property, all the eftate of the father, ought to defcend to G 4 the

88 Of Government.

the eldcft fori, (which will need some proof to eftabliih it) and To he has by that title all the private dominion of the father, yet the father's natural dominion, the paternal power cannot defcend to him by inheritance : for it being a right that accrues to a man only by begetting, no man can have this natural do-r minion over any one he does not beget ; un3efs it can be supposed, that a man can have a right to any thing, without doing that upon which that right is folely founded : for if a father by begetting, and no other title, has natural dominion over his children, he that does not beget them cannot have this natural dominion over them ; and therefore be it true or falfe, that our author says, Obfervations, 1 56. That every man that is born, by his very birth becomes afubjefl to him that begets him, this necefTariiy follows, viz. That a man by his birth cannot become a fubjed: to his brother, who did not beget him ; unlefs it can be supposed that a man by the very fame title can come to be under the natural and abfolute dominion of two different men at once ; or it be fenfe to fay, that a man by birth is under the natural dominion of his father, only becaufe he begat him, and a man by birth alio is under the natural dominion of his eldeft brother, though he did not beget him.

§. j 5. If then the private dominion of Adam, i. e. his property in the creatures, defcended at his death all entirely to his eldeft fon,

his

Of Government. 89

his heir ; (for, if it did not, there is prefently an end of all Sir Robert's monarchy) and his natural dominion, the dominion a father has over his children by begetting them, belonged immediately, upon Adam's deceafe, equally to all his fons who had children, by the fame title their father had it, the fovereignty founded upon property, and the fovereignty founded upon fatherhood, come to be divided ; since Cain, as heir, had that of property alone ; Setb, and the other fons, that o£ fatherhood equally with him. This is the beft can be made of our author's doctrine, and of the two titles of fovereignty he fets up in Adam : one of them will either {ignify nothing ; or, if they both mull ftand, they can ferve only to confound the rights of princes, and diforder government in his pofterity : for by building upon two titles to dominion, which cannot defcend together, and which he allows may be feparated, (for he yields that Adams children had their dijiincl territories by right of private dominion, Obfervations, 2 10. p. 40.) he makes it perpetually a doubt upon his principles where the Sovereignty is, or to whom we owe our obedience, {met fatherhood and property are distinct titles, and began prefently upon Adam's death to be in diftinct perfons. And which then was to give way to the other ?

§.76. Let us take the account of it, as he himfelf gives it us. He tells us out otGrotius,

That

90 Of Government.

That Adams children by donation) ajjignation, erjbme kind of cefjicn before he was dead, had their dijiincT: territories by right of private dominion-, Abel had his flocks and paf hires for them ; Oain had his fields for com, and the land of Nod, -where he built him a city, Obfervations, 210. Here it is obvious to demand, which ofthefe two after Adams death was fovereign ? Cain, says our author, p. 19. By what title ? As heir ; for heirs to progefiitors, who were natural parents of their people, are not only lords of their own children, but alfo of their brethren, says our author, p. 19. What was Cain heir to ? Not the entire porTeffion?, not all that which Adam had private dominion in ; for our author allows that Abel, by a title derived from his father, had bis dijlinfl territory for pafture by right of private dominion. What then Abel had by private dominion, was exempt from Cains dominion : for he could not have private dominion over that which was under the private dominion of another ; and therefore his fovereignty over his brother is gone wTith this private dominion, and fo there are prefently two fovereigns, and his imaginary title of fatherhood is out of doors, and Cain is no prince over his brother : or elfe, if Cain retain his fovereignty over Abel, notwithftandin<r his private dominion, it will follow, that the firfl grounds and principles of gov eminent have nothing to do with property, whatever 1 our

Of Government. 91

our author says to the contrary. It is true, Abel did not outlive his father Adam ; but that makes nothing to the argument, which will hold good againft Sir Robert in Abel's iffue, or in Seth, or any of the poflerity of Adam, not defcended from Cain.

§. 77. The fame inconvenience he runs into about the three fons of Noah, who, as he says, p. 13. bad the whole world divided among ft them by their father. I aik then, in which of the three mail we find the eflablijhment of regal power after Noah's death ? If in all three, as our author there feems to fay ; then it will follow, that regal power is founded in property of land, and follows private dominion, and not in paternal power, or natural dominion ; and Co there is an end of paternal power as the fountain of regal authority, and the fo-much-maghihed fatherhood quite vani(hes. If the regal power defcended to Sbem as eldeft, and heir to his father, then Noah's divifwn of the world, by lot to his fom, or his ten years jailing about the Mediterranean to appoint each fon his part, which our author tells of, p. 15. was labour loft ; his divifion of the world to them, was to ill, or to no purpofe : for his grant to Cham and Japbet was little worth, if Sbem, notwithflanding this grant, as foon as Noah was dead, was to be lord over them. Or, if this grant of private dominion to them, over their affigned territories, were good, here were fet up two diftind forts of power, not fubordinate

92 Of G o v e r n m e n t.

nate one to the other, with all those inconveniences which he mutters up again It the power of the people, Obfervations, 158. which I mall let down in his own words, only changing property for people. All power on earth is either derived or ufurpedfrom the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whatfoever : for if there JJjould be granted two forts of power, without any fubordination of one to the other, they would be in perpetual firifc which fiould be supreme, for two fupremes cannot agree : if the fatherly power be supreme, then the power grounded on private dominion mufi be fubordinate, and depeiid on it ; and if the power grounded on property be supreme, then the fatherly power muftfubinit to it, and camiot be exercifed without the licence of the proprietors, which muf quite dcflroy the frame and courfe of nature. This is his own arguing againfr. two diftinct independent powers, which I have fet down in his own words., only putting power rifing from property, for power of the people ; and when he has anfwered what he himfelf has urged here againfl two difrinct powers, we (hall be better able to fee how, with any tolerable fenfe, he can derive all regal authority^/re/tf the natural and private dominion of Adam, from fatherhood and property top-ether, which are diftinct titles, that do not always meet in the fame perfon ; and it is plain, by his own confefiion, prefently fer

parated

Of Government. 93

parated as Toon both as Adams and Noah's death made way for succession : though our author frequently in his writings jumbles them together, and omits not to make ufe of either, where he thinks ijt will found bell: to his purpofe. But the abfurdities of this will more fully appear in the next chapter, where we shall examine the ways of conveyance of the fovereignty of Adam, to princes that were to reign after him.

CHAP. VIII.

Of the Conveyance of Adam'j fovereign Monarchical Power.

§. 78. O I R Robert, having not been very O happy in any proof he brings for the fovereignty of Adam, is not much more fortunate in conveying it to future princes, who, if his politics be true, muft all derive their titles from that first monarch. The ways he has affigned, as they lie fcattered up and down in his writings, 1 will fet down in his own words : in his preface he tells us> That Adam being monarch of the whole worlds none of his pojlerity had any right to poffefs any thing, but by his grant or pennijjion, or by succession from him. Here he makes two ways of conveyance of any thing Adam ftood poffeffed of; and those are grants or succession. Again he says, All kings either are, or are to

be

94 Of Govern men t.

be reputed, the next heirs to thofejirji progenitors, who were at Jirji the natural parents of the whole people, p. 19. There cannot be any multitude of men whatsoever, but that in it, confdered by it/elf, there is one man amongjl them, that in nature hath a right to be the king of all the rejl, as being the next heir to Adam, Obfervations, 253. Here in these places inheritance is the only way he allows of conveying monarchical power to princes. In other places he tells us, Obfervations, 255. All power on earth is either derived or nfurped from the fatherly power, Obfervations, 158. AH kings that now are, or ever were, are or were either fathers of their people, or heirs of such fathers, or nfurpers of the right of such fathers, Obfervations, 253. And here he makes inheritance or ufurpation the only ways whereby kings come by this original power : but yet he tells us, This fatherly empire, as it was of itfelf hereditary, fo it was alienable by patent, and feizable by an ufurper, Obfervations, 190. So then here inheritance, grant, or ufurpation, will convey it. And lad of all, which is moft admirable, he tells us, p. ioo. It fills not which way kings come by their power, whether by eleclion, donation, fuccejjicn, or ly any other ?neans ; for it is fill the manner of the governmerit byfupreme power, that makes them properly kings, and not the means of obtaining their crowns. Which I think is a full aniwer to all his whole hypothecs

Of Government. 95

thefis and difcourfe about Adams royal authority, as the fountain from which all princes were to derive theirs : and he might have fpared the trouble of fpeaking fo much as he does, up and down, of heirs and inheritance, if to make any one properly a king, needs no more but governing by fnpreme power, and it matters not by what means he came by it.

§.79. By this notable way, our author may make Oliver as properly king, as any one elfe he could think of: and had he had the happinefs to live under Majfanellos government, he could not by this his own rule have forborn to have done homage to him, with O king live for ever, since the manner of his government by supreme power, made him properly king, who was but the day before properly a fifherman. And if Don Quixote had taught his fquire to govern with supreme authority, our author no doubt could have made a moft loyal subject in Sancho Panchds ijland ; and he muft needs have defer ved some preferment in such governments, since I think* he is the firfl: politician, who, pretending to fettle government upon its true baiis, and to eftablim the thrones of lawful princes, ever told the world, That he was properly a king, whofe t?ia?i?ier of government was by supreme power, by what means foever he obtained it ; which in plain Englijh is to fay, that regal and supreme power is properly and truly his,

who '

96 Of Government.

who can by any means feize upon it ; and if this be to be properly a king, I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an u fur per.

§. 80. This is fo ftrange a doctrine, that the furprife of it hath made me pafs by, without their due reflection, the contradictions he runs into, by making fometimes inheritance alone, fometimes only grant or inheritance, fometimes only inheritance or •ufurpation, fometimes all these three, and at laft election, or any other means, added to them, the ways whereby Adam's royal authority, that is, his right to supreme rule, could be conveyed down to future kings and governors, fo as to give them a title to the obedience and fubjection of the people. But these contradictions lie fo open, that the very reading of our author's own words will difcover them to any ordinary understanding ; and though what I have quoted out of him (with abundance more of the fame Strain and coherence, which might be found in him) might well excufe me from any farther trouble in this argument, yet having propofed to mvfelf, to examine the main parts of his doctrine, I (hall a little more particularly conilder how inheritance, grant, ufurpation or election, can any way make out government in the world upon his principles; or derive to any one a right of empire, from this regal authority of Ada?::, had it been

never

Of Government. ay

never fo well proved, that he had been abfolute monarch, and lord of the whole world.

C II A P. IX.

Of 'Monarchy \ by Inheritance from Adam*

§. 8 1. HP Hough it be never fo plain, that there ought to be government in the world, nay, mould all men be of our author's mind, that divine appointment had ordained it to be monarchical ; yet, since men cannot obey any thing, that cannot command ; and ideas of government in the fancy, though never fo perfect, though never fo right, cannot give laws, nor prefcribe rules to the actions of men ; it would be of no behoof for the fettling of order, and eftablimment of government in its exercife and ufe amongft men, unlefs there were a way alfo taught how to know the perfcn, to whom it belonged to have this power, and exercife this dominion over others. It is in vain then to talk of fubjeclion and obedience without telling us whom we are to obey: for were I never fo fully perfuaded that there ought to be magistracy and rule in the world ; yet I am never the lefs at liberty Hill, till it appears who is the perfon that hath right to my obedience ; since, if there be no marks to know him by, and diftinguifTi him that hath right to rule from

Reading section 10

H other

98 Of Government.'

other men, it may be myfelf, as well as any other. And therefore, though fubmiffion to government be every one's duty, yet since Chat fignifies nothing but fubmitting to the direction and laws of such men as have authority to command, it is not enough to make a man a subject, to convince him that there is regal power in the world ; but there mud. be ways of defigning, and knowing the perfon to whom this regal power of right belongs : and a man can never be obliged in confcience to fubmit to any power, unlefs he can be fatisfied who is the perfon who has a right to exercife that power over him. If this were not fo, there would be no distinction between pirates and lawful princes; he that has force is without any more ado to be obeyed, and crowns and fcepters would become the inheritance only of violence and rapine. Men too might as often and as innocently change their governors, as they do their phyiicians, if the perfon cannot be known who has a right to direct me, and whofe prefcriptions I am bound to follow. To fettle therefore men's confciences, under an obligation to obedience, it is neceffary that they know not only, that there is a power fomewhere in the world, but the perfon who by right is veiled with this power over them.

§. 82. How fuccefsful our author has been in his attempts, to fet up a monarchical cbfohte power in Adam, the reader may judge

by

Of Government. 99

by what has been already faid; but were that abfolute monarchy as clear as our author would deiire it, as I prefume it is the contrary, yet it could be of no ufe to the government of mankind now in the world, unlefs he alfo make out these two things.

Fir ft, That this power of Adam was not to end with him, but was upon his deceafe conveyed intire to some other perfon, and fo on to pofterity.

Secondlyy That the princes and rulers now on earth are poffefled of this power of Adam, by a right way of conveyance derived to them.

§. 83. If the firf! of these fail, the power of Adam, were it never fo great, never fo certain, will lignify nothing to the prefent government and focieties in the world ; but we muft feek out some other original of power for the government of politys than this of Adam, or elfe there will be none at all in the world. If the latter fail, it will deftroy the authority of the prefent governors, and abfolve the people from fubjeclion to them, since they, having no better a claim than others to that power, which is alone the fountain of all authority, can have no title to rule over them.

§. 84. Our author, having fancied an abfolute fovereignty in Adam, mentions feveral ways of its conveyance to princes, that were to be his fuccefTors ; but that which he chiefly

H 2 infifts

ioo Of Government.

infifts on, is that of inheritance, which occurs fo often in his feveral difcourfes; and I having in the foregoing chapter quoted feveral of these paffages, I mall not need here again to repeat them. This fovereignty he erects, as has been faid, upon a double foundation, 'viz. that of property ', and that of fatherhood. One was the right he was supposed to have in all creatures, a right to poffefs the earth with the beafts, and other inferior ranks of things in it, for his private ufe, exclufive of all other men. The other was the right he was supposed to have, to rule and govern men, all the reft of mankind.

§.85. In both these rights, there being supposed an exclufion of all other men, it mull be upon some reafon peculiar to Adam, that they muft both be founded.

That of his property our author fuppofes to arife from God's immediate donation, Gen. i. 28. and that of fatherhood from the act of begetting : now in all inheritance, if the heir fucceed not to the reafon upon which his father's right was founded, he cannot fucceed to the right which followeth from it. For example, Adam had a right of property in the creatures upon the donation and grant of God almighty, who was lord and proprietor of them all; let this be fo as our author tells us, yet upon his death his heir can have no title to them, no such right of property in them, unlefs the fame reafon, viz. God's

donation,

Of Government. ioi

donation, vetted a right in the heir too : for if Adam could have had no property in, nor ufe of the creatures, without this pofitive donation from God, and this donation were only perfonally to Ada?n, his heir could have no right by it ; but upon his death it muft revert to God, the lord and owner again ; for pofitive grants give no title farther than the exprefs words convey it, and by which only it is held. And thus, if as our author himfelf contends, that donation. Gen. i. 28. were made only to Adam perfonally, his heir could not fucceed to his property in the creatures ; and if it were a donation to any but Adam, let it be fhewn, that it was to his heir in our author's fenfe, /. e. to one of his children, exclufive of all the reft.

§. 86. But not to follow our author too far out of the way, the plain of the cafe is this. God having made man, and planted in him, as in all other animals, a ltxong delire of self-prefervation ; and furnHhed the world with things fit for food and raiment, and other neceffaries of life, fubfervient to his defign, that man mould live and abide for some time upon the face of the earth, and not that fo curious and* wonderful a piece of workmanfhip, by his own negligence, or want of neceffaries, mould periih again, prefently after a few moments continuance ; God, 1 fay, having made man and the world thus, fpoke to him, (that is) directed him

H 3 b7

102 Of Government.

by his fenfes and reafon, as he did the inferior animals by their fenfe and inftinct, which were ferviceable for his fubfiftence, and given him as the means of his prefernation. And therefore I doubt not, but before these words were pronounced, i. Gen. 28, 29. (if they mud be understood literally to have been fpoken) and without any such verbal donation, man had a right to an ufe of the creatures, by the will and grant of God : for the delire, strong defire of preferving his life and being, having been planted in him as a principle of adtion by God himfelf, reafon, which was the voice of God in him, could not but teach him and aflure him, that pursuing that natural inclination he had to preferve his being, he followed the will of his maker, and therefore had a right to make ufe of those creatures, which by his reafon or fenfes he could difcover would be ferviceable thereunto. And thus man's property in the creatures was founded upon the right he had to make ufe of those things that were neceffary or ufeful to his being.

§. 87. This being the reafon and foundation of Adam's property, gave the* fame title, on the fame ground, to all his children, not only after his death, but in his life-time : fo that here was no privilege of his heir above his other children, which could exclude them from an equal right to the ufe of the inferior creatures, for the comfortable prefervation

of

Of Government. 103

of their beings, which is all the property man hath in them -, and fo Adam's, fovereignty built on property, or, as our author calls it, private dominion, comes to nothing. Every man had a right to the creatures, by the fame title Adam had, viz. by the right every one had to take care of, and provide for their fubfiftence : and thus men had a right in common, Adam's children in common with him. But if any one had began, and made himfelf a property in any particular thing, (which how he, or any one elfe, could do, {hall be fhewn in another place) that thing, that pofleffion, if he difpofed not otherwife of it by his pofitive grant, defcended naturally to his children, and they had a right to fucceed to it, and poffefs it.

§. 88. It might reafonably be afked here, how come children by this right of porTeffing, before any other, the properties of their parents upon their deceafe ? for it being perfonally the parents, when they die, without actually transferring their right to another, why does it not return again to the common flock of mankind ? It will perhaps be anfwered, 'that common confent hath difpofed of it to their children. Common practice, we fee indeed, does fo difpoie of it ; but we cannot fay, that it is the common confent of mankind ; for that hath never been afked, nor actually given -, and if common tacit confent hath eflablifhed it, it would make ■

H 4 but

j 04 Of Government.

but a pofitive, and not a natural right of children to inherit the goods of their parents : but where the pra&ice is univerfal, it is reafonable to think the caufe is natural. The ground then I think to be this. The first and ilrongeft deiire God planted in men, and wrought into the very principles of their nature, being that of self-prefervation, that is the foundation of a right to the creatures for the particular support and uie of each individual perfon himlelf. But, next to this, God planted in men a flrcng defire alfo of propagating their kind, and continuing themselves in their polierity ; and this gives children a title to fhare in the property of their parents, and a right to inherit their poffeilions. Men are not proprietors of what they have, meerly for themielves ; their children have a title to part of it, and have their kind of right joined with their parents, in the pofTefTion which comes to be wholly their's, when death, having put an end to their parents ufe of it, hath taken them from their pofTeffions , and this we call inheritance : men being by a like obligation bound to preferve what they have begotten, as to preferve themselves, their hTue come to have a right in the goods they are pofTefTed of. That children have such a right, is plain from the laws of God ; and that men are convinced that children have such a right, is evident from the law of the land ; both

which

Of Government. 105

which laws require parents to provide for their children.

§. 89. For children being by the courfe of nature, born weak, and unable to provide for themselves, they have by the appointment of God himfelf, who hath thus ordered the courfe c.<n^hjre, a right to be nouriihed and main tain^Jw their parents; nay, a right not only to a bare fubfiftence, but to the conveniencies and comforts of life, as far as the conditions of their parents can afford it. Hence it domes, that when their parents leave the world, and fo the care due to their children ceafes, the effects of it are to extend as far as poffibly they can, and the provifions they have made in their life-time, are underftood to be intended, as nature requires they mould, for their children, whom, after themselves, they are bound to provide for : though the dying parents, by exprefs words, declare nothing about them, nature appoints the defcent of their property to their children, who thus come to have a title, and natural right of inheritance to their fathers goods, which the reft of mankind cannot pretend to.

§. 90. Were it not for this right of being nouriihed and maintained by their parents, which God and nature has given to children, and obliged parents to as a duty, it would be reafonable, that the father mould inherit the eltate of his fon, and be preferred in the

inheritance106 Of Government.

inheritance before his grand-child : for to the grand-father there is due a long fcore of care and expences laid out upon the breeding and education of his fon, which one would think in juftice ought to be paid. But that having been done in obedience to the fame law, whereby he received nourishment and education from his own parents ; this fcore of education, received from a man's, father, is paid by taking care, and providing for his own children ; is paid, I fay, as much as is required of payment by alteration of property, unlefs prefent necefiity of the parents require a return of goods for their necefTary support and fubfiftence : for we are not now fpeaking of that reverence, acknowledgment, refpedx and honour, that is always due from children to their parents ; but of poiTeffions and commodities of life valuable by money. But though it be incumbent on parents to bring up and provide for their children, yet this debt to their children does not quite cancel the fcore due to their parents ; but only is made by nature preferable to it : for the debt a man owes his father takes place, and gives the father a right to inherit the fon's goods, where, for want of ifTue, the right of children doth not exclude that title. And therefore a man having a right to be maintained by his children, where he needs it; and to enjoy alfo the comforts of life from them, when the necefTary provifion due

to

Of Government. 107

to them and their children will afford it ; if his fon die without iflue, the father has a right in nature to poflefs his goods, and inherit his eftate, (whatever the municipal laws of some countries may abfurdly direct otherwife;) and fo again his children and their iiTue from him ; or, for want of such, his father and his ilTue. But where no such are to be found, i. e. no kindred, there we fee the poiTefiions of a private man revert to the community, and fo in politic focieties come into the hands of the public magistrate ; but in the state of nature become again perfectly common, no body having a right to inherit them : nor can any one have a property in them, otherwife than in other things common by nature ; of which I mail fpeak in its due place.

§.91. I have been the larger, in mewing upon what ground children have a right to fucceed to the poffeffion of their fathers properties, not only becaufe by it, it will appear, that if Adam had a property (a titular, inrigniflcant, ufelefs property ; for it could be no better, for he was bound to nourim and maintain his children and pofterity out of it) in the whole earth and its product, yet all his children coming to have, by the law of nature, and right of inheritance, a joint title* and right of property in it after his death, \t could convey no right of fovereignty to any one of his pofterity over the reft : ,

fincc

108 Of Government.

since every one having a right of inheritance to his portion, they might enjoy their inheritance, or any part of it in common, or mare it, or some parts of it, by divifion, as it heft liked them. But no one could pretend to the whole inheritance, or any fovereignty supposed to accompany it ; since a right of inheritance gave every one of the reft, as well as any one, a title to fhare in the goods of his father. Not only upon this account, I fay, have I been fo particular in examining the reafon of children's inheriting the property of their fathers, but alio becaule it will give us farther light in the inheritance of rule and power, which in countries where their particular municipal laws give the whole poireflion of land entirely to the firiiborn, and defcent of power has gone fo to men by this cuftom, some have been apt to be deceived into an opinion, that there was a natural or divine right of primogeniture, to both ejlate and power ; and that the inheritance of both rule over men, and property in things, fprang from the fame original, and were to defcend by the fame rules.

Reading section 11

§.92. Property, whofe original is from the right a man has to ufe any of the inferior creatures, for the fubfiftence and comfort of his life, is for the benefit and fole advantage of the proprietor, fo that he may even deftroy the thing, that he has property in by his ufe of it, where need requires : but government 5 being

Of Government. 109

being for the prefervation of every man's right and property, by preferving him from the violence or injury of others, is for the good of the governed : for the magistrate's iword being for a terror to -evil doers, and by that terror to inforce men to obferve the pofitive laws of the society, made conformable to the laws of nature, for the public good, i. e. the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules it can be provided for -, the fword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone.

§. 93. Children therefore, as has been fhewed, by the dependance they have on their parents for fubfiftence, have a right of inheritance to their fathers property, as that which belongs to them for their proper good and behoof, and therefore are fitly termed goods, wherein the firu>born has not a fols or peculiar right by any law of God and, nature, the younger children having an equal title with him, founded on that right they all have to maintenance, support, and comfort from their parents, and on nothing elfe. But government being for the benefit of the governed, and not the fole advantage of the governors, (but only for their's with the reft, as they make a part of that politic body, each of whofe parts and members are taken care of, and directed in its peculiar functions for the good of the whole, by the laws of

society)

no Of Government.

society) cannot be inherited by the fame title, that children have to the goods of their father. The right a fon has to be maintained and provided with the necefiaries and conveniences of life out of his father's flock, gives* him a right to fucceed to his father's property for his own good ; but this can give him no right to fucceed alfo to the rule, which his father had over other men. All that a child has right to claim from his father is nourifhment and education, and the things nature furnifhesfor the support of life: but he has no right to demand rule or dominion from him: he can fubfift and receive from him the portion of good things, and advantages of education naturally due to him, without e??ipire and dominion. That (if his father hath any) was veiled in him, for the good and behoof of others : and therefore the fon cannot claim or inherit it by a title, which is founded wholly on his own private good and advantage.

§. 94. We muft know how the first ruler, from whom any one claims, came by his authority, upon what ground any one has empire, what his title is to it, before we can know who has a right to fucceed him in it, and inherit it from him : if the agreement and confent of men first gave a fcepter into any one's hand, or put a crown on his head, that alfo muft direct its defcent and conveyance; for the fame authority, that

made

Of Government. hi

made the first a lawful ruler, mud make the fecond too, and fo give right of succession : in this cafe inheritance, or primogeniture, can in its self have no right, no pretence to it, any farther than that confent, which eftablifhed the form of the government, hath fo settled the succession. And thus we fee, the succession of crowns, in feveral countries, places it on different heads, and he comes by right of succession to be a prince in one place, who would be a subject in another.

§. 95. If God, by his politive grant and revealed declaration, first. gave rule and dominion to any man, he that will claim by that title, muft have the fame pofitive grant of God for his succession : for if that has not directed the courfe of its defcent and conveyance down to others, no body can fucceed to this title of the first ruler. Children have no right of inheritance to this; and primogeniture can lay no claim to it, unlefs God, the author of this conftitution, hath fo ordained it. Thus we fee, the pretentions of Saul's family, who received his crown from the immediate appointment of God, ended with his reign ; and David, by the fame title that Saul reigned, viz. God's appointment, fucceeded in his throne, to theexclufion of Jonathan, and all pretentions of paternal inheritance : and if Solomon had a right to fucceed his father, it muft be by some other title, than that of primogeniture. A cadet, or lifter's fon, muft

have

H2 Of Government.

have the preference in succession, if he has the fame title the first lawful prince had : and in dominion that has its foundation only in the pofitive appointment of God himfelf, Benjamin, the youngeft, muft have the inheritance of the crown, if God fo direct, as well as one of that tribe had the first poffeffion.

§.96. If paternal right, the ad: of begetting, eive a man rule and dominion, inheritance or primogeniture can give no title : for he that cannot fucceed to his father's title, which was begetting, cannot fucceed to that power over his brethren, which his father had by paternal right over them. But of this I {hall have occafion to fay more in another place. This is plain in the mean time, that any government, whether supposed to be at first founded in paternal right, confent of the people, or the pofitive appoint7nent of God himfelf, which can fuperfede either of the other, and fo begin a new government upon a new foundation; I fay, any government began upon either of these, can by right of succession come to those only, who have the title of him they fucceed to : power founded on contracl can defcend only to him, who has right by that contract : power founded on begetting, he only can have that begets ; and power founded on the pofitive grant or donation of God, he only can have by right of succession, to whom that grant directs it.

§•97Of Government* 113

• §. 97. From what I have faid, I think this is cleaa* that a right to the uie of the creatures, being founded originally in the right a man has to fubiift and enjoy the conveniencies of life ; and the natural right- children have to inherit the goods of their parents, being founded in the right they have to the fame fubfiftence and commodities of life, out of the flock of their parents, who are therefore taught bynatural love and tendernefs to provide for them, as a part of themselves ; and all this being only for the good of the proprietor, or heir ; it can be no reafon for children's inheriting of rule and dominion* which has another original and a different end. Nor can primogeniture have any pretence to a right of folely inheriting either property or power, as we mall, in its due place, fee more fully. It is enough to have mewed here, that Adams property, or private dominion, could not convey any fovereignty or rule to his heir, who not having a right to inherit all his father's poffeffions, could not thereby come to have any fovereignty over his brethren : and therefore, if any fovereignty en account of his property had been veiled in Adam, which in truth there was not, yet it would have died with him.

§.98. As Adam's fovereignty, if, by virtue of being proprietor of the world, he had any authority over men, could not have been inherited by any of his children over the reft, becaufe they had the fame title to divide the inheritance, and every one had a right to a

I portion

ii4 Of Government.

portion of his father's pofleffions ; fo neither could Adam's fovereignty by right of fatherhood, if any such he had, defcend to any one of his children : for it being, in our author's account, a right acquired by begetting to rule over those he had begotten, it was not a power pofiible to be inherited, becaufe the right being confequent to, and built on, an act perfectly perfonal, made that power fo too, and impoffible to be inherited : for paternal power, being a natural right rifing only from the relation of father and fon, is as impcflible to be inherited as the relation itfelf -, and a man may pretend as well to inherit the conjugal power the hufband, whofe heir he is, had over his wife, as he can to inherit the paternal power of a father over his children : for the power of the hufband being founded on contract, and the power of the father on begetting, he may as well inherit the power obtained by the conjugal contract, which was only perfonal, as he may the power obtained by begetting, which could reach no farther than the perfonofthe begetter, unlefs begetting can be a title to power in him that does not beget.

§. 99. Which makes it a reafonable queflion to afk, whether Adam, dying before Eve, his heir, (suppose Cain or SethJ fhould have by right of inheriting Adam's fatherhood, fovereign power over Eve his mother : for Adam's fatherhood being nothing but a right he had to govern his children, becaufe he begot them, he that

inherits

Of Government. 115

inherits Adam's fatherhood, inherits nothing, even in our author's fenfe, but the right Adam had to govern his children, becaufe he begot them: fo that the monarchy of the heir would not have taken in Eve; or if it did, it being nothing but the. fatherhood of Adam defcended by inheritance, the heir muft have right to govern Eve, becaufe Adam begot her -, for fatherhood is nothing elfe.

§. 100. Perhaps it will be faid with our author, that a man can alien his power over his child ; and what may be transferred by compact, may be porTefTed by inheritance. I anfwer, a father cannot alien the power he has over his child : he may perhaps to some degrees forfeit it, but cannot transfer it ; and if any other man acquire it, it is not by the father's grant, but by some act of his own. For example, a father, unnaturally carelefs of his child, fells or gives him to another man ; and he again expofes him ; a third man rinding him, breeds up, cherifhes, and provides for him as his own : I think in this cafe, no body will doubt, but that the greatefl part of filial duty and fubjection was here owing, and to be paid to this fofter-father ; and if any thing could be demanded from the child, by either of the other, it could be only due to his natural father, who perhaps might have forfeited his right to much of that duty comprehended in the command, , Honour your parents, but could transfer none of it to another. He that purchafed, and I 2 neglected

u6 Of Government.

neglected the child, got by his purchafe and grant of the father, no title to duty or honour from the child ; but only he acquired it, who by his own authority, performing the office and care of a father, to the forlorn and periming infant, made himfelf, by paternal care, a title to proportionable degrees of paternal power. This will be more eafily admitted upon confideration of the nature of paternal power, for which I refer my reader tothe lecond book.

§. 101. To return to the argument in hand j this is evident, That paternal power arifing only from begetting-, for in that our author places it alone, can neither be tranff erred nor inherited : and he that does not beget, can no more have paternal power, which arifes from thence, than he can have a right to any thing, who performs not the condition, to which only it is annexed. If one mould afk, by what law has a father power over his children ? it will be anfwered, no doubt, by the law of nature, which gives such a power over them, to him that begets them. If one mould afk likewife, by what law does our author's heir come by a right to inherit ? I think it would be anfwered, by the law of nature too : for I find not that. our author brings one word of scripture to prove the right of such an heir he fpeaks of. Why then the law of nature gives fathers paternal power over their children, becaufe they did beget them; and

the

Of Government. 117

the fame law of nature gives the fame paternal power to the heir over his brethren, who did not beget them : whence it follows, that either the father has not. his paternal power by begetting, or eKe that the heir has it not at all -, for it is hard to underftand how the law of nature, which is the law of reafon, can give the paternal power to the father over his children, for the only reafon of begetting ; and to the firfl-born over his brethren without this only reafon, i. e. for no reafon at all : and if the elded, by the law of nature, can inherit this paternal power, without the only reafon that gives a title to it, lb may the youngeft as well as he, and a ftranger as well as either ; for where there is no reafon for any one, as there is not, but for him that begets, all have an equal title. I am fure our author offers no reafon ; and when any body does, we {hall fee whether it will hold or no.

§.102. In the mean time it is as good fenfe to fay, that by the law of nature a man has right to inherit the property of another, becaufe he is of kin to him, and is known to be of his blood ; and therefore, by the fame law of nature, an utter ftranger to his blood has right to inherit his eftate ; as to fay that, by the law of nature, he that begets them has paternal power over his children, and therefore, by the law of nature, the heir that begets them not, has this paternal power over them -, or fuppofing the law of the land

I 3 gave

1 1 8 Of Government.

gave abfolute power over their children, to such only who nurfed them, and fed their children themselves, could any body pretend, that this law gave any one, who did no such thing, abfolute power over those, who were not his children ?

§. 103. When therefore it can be mewed, that conjugal power can belong to him that is not an hufband, it will alio I believe be ■proved, that our author's paternal power, acquired by begetting, may be inherited by a fon -, and that a brother, as heir to his father's power, may have paternal power over his brethren, and by the fame rule conjugal power too : but till then, I think we may reft fatisfied, that the paternal power of Adam, this fovereign authority of fatherhood, were there any such, could not defcend to, nor be inherited by, his next heir. Fatherly power, I eafily grant our author, if it will do him any good, can never be loft, becaufe it will be as long in the world as there are fathers : but none of them will have Adam's paternal power, or derive their's from him ; but every one will have his own, by the fame title Adam had his, viz. by begetting, but not by inheritance, or succession, no more than hufbands have their conjugal power by inheritance from Adam. And thus we fee, as Ada?n had no such property, no such paternal power, as gave him fovereign jurifdiclion over mankind ; Co likewife his fovereignty built upon either of these titles, if he had any such, could not

have

Of Government. 119

have del ended to his heir, but muft have ended with him. Adam therefore, as has been proved, being neither monarch, nor his imaginary monarchy hereditable, the power which is now in the world, is not that wiiich was Adam's, since all that Adam could have upon our author's grounds, either of property or fatherhood, neceffariiy died with him, and could not be conveyed to pofterity by inheritance. In the next place we will confider, whether Adam had any such heir, to inherit his power, as our author talks of.

Reading section 12

CHAP. X.

Of the Heir to Adam'i Monarchical Potter.

§. 104. /^UR author tells us, ObferV^/ vations, 253. That it is a truth undeniable, that there cannot be any multitude of men whatfoever, either great or Jmall, tho gathered together from the fever al corners and r emote jl regions of the world, but that in the fame multitude, confidered by its self, there is one man amongH them, that in nature hath a right to be king of all the reft, as being the next heir to Adam, and all the other fubje els to him .• every man by nature is a king or a fubje 51. And again, p. 20. i/'Adam him self were fill living, and now ready to die, it is certain that there is one man, and but one in the world, who is next heir. Let this multitude of men be, if

I 4 our

120 Of Government.

our author pleafes, all the princes upon the earth, there will then be, by our author's rule, one amongjl them, that in nature hath a right to be king of all the reft, as being the right heir to Adam ; an excellent way to eflablifh the thrones of princes, and fettle the obedience of their fubjecls, by fetting up an hundred, or perhaps a thoufand titles (if there be fo many princes in the world) againfl any king now reigning, each as good, upon our author's grounds, as his who wears the crown. If this right of heir carry any wreight with it, if it be the ordinance of God, as our author feems to tells us, Obfcrvations, 244. mufl: not all be subject to it, from the higheft to the loweft ? Can those who wear the name of princes, without having the right of being heirs to Adam, demand obedience from their fubjecls by this title, and not be bound to pay it by the fame lav/ ? Either governments in the world are not to be claimed, and held by this title of Adam's heir ; and then the ftarting of it is to no purpofe, the being or not being Adams heir fignilies nothing as to the title of dominion : or if it really be, as our author says, the true title to government and fovereignty, the firfr. thing to be done, is to find out this true heir of Adam, feat him in his throne, and then all the kings and princes of the world ought to come and refign up their crowns and fcepters to him, as things that belong no more to them, than to any of their fubjecls.

§• 105,

Of Government. 121

§. 105. For either this right in nature, of Adams heir, to be king over all the race of men, (for all together they make one multitude) is a right not neceflary to the making of a lawful king, and fo there may be lawful kings without it, and then kings titles and power depend not on it -, or elfe all the kings in the world but one are not lawful kings, and fo have no ri^ht to obedience : either this title of heir to Adam is that whereby kings hold their crowns, and have a right to fubjedtion from their fubjecls, and then one only can have it, and the reft being fubjefts can require no obedience from other men, who are but their fellow subjects ; or elfe it is not the title whereby kings rule, and have a right to obedience from their subjects, and then kings are kings without it, and this dream of the natural fovereignty of Adanis heir is of no ufe to obedience and government : for if kings have a right to dominion, and the obedience of their subjects, who are not, nor can poffibly be, heirs to Adam, what ufe is there of such a title, when we are obliged to obey without it ? If kings, who are not heirs to Adam, have no right to fovereignty, we are all free, till our author, or any body for him, will mew us Adams right heir. If there be but one heir of Adam, there can be but one lawful king in the world, and no body in confcience can be obliged to obedience till it be refolved

who

122 Of Government.

who that is ; for it may be any one, who is not known to be of a younger houfe, and all others have equal titles. If there be more than one heir of Adam, every one is his heir, and fo every one has regal power : for if two Ions can be heirs together, then all the fons are equally heirs, and fo all are heirs, being all fons, or fons fons of Adam. Betwixt these two the right of heir cannot ifand ; for by it either but one only man, or all men are kings. Take which you pleafe, it diffolves the bonds of government and obedience ; since, if all men are heirs, they can owe obedience to no body ; if only one, no body can be obliged to pay obedience to him, till he be known, and his title made out.

CHAP. XI. Who HEIR?

§. 1 06. t a ^ HE great queftion which in all ages has diflurbed mankind, and brought on them the greatefl part of those mifchiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and difordered the peace of the world, has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who mould have it. The fettling of this point being of no fmaller moment than the fecurity of princes, and the peace

and

Of Government. 123

and welfare of their eftates and kingdoms, a reformer of politics, one would think, fhould lay this fure, and be very clear in it : for if this remain difputable, all the reft will be to very little purpofe ; and the ikill ufed in dreffing up power with all the fplendor and temptation abfolutenefs can add to it, without mewing who has a right to have it, will ferve only to give a greater edge to man's natural ambition, which of its self is but too keen. What can this do but fet men on the more eagerly to fcramble, and fo lay a fure and lafting foundation of endlefs contention and diforder, inftead of that peace and tranquillity, which is the bufinefs of government, and the end of human society ?

§. 107. This deiignation of the perfon our author is more than ordinary obliged to take care of, becaufe he, affirming that the afJignment of civil power is by divine iftjiitution, hath made the conveyance as well as the power itfelf facred : fo that no coniideration, no act or art of man, can divert it from that perfon, to whom, by this divine right, it is affigned ; no neceflity or contrivance can fubftitute another perfon in his room : for if the ajjignment of civil power be by divine injlitution, and Adams heir be he to whom it is thus affigned, as in the foregoing chapter our author tells us, it would be as much facrilege for any one to be king, who was not Adam's heir, as it would have been amongfl 5 the

124 Of Government.

the Jews, for any one to have been priejl, who had not been of Aaron 's pofterity : for not only the priefthood in general being by divine inflitution, but the ajfignment of it to the fole line and pofterity of Aaron, made it impoflible to be enjoyed or exercifed by any one, but those perfons who were the ofF-fpring of Aaron : whofe succession therefore was carefully obferved, and by that the perfons who had a right to the priefthood certainly known.

§. 1 08. Let us fee then what care our author has taken, to make us know who is this heir, who by divine injlitution has a right to be king over all men. The first account of him we meet with is, p. 12. in these words : 'This fubjeclion of children, being the fountain of all regal authority, by the ordination of God bimfelf', it follows, that civil power, not only in general, is by divine injlitution, but even the alignment of it, fpecif catty to the eldejl parents. Matters of such coniequence as this is, mould be in plain words, as little liable, as might be, to doubt or equivocation ; and I think, if language be capable of expreffing any thing diftinctly and clearly, that of kindred, and the feveral degrees of nearnefs of blood, is one. It were therefore to be wifhed, that our author had ufed a little more intelligible expreflions here, that we might have better known, who it is, to whom the alignment of civil power is made by divine infiitution ; or at leaft would have told us what he meant by

el def

Of Government. 125

eldejl parents : for I believe, if land had been affigned or granted to him, and the eldejl parents of his family, he would have thought it had needed an interpreter ; and it would fcarce have been known to whom next it belonged.

§. 109. In propriety of fpeech, (and certainly propriety of fpeech is neceifary in a difcourfe of this nature) eldejl parents iignifies either the eldeft men and women that have had children, or those who have longed: had iffue ; and then our author's affertion will be, that those fathers and mothers, who have been longeft in the world, or longed: fruitful, have by divine injiitution a right to civil power. If there be any abfurdity in this, our author mud anfwer for it : and if his meaning be different from my explication, he is to be blamed, that he would not fpeak it plainly. This I am fure, parents cannot fignify heirs male, nor eldejl parents an infant child : who yet may fometimes be the true heir, if there can be but one. And we are hereby flili as much at a lofs, who civil power belongs to, notwithstanding this ajjignment by divine institution, as if there had been no such ajjignment at all, or our author had faid nothing of it. This of eldejl parents leaving us more in the dark, who by divine injiitution has a right to civil power, than those who never heard any thing at all of heir, or defcent, of which our author is fo full. And though the

chief

126 Of Government.

chief matter of his writing be to teach obedience to those, who have a right to it, which he tells us is conveyed by defcent, yet who those are, to whom this right bj defcent belongs, he leaves, like the philofopners ftone in politics, out of the reach of any one ta difcover from his writings.

§. 1 10. This obfcurity cannot be imputed to want of language in fo great a mailer of ftyle as Sir Robert is, when he is reiblved with himielf what he would fay : and therefore, I fear, finding how hard it would be to fettle rules of defcent by divine inftitution, and how little it would be to his purpofe, or conduce to the clearing and eftablifhing the titles of princes, if such rules of defcent were settled, he chofe rather to content himfelf with doubtful and general terms, which might make no ill found in mens ears, who Were willing to be pleafed with them, rather than offer any clear rules of defcent of this fatherhood of Adam, by which men's confciences might be fatisfied to whom it defcended, and know the perfons who had a right to regal power, and with it to their obedience.

§. in. How elfe is it pofTible, that laying fo much ftrefs, as he does, upon defcent, and Adam's heir, next heir, true heir, he fhould never tell us what heir means, nor the way to know who the next or true heir is ? This, I do not remember, he does any where expreily

Of Government. 127

prefly handle ; but, where it comes in his way, very warily and doubtfully touches ; though it be fo neceflary, that without it all difcourfes of government and obedience upon his principles would be to no purpofe, and

fatherly power, never fo well made out, will be of no ufe to any body. Hence he tells us, Obfervations, 244. That not only the conJlitution of power in general, but the limitation of it to one kind, (i. e.) monarchy, and thi determination of it to the individual perfon and line of Adam, are all three ordinances of God ; neither Eve nor her children coidd either limit Adam's power, or join others with him ; and w was given unto Adam was given in his perfon to his pojierity. Here again our author informs us, that the divine ordinance hath limited the defcent of Adams monarchical power. To whom ? To Adam's line and pojierity, says our author. A notable limitation, a limitation to all mankind : for if our author can find any one amongft mankind, that is not of the line and pojierity of Adam, he may perhaps tell him, who this next heir of Adam is : but for us, I defpair how this limitation of Adam's empire to his line and poflerity will help us to find out one heir. This limitation indeed of our author will fave those the labour, who would look for him amongft the race of brutes, if any such there were ; but will very little contribute to the difcovery of one next heir amongft men, though it make a mort and eafy determination of the queftion

about

128 Of Government.

about the defcent of Adams regal power, by telling us, that the line and pojlerity of Adam is to have it, that is, in plain Engli/h, any one may have it, since there is no perfon living that hath not the title of being of the line and pojlerity of Adam ; and whileit keeps there, it keeps within our author's limitation by God's ordinance. Indeed, p. 19. he tells us, that Juch heirs are ?iot only cords of their own children, but of their brethren ; whereby, and by the words following, which we mail coniider anon, he feems to infinuate, that the eldefl fon is heir ; but he no where, that I know, says it in direct words, but by the inftances of Cain and Jacob, that there follow, we may allow this to be fo far his opinion concerning heirs, that where there are divers children, the eldefl fon has the right to be heir. That primogeniture cannot give any title to paternal power, we have already fhewed. That a father may have a natural right to some kind of power over his children, is eafily granted 3 but that an elder brother has fo over his brethren, remains to be proved : God or nature has not any where, that I know, placed such jurifdiction in the first-born ; nor can reafon find any such natural fuperiority amongft brethren. The law of Mofes gave a double portion of the goods and pofTerTions to the eldefl:; but we find not any where that naturally, or by God's injiitution, fuperiority or dominion belonged to him, and the inftances there brought

by

Of Government. 129

by our author are but ilender proofs of a right to civil power and dominion in the first-born, and do rather (hew the contrary.

§. 112. His words are in the forecited place : And therefore we find God told Cain of his brother Abel ; his defire shall be fubjecl unto thee, and thou Jhalt rule over him. To which I anfwer,

1 . these words of God to Cain, are by many interpreters, with great reafon, understood in a quite different fenfe than what our author ufes them in.

2. Whatever was meant by them, it could not be, that Cain, as elder, had a natural dominion over Abel; for the words are conditional, If thou dojl well \ and fo perfonal to Cain : and whatever was fignified by them, did depend on his carriage, and not follow his birth-right ; and therefore could by no means be an eftabliihtnent of dominion in the firit-born in general : for before this Abel had his diflincl territories by right of private dominion, as our author him/elf conferTes, Objervations, 210. which he could not have had to the prejudice of the heirs title, if by divine injlituiion, Cain as heir were to inherit all his father's dominion.

Reading section 13

3. If this were intended by God as the charter of primogeniture, and the grant of dominion to elder brothers in general as such, by right of inheritance, we might expect it fhould have included all his brethren : for

K we

J30 Of Government.'

we may well suppose, Adam, from whom the world was to be peopled, had by this time, that these were grown up to be men, more fons than these two : whereas Abel himfelf is not fo much as named -, and the words in the original can fcarce, with any good conftruction, be applied to him.

4. It is too much to build a doctrine of fo mighty confequence upon fo doubtful and obfcure a place of scripture, which may be well, nay better, underftood in a quite different fenfe, and fo can be but an ill proof, being as doubtful as the thing to be proved by it ; efpecially when there is nothing elfe in scripture or reafon to be found, that favours or fupports it.

§. 113. It follows, p. 19. Accordingly when Jacob bought his brother s birth-right > Ifaac blefj'ed him thus -, Be lord over thy brethren, and let the fons of thy mother bow before thee. Another inftance, I take it, brought by our author to evince dominion due to birth-right, and an admirable one it is : for it muft be no ordinary way of reafoning in a man, that is pleading for the natural power of kings, and againfr. all compact, to bring for proof of it, an example, where his own account of it founds all the right upon compact, and fettles empire in the younger brother, unlefs buying and felling be no compact ; for he tells us, when Jacob height his brother s birthright. But paging by that, let us confider

the

Of Government. 131

the hiftory itfelf, with what ufe our author makes of it, and we shall find these following miftakes about it.

1 . That our author reports this, as if Ifaac had given 'Jacob this bleffing, immediately upon his purchafing the birth- right ; for he says, when Jacob bought, lfaac blejfed him -, which is plainly otherwife in the scripture : for it appears, there was a diflance of time between, and if we will take the ftory in the order it lies, it muft be no fmall diflance $ all Ifaac s fojourning in Gerar, and tranfa&ions with Abimelech, Gen. xxvi. coming between ; Rebecca being then beautiful, and confequently young ; but Ifaac, when he bleffed Jacob, was old and decrepit : and Efau alfo complains of Jacob, Gen. xxvii. 36. that two times he had fupplanted him ; He took away my birth-right, says he, and behold now he hath taken away my blejjing -, words, that I think fignify diflance of time and difference of action.

2. Another miflake of our author's is, that he fuppofes Ifaac gave Jacob the bleffing, and bid him be lord over his brethren, becaufe he had the birth-right-, for our author brings this example to prove, that he that has the birth-right, has thereby a right to be lord over his brethren. But it is alfo manifeft by the text, that Ifaac had no confideration of Jacob's having bought the birth-right ; for when he bleffed him, he confidered him not

K 2 as

1^2 Of Government.

as Jacob, but took him for Efau. Nor did Efau underftand any such conne&ion between birth-right and the blejjing -, for he says, He hath fupplanted me these two times, he took away my birth-right, and behold now he hath taken away my bleffmg: whereas had the blejjing, which was to be lord over his brethren, belonged to the birth-right, Efau could not have complained of this fecond, as a cheat, Jacob having got nothing but what Efau had fold him, when he fold him his birth-right ; fo that it is plain, dominion, if these words fignify it, was not underftood to belong to the birth-right.

§. 114. And that in those days of the patriarchs, dominion was not underftood to be the right of the heir, but only a greater portion of goods, is plain from Gen. xxi. 10. for Sarah, taking Ifaac to be heir, says, Caft out this bondwoman and her fon, for the fori of this bondwoman fball not be heir with my fon : whereby could be meant nothing, but that he lhould not have a pretence to an equal (hare of his father's eilate after his death, but fhould have his portion prefently, and be gone. Accordingly we read, Gen. xxv. 5,6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Ifaac, but unto the Jons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and put them away from Ifaac his fon, while he yet lived. That is, Abraham having given portions to all his other fons, and fent them

away,

Of Government. 133

away, that which he had referved, being the greateft part of his substance, Ifaac as heir pofTefTed after his death : but by being heir, he had no right to be lord, over his brethren ; for if he had, why fhould Sarah endeavour to rob him of one of his fubjecls, or leiTen the number of his JIaves, by deiiring to have IJhmael fent away ?

§. 115. Thus, as under the law, the privilege of birth-right was nothing but a double portion : fo we fee that before Mofes, in the patriarchs time, from whence our author pretends to take his model, there was no knowledge, no thought, that birth-right o-ave rule or empire, paternal or kingly authority, to any one over his brethren. If this be net plain enough in the ftory of Ifaac and Ijhnael, he that will look into 1 Chron. v. 12. may there read these words: Reuben was the fir ftborn ; but for a/much as he defied his father 's bed, his birth- right was given unto the fans of Jofepb, the fon of Ifrael: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birth-right ; for Judah prevailed above his brethren, a?id of him came the chief ruler ; but the birth -right was Jofepb's. What this birth-right was, Jacob blemng Jofepb, Gen. xlviii. 22. telleth us in these words, Moreover I have given thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite, with my fword and with my bow. Whereby it is not only plain, that the birth-right was nothing but a double K 3 portion,

134 Of Government.

portion j but the text in Chronicles is exprefs againft our author's doctrine, and mews that dominion was no part of the birth-right ; for it tells us, thaxjofipb had the birth-right, but Judah the dominion. One would think our author were very fond of the very name of birth-right, when he brings this inftance of Jacob and Efau, to prove that dominion belongs to the heir over his brethren.

§. 116. i. Becaufe it will be but an ill example to prove, that dominion by God's ordination belonged to the eldeft fon, becaufe Jacob the youngeft here had it, let bim come by it how he would : for if it prove any thing, it can only prove, againft our author, that the afjigtiment of dominion to the eldejl is not by divine infiitution, which would then be unalterable : for if by the law of God, or nature, abfolute power and empire belongs to the eldeft fon and his heirs, fo that they are supreme monarchs, and all the reft of their brethren flaves, our author gives us reafon to doubt whether the eldeft fon has a power to part with it, to the prejudice of his pofterity, since he tells us, Objervations, 158. That in grants and gifts that have their origi?ial from God or nature , no inferior power of man cati limit, or make any law of prescription againjl them.

§. 117. 2. Becaufe this place, Gen. xxvii.

29. brought by our author, concerns not at

all the dominion of one brother over the

5 ©ther.

Of Government. 135

other, nor the fubjection of Efau to Jacob : for it is plain in the hiftory, that Efau was never fubjcct to Jacob, but lived apart in mount Seir, where he founded a diftinct people and government', and was himfelf prince over them, as much as Jacob was in his own family. This text, if confidered, can never be understood of Efau himfelf, or the perfonal dominion of Jacob over him : for the words brethren and fons of thy mother, could not be ufed literally by Ifaac, who knew Jacob had only one brother -, and these words are fo far from being true in a literal fenfe, or eftablifhing any dominion in Jacob over Efau, that in the /lory we find the quite contrary, for Gen, xxxii. Jacob feveral times calls Efau lord, and himfelf his servant ; and Gen. xxxiii. he bowed himfelf f even times to the ground to Efau. Whether Efau then were a subject, and vaffal (nay, as our author tells us, all subjects are flaves) to Jacob, and Jacob his fovereign prince by birth-right, I leave the reader to judge; and to believe if he can, that these words of Ifaac, Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother s fons bow down to thee, confirmed Jacob in a fovereignty over Efau, upon the account of the birth-right he had got from him.

§. 118. He that reads the flory of Jacob and Efau, will find there was never any jurifdiction or authority, that either of them had over the other after their father's death : they

K 4 lived

i:6 Of Government.

lived with the friendfhip and equality of brethren, neither lord, neither Jlave to his brother ; but independent each of other, were both heads of their diftincl families, where they received no laws from one another, but lived feparately, and were the roots out of which fprang two diftinc~t people under two diftincl governments. This bleMing then of Ifaac, whereon our author would build the dominion of the elder brother, fignirles no more, but what Rebecca had been told from God, Gen. xxv. 23. Two nations are in thy womb, and two mamier of people Jlja/l be feparated from thy bowels, and the one people Jhall be flronger than the other people, and the elder Jhall Jerve the younger ; and fo Jacob bleffed fndah, Gen, xlix. and gave him the fcepter and dominion, from wThence our author mi^ht nave argued as well, that jurifdiction and dominion belongs to the third fon over his brethren, as well as from this bleffing of Ifaac, that it belonged to facob : both these places contain only predictions of what mould long after happen to their pofterities, and not any declaration of the right of inheritance to dominion in either. And thus we have our author's two great and only arguments to prove, that heirs are lords over their brethren.

1. Becaufe God tells Cain, Gen.iv. that however fin might fet upon him, he ought cr might be m after of it ; for the mod learned

interpreters

Of Government. 137

interpreters underftood the words of fin, and not of Abel, and give fo strong reafons for it, that nothing can convincingly be inferred, from fo doubtful a text, to our author's purpofe.

2. Becaufe in this of Gen. xxvii. Ifaac foretels that the Ifraelites, the pofterity of 'Jacob, mould have dominion over the Edc/nites, the pofterity of Efau -, therefore says our author, heirs are lords of their brethren : I leave any one to judge of the concluiion.

§. 119. And now we fee how our author has provided for the defcending, and conveyance down of Adams monarchical power, or paternal dominion to pofterity, by the inheritance of his heir, fucceeding to all his father's authority, and becoming upon his death as much lord as his father was, not only over his own children, but over his brethren, and all defcended from his father, and fo in infinitum. But yet who this heir is, he does not once tell us ; and all the light we have from him in this fo fundamental a point, is only, that in his inftance of Jacob, by ufing the word birth-right, as that which pafled from Efau to Jacob, he leaves us to guefs, that by heir, he means the eldeft fon ; though I do not remember he any where mentions exprefiy the title of the first-born, but all along keeps himfelf under the fhelter of the indefinite term heir. But taking it to be his meaning, that the eldeft fon is heir,

(for

138 Of Government.

(for if the eldeft be not, there will be no pretence why the fons (hould not be all heirs alike) and fo by right of primogeniture has dominion over his brethren j this is but one ftep towards the fettlement of fuccelTion, and the difficulties remain frill as much as ever, till he can (hew us who is meant by right heir, in all those cafes which may happen where the prefent poiTeiTor hath no fon. This he iilently paries over, and perhaps wifely too : for what can be wifer, aftqr one has affirmed, that the perfon having that power, as well as the power and form of government, is the ordinance of God, and by divine injlitution, vid. Cbfervations, 254. p. 12. than to be careful, not to itart any queflion concerning the perfon, the refolution whereof will certainly lead him into a confefllon, that God and nature hath determined nothing about him ? And if our author cannot shew who by right of nature, or a clear pofitive law of God, has the next right to inherit the dominion of this natural monarch he has been at such pains about, when he died without a fon, he might have fpared his pains in all the reft, it being more neceflary for the fettling men's confciences, and determining their fubjection and allegiance, to mew them who by original right, superior and antecedent to the will, or any act. of men, hath a title to this paternal jur if diBion, than it is to shew that by nature there was

fuck

Of Government. 139

such a jurifdittion -, it being to no purpofe for me to know there is such a paternal power, which I ought, and am difpofed to obey, unlefs, where there are many pretenders, I alfo know the perfon that is rightfully invefled and endowed with it.

§. 120. For the main matter in queftion being concerning the duty of my obedience, and the obligation of confcience I am under to pay it to him that is of right my lord and ruler, I muft know the perfon that this right of paternal power refides in, and fo impowers him to claim obedience from me : for let it be true what he says, p. 12. That civil power not only in general is by divine infitution, but even the alignment of it fpedaily to the eldejl parents ; and Observations, 254. 'That not only the power or right of government, but the form of the power of governing, and the perfon having that power, are all the ordinance of God-, yet unlefs he shew us in all cafes who is this perfon, ordained by God, who is this eldejl parent ; all his abftract notions of monarchical power will fignify juft nothing, when they are to be reduced to practice, and men are confcientioufly to pay their obedience : for paternal jurifdicfion being not the thing to be obeyed, becaufe it cannot command, but is only that which gives one man a right which another hath not, and if it come by inheritance, another man cannot have, to command and

be

140 Of Government.

be obeyed ; it is ridiculous to fay, I pay obedience to the -paternal power, when I obey him, to whom paternal power gives no right to my obedience : for he can have no divine right to my obedience, who cannot mew his divine right to the power of ruling over me, as well as that by divine right there is such a power in the world.

§. 121. And hence not being able to make out any prince's title to government, as heir to Adam, which therefore is* of no ufe, and had been better let alone, he is fain to refolve all into prefent porTeffion, and makes civil obedience as due to an nfurper, as to a lawful king ; and thereby the ufurpers title as good. His words are, Obfervations, 253. and they deferve to be remembered : If an ufurper difpoffefs the true heir, the fubjcBs obedience to the fatherly power mufl go along, and wait upon God's providence. But I mall leave his title of ufurpers to be examined in its due place, and defire my fober reader to confider what thanks princes owe such politics as this, which can suppose paternal power (/. e.) a 'light to government in the hands of a Cade, or a Cromwell-, and fo all obedience being due to paternal power, the obedience of subjects will be due to them, by the fame right, and upon as good grounds, as it is to lawful princes; and yet this, as dangerous a doctrine as it is, muH: neceffarily follow from making all political power to be nothing elfe, but

Reading section 14

Adam's

Of Government. 141

Adam's paternal power by right and divine inflitution, defcending from him without being able to (hew to whom it defcended, or who is heir to it.

§. 122. To fettle government in the world, and to lay obligations to obedience on any man's conference, it is as neceffary (fuppoiing with our author that all power be nothing but the being poffefled of Adam's fatherhood) to satisfy him, who has a right to this power, this fatherhood, when the poiTeflbr dies without fons to fucceed immediately to it, as it was to tell him, that upon the death of the father, the eldefl fon had a right to it : for it is ftill to be remembered, that the great queftion is, (and that which our author would be thought to contend for, if he did not fometimes forget it) what perfons have a right to be obeyed, and not whether there be a power in the world, which is to be called paternal, without knowing in whom it refides : for fo it be a power, i. e. right to govern, it matters not, whether it be termed paternal or regal, natural or acquired-, whether you call it supreme fatherhood, or fupr -erne brotherhood, will be all one, provided we know who has it.

§. 123. I go on then to a{k, whether in the

inheriting of this paternal power, this supreme

fatherhood, the grandfon by a daughter hath

a right before a nephew by a brother ? Whe- ther the grandfon by the eldeft fon, being an

infant,

142 Op Government.

infant, before the younger fon, a man and able ? Whether the daughter before the uncle ? or any other man, defcended by a male line ? Whether a grandfon by a younger daughter, before a grand-daughter by an elder daughter ? Whether the elder fon by a concubine, before a younger fon by a wife ? From whence alfo will arife many queflions of legitimation, and what in nature is the difference betwixt a wife and a concubine ? for as to the municipal or pofitive laws of men, they can fignify nothing here. It may farther be afked, Whether the eldeft fon, being a fool, (hall inherit this paternal power, before the younger, a wife man ? and what degree of folly it muft be that shall exclude him ? and who shall be judge of it ? Whether the fon of a fool, excluded for his folly, before the fon of his wife brother who reigned ? Who has the paternal power whilfl the widow- queen is with child by the deceafed king, and no body knows whether it will be a fon or a daughter ? Which shall be heir of the two male-twins, who by the diffection of the mother were laid open to the world ? Whether a fifter by the half blood, before a brother's daughter by the whcle blood ?

§. 124. these, and many more such doubts, might be propofed about the titles of fucceflion, and the right of inheritance; and that not as idle fpeculatidns, but such as in

hiitory

Of Government. 143

hiftory we mall find have concerned the inheritance of crowns and kingdoms ; and if our's want them, we need not go farther for famous examples of . it, than the other kingdom in this very ifland, which having been fully related by the ingenious and learned author of Patriarcha non Monarcha, I need fay no more of. Till our author hath refolved all the doubts that may arife ajpout the next heir, and mewed that they are plainly determined by the law of nature, or the revealed law of God, all his fuppoiitions of a monarchicaly abfoliite, fnpreme, paternal power in Adam, and the defcent of that power to his heirs, would not be of the leaf! ufe to eftablifh the authority, or make out the title, of any one prince now on earth; but would rather unfettle and bring all into queflion : for let our author tell us as long as he pleafes, and let all men believe it too, that Adam had a paternal, and thereby a monarchical power; that this (the only power in the world) deJcended to his heirs ; and that there is no other power in the world but this : let this be all as clear demonftration, as it is manifeft error, yet if it be not paft doubt, to whom this paternal power defcends, and whofe now it is, no body can be under any obligation of obedience, unlefs any one will fay, that I am bound to pay obedience to paternal power in a man who has no more paternal power thanI myfelf -, which is all one as to fay, I obey a man, becaufe he has a right to govern ;

and

144 O F Government. and if I be afked, how I know he has a right to govern, I mould anfwer, it cannot be known, that he has any at all : for that cannot be the reafon of my obedience, which I know not to be fo ; much lefs can that be a reafon of my obedience, which no body at all can know to be fo.

§. 125. And therefore all this ado about Adam s fatherhood, the greatnefs of its power, and the necefiity of its fuppofal, helps nothing to eftabliih the power of those that govern, or to determine the obedience of iubjects who are to obey, if they cannot tell whom they are to obey, or it cannot be known who are to govern, and who to obey. In the state the world is now, it is irrecoverably ignorant, who is Adams heir. This father 'hood, this monarchical power of Adam, defcending to his heirs, would be of no more life to the government of mankind, than it would be to the quieting of mens confciences, or fecuring their healths, if our author had allured them, that Adam had a power to forgive fins, or cure difeafes, which by divine inftitution defcended to his heir, whilft this heir is impoilible to be known. And (hould not he do as rationally, who upon this affurance of our author went and confefTed his fins, and expected a good abfolution ; or took phylic with expectation of health, from any one who had taken on himfelf the name of prieft or phyfician, or thru ft himfelf into those employments, faying, I acquiefce in 1 the

Of Government. 145

the abfolving power defcending from Adam, or I mall be cured by the medicinal power defcending from Adam j as he who says, I fubmit to and obey the paternal power defcending from Adam, when it is confefTed all these powers defcend only to his iingle heir, and that heir is unknown ?

§. 126. It is true, the civil lawyers have pretended to determine some of these cafes concerning the succession of princes; but by our author's principles, they have meddled in a matter that belongs not to them : for if all political power be derived only from Adam, and be to defcend only to his fucceffive heirs, by the ordinance of God and divine i72ft.it ut ion, this is a right antecedent and paramount to all government ; and therefore the poiitive laws of men cannot determine that, which is itfelf the foundation of all law and government, and is to receive its rule only from the law of God and nature. And that being filent in the cafe, I am apt to think there is no such right to be conveyed this way : I am fure it would be to no purpofe if there were, and men would be more at a lofs concerning government, and obedience to governors, than if there were no such right; lince by pofitive laws* and compact, which divine infitution (if there be any) (huts out, all these endlefs inextricable doubts can be fafely provided againil : but it can never be underftood, how a divine natural right, and that of such moment as is all order and peace in the world, mould be conL veyed

146 Of Government.

veyed down to pofterity, without any plain natural or divine rule concerning it. And there would be an end of all civil government, if the alignment of civil power were by divine injiitution to the heir, and yet by that divine injiitution the perfon of the heir could not be known. This paternal regal power being by divine right only his, it leaves no room for human prudence, or confent, to place it any where elfe ; for if only one man hath a divine right to the obedience of mankind, no body can claim that obedience, but he that can mew that right ; nor can men's confeiences by any other pretence be obliged to it. And thus this doctrine cuts up all government by the roots.

§. 1 27. Thus we fee how our author, laying it for a fure foundation, that the very perfon that is to rule, is the ordinance of God, and by divine injiitution, tells us at large, only that this perfon is the heir, but who this heir is, he leaves us to guefs ; and fo this divine injiitution, which afligns it to a perfon whom we have no rule to know, is jufr. as good as an affignment to no body at all. But whatever our author does, divine injiitution makes no such ridiculous alignments : nor can God be supposed to make it a facred law, that one certain perfon mould have a right to fomething, and yet not give rules to mark out, and know that perfon by, or give an heir a divine right to power, and yet not point out who that heir is. It is rather to be thought, that an

heir

OF Government. 147

heir had no such right by divine inftitution, than that God mould give such a right to the heir, but yet leave it doubtful and undeterminable who such heir is.

§. 128. If God had given the JandofCVz72aan to Abraham, and in general terms to some body after him, without naming his feed, whereby it might be known who that fomebody was, it would have been as good and ufeful an alignment, to determine the right to the land of Canaan, as it would be the determining the right of crowns, to give empire to Adam and his fucceffive heirs after him, without telling who his heir is : for the word heir, without a rule to know who it is, fignifies no more than some body, I know not whom. God making it a divine injiitution, that men mould not marry those who were near of kin, thinks it not enough to fay, None of you fiall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakednefs ; but moreover, gives rules to know who are those near of kin, forbidden by divine injlitution -, or elfe that law would have been of no ufe, it being to no purpofe to lay reftraint, or give privileges to men, in such general terms, as the particular perfon concerned cannot be known by. But God not having any where laid, the next heir mall inherit all his father's eftate or dominion, we are not to wonder, that he hath no where' appointed who that heir mould be ; for never having intended any such thing, never deL z ilgned

143 Of Government.

figned any heir in that fenfe, we cannot expect he fhould any where nominate, or appoint any perfon to it, as we might, had it been other wife. And therefore in scripture, though the word heir occur, yet there is no such thing as heir in our author's fenfe, one that was by right of nature to inherit all that his father had, exclufive of his brethren. Hence Sarah fuppofes, that if Iflmiael ftaid in the houfe, to mare in Abrahams eftate after his death, this fon of a bond-woman might be heir with Ifaac ; and therefore, says she, caft out this band-woman and her fon, for the fon of this bond-woman jl:all not be heir with my fon : but this cannot excufe our author, who telling us there is, in every number of men, one who is right and next heir to Adam, ought to have told us what the laws of defcent are : but he having been io fparing to inftrucT: us by rules, how to know who is heir, let us fee in the next place, what his hiftory out of scripture, on which he pretends wholly to build his government, ^ives us in this neceflarv and fundamental point.

§. 129. Our author, to make good the title of his book, p. 1 ?. begins his hiftory of the defcent of Adams regal power, p. 13. in thefc words : This Icrdjhip which Adam by command had over the whole world, and by right defc ending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, was a large, &c. Flow does he prove that the patriarchs by defcent did enjoy it ?

for

Of Government. 149

for dominion of life and death, says he, we find Judah the father pronounced fentence of death againjl Thamar his daughter in law for playing the harlot , p. 13. How does this prove that Judah had abfolute and fovereign authority ? be pronounced fentence of death. The pronouncing of fentence of death is not a certain mark of fovereignty, but ufually the office of inferior magiftrates. The power of making laws of life and death is indeed a mark of fovereignty, but pronouncing the fentence according to those laws may be done by others, and therefore this will but ill prove that he had fovereign authority: as if one mould fay, Judge Jeff'eries pronounced fentence of death in the late times, therefore Judge Jeff'eries had fovereign authority. But it will be faid, Judah did it not by commiflion from another, and therefore did it in his own right. Who knows whether he had any right at all ? Heat of paflion might carry him to do that which he had no authority to do. Judah had dominion of life and death : how does that appear ? He exercifed it, he pronounced fentence of death againjl Thamar : our author thinks it is very good proof, that becaufe he did it, therefore he had a right to do it : he lay with her alfo : by the fame way of proof, he had a right to do that too. If the confequence be good from doing to a right of doing, Abfalom too may be reckoned amongft our author's foveL 3 reigns,

I co Of Govern m e n t.

reigns, for he pronounced such a fentcnce of death againft his brother jimnon, and much upon a like occafion, and had it executed too, if that be Sufficient to prove a dominion of life and death.

But allowing this all to be clear demonstration of fovereign power, who was it that had this lordfhip by right defeending to him from Adam, as large and ample as the abfoluteft do~ minion of any monarch f judah, says our author, Judah a younger fon of Jacob, his father and elder brethren living ; fo that if our author's own proof be to be taken, a younger brother may, in the life of his father and elder brothers, by right of defcent, enjoy Adam'i monarchical power j and if one fo qualified may be monarch by defcent, why may not every man ? if Judah, his father and elder brother living, were one of Adam's heirs, I know not who can be excluded from this inheritance; all men by inheritance may be monarchs as well as judah.

§. 130. Touching war, ^ce fee that Abraham commanded an army of 318 foldiers of his own family, and Efau met his brother Jacob with 400 men at arms : for matter of peace, Abraham made a league with Abimelech, &c. p. 13. Is it not poffible for a man to have 318 men in his- family, without being heir to Adam f A planter in the Weft Indies has more, and might, if he pleafed, (who doubts ?) mufter them up and lead them out

againft

Of Government. 151

againft the Indians, to feek reparation upon any injury received from them ; and all this without the abfolute dominion of a monarch, dcfe ending to him from Adam. Would it not be an admirable argument to prove, that all power by God's inftitution defcended from Adam by inheritance, and that the very perfon and power of this planter were the ordinance of God, becaufe he had power in his family over fervants, born in his houfe, and bought with his money ? For this was juft Abrahams cafe; those who were rich in the patriarch's days, as in the Weft Indies now, bought men and maid fervants, and by their increafe, as well as purchafing of new, came to have large and numerous families, which though they made ufe of in war or peace, <:an it be thought the power they had over them was an inheritance defcended from Adam, when it was the purchafe of their money ? A man's riding in an expedition againft an enemy, his horfe bought in a fair would be as good a proof that the owner enjoyed the lordjhip which Adam by command bad over the whole world, by right dcfcending to him, as Abrahams leading out the fervants of his family is, that the patriarchs enjoyed this lordfhip by defcent from Adam : since the title to the power, the mailer had in both cafes, whether over Haves or horfes, was only from his purchafe ; and the getting a dominion over any thing by bargain and L 4 money,

Reading section 15

152 Of Government.

money, is anew way of proving one had it by defcent and inheritance.

§. 131. But making war and peace are marks of fivereignty. Let it be ib in politic focities : may not therefore a man in the V/efi Indies, who hath with him fons of his own, friends, or companions, foldiers under pay, or flaves bought with money, or perhaps a band made up of all these, make war and peace, if there mould be occaiion, and ratify the articles too with an oath, without being a fovereign, an abfolute king over those who went with him r He that law-, he cannot, mull then allow many mailers of fhips, many private planters, to be abfolute monarchs, for as much as this they have done. War and peace cannot be made for politic focieties, but by the supreme power of such focieties ; becaufe war and ceace, vivins: a different motion to the force of such a politic body, none can make war or peace, but that which has the direction of the force of the whole body, and that in politic focieties is only the supreme power. In voluntary focieties for the time, he that has such a power by confent, may make war and peace, and ib may a iingle man for himfeif, the ilate of war not confifling in the number of partifans, but the enmity of the parties, where they have no superior to appeal to.

§. 132. The actual making of war or peace is no proof of any other power, but only;

0?

Of Government. 153

oF difpofing those to exercife or ceafe ads of enmity for whom he makes it; and this power in many cafes any one may have without any politic fupremacy : and therefore the making of war or peace will not prove that every one that does (0 is a politic ruler, much lefs a kino; ; for then common-wealths mud be kings too, for they do as certainly make war and peace as monarchical government.

§. 133. But granting this a mark of fiverelgnty in Abraham, is it a proof of the defcent to him of Adams fovereignty over the whole world ? If it be, it will furely be as good a proof of the defcent of Adam'j- lordjliip to others too. And then common-wealths, as well as Abraham, will be heirs of Adam, for they make 'war and peace, as well as he. If you fay, that the lordjhip of Adam doth not by right defcend to common-wealths, though they make war and peace, the fame fay I of Abraham, and then there is an end of your argument : if you iland to your argument, and fay those that do make war and peace, as common-wealths do without doubt, do inherit Adam'j- lordjhip, there is an end of your monarchy, unlefs you will fay, that commonwealths by defcent ev.jcying Adam'j /ord/hip are monarchies -, and that indeed would be a new way of making all the governments in the "world monarchical.

1 54 Of Government.

§. 134. To give our author the honour of this new invention, for I confefs it is not I have firfi found it out by tracing his principles, and fo charged it on him, it is fit my readers know that (as abfurd as it may feem) he teaches it himfelf, p. 23. where he ingenuoufly says, In all kingdoms and common* wealths in the world, whether the prince be the fupr erne father of the people, or but the true heir to such a father, or come to the crow?: by u furcation or eleciion, or whether feme few or a 7/iultitude govern the common-wealth ; yet fill the authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all these, is the only right, and natural authority of a supreme father ; which right of fatherhood, he often tells us, is regal and royal authority-, as particularly, p. 12. the page immediately preceding this inftance of Abraham. This regal authority, he says, those that govern common-wealths have ; and if it be true, that regal and royal authority be in those that govern common-wealths, it is as true that common-wealths are governed by kings; for if regal authority be in him that governs, he that governs muft needs be a king, and fo all common- wealths are nothing but down-right monarchies; and then what need any more ado about the matter ? The governments of the world are as they mould be, there is nothing but monarchy in it. This, without doubt, was the fureft way our author could have found, to turn all

other

Of Government. 155

other governments, but monarchical, out of the world.

§. 135. But all this fcarce proves Abraham to have been a king, as heir to Adam. If by inheritance he had been king, hot, who was of the fame family, mull needs have been his fubjecl, by that title, before the fervants in his family ; but we fee they lived as friends and equals, and when their herdfmen could not agree, there was no pretence of jurifdiction or fuperiority between them, but they parted by confent, Gen. xiii. hence he is called both by Abraham, and by the text, Abraham s brother, the name of friendship and equality, and not of jurifdiclion and authority, though he were really but his nephew. And if our author knows that Abraham was Adam'b heir, and a king, it was more, it feems, than Abraham himielf knew, or his servant whom he fent a wooing for his fon -, for when he fets out the advantages* of the match, xxiv. Gen, 35. thereby to prevail with the young woman and her friends* he says, / am Abraham's servant, and the lord hath bkffed my majier greatly, and he is become great ; and he hath given hint flocks and herds, and filver and gold, and -men- fervants and maidfervants, and camels and aJJ'es ; a?id Sarah, my majier s wife, bare a fon to my mafler when Jhe was old, and unto him hath he given all he hath. Can one think that a difcreet servant, that was thus particular to fet out his mailer's

greatnefs,

156 Of Government.

greatnefs, would have omitted the crown Ifaac was to have, if he had known of any iiich ? Can it he imagined he fhould have neglected to have told them on such an 00 caiion as this, that Abraham was a king, a name well known at that time, for he had nine of them his neighbours, if he or his mailer had thought any such thing, the likelier! matter of all the reft, to make his errand fuccefsful ?

§. 136. But this difcovery it feems v/as referved for our author to make 2 or 3000 years after, and let him enjoy the credit of it •, only he mould have taken care that some of Adam's land mould have defcended to this his heir, as well as all Adams lordfhip : for though this lordfhip which Abraham, (if we may believe our author) as well as the other patriarchs, by right defcending to him, did enjoy, was as large and ample as the abfolnteji dominion of any monarch which hath been fmce the creation, yet his eftate, his territories, his dominions were very narrow and fcanty, for he had not the pofTeffion of a foot of land, till he bought a field and a cave of the fons of Heth to burv Sarah in.

§. 137. The inftance of Efau joined with this of Abraham, to prove that the lordjhip which Adam had over the whole world, by right defcending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, is yet more pleafant than the former. EJau met his brother Jacob with 400 men at arms ; he

1 therefore,

Of Government. 157

therefore was a king by right of heir to Adam. Four hundred armed men then, however got together, are enough to prove him that leads them, to be a king and Adams heir. There have been tories in Ireland, (whatever there are in other countries) who would have thanked our author for fo honourable an opinion of them, efpecially if there had been no body near with a better title of 500 armed men, to question their royal authority of 400. It is a fhame for men to trifle fo, to fay no worfe of it, in fo ferious an argument. Here Efau is brought as a proof that Adam's lordihip, Adam's abfolute dominion, as large as thai of any monarch, defended by right to the patriarchs, and in this very chap. p. 19. Jacob is brought as an inftance of one, that by birth -right was lord over his brethren. So we have here two brothers abfolute monarchs by the fame title, and at the fame time heirs to Adam ; the eldeft, heir to Adam, becaufe he met his brother with 400 men ; and the youngeft, heir to Adam by birth-right : Efau enjoyed the lordfip which Adam bad over the whole world by right defcending to him, in as large and ample -manner, as the abjolutejl dominion of any monarch; and at the fame time, "Jacob lord over him, by the right heirs have to be lords over their brethren. Rifum teneatis f I never, I confefs, met with any man of parts fo dexterous as Sir Robert at this way of arguing: but it was his misfortune to

light

1 58 Of Govern m e n t.

light upon an hypothecs, that could not bt accommodated to the nature of things, and human affairs ; his principles could not be made to agree with that conftitution and order, which God had settled in the world, and therefore mull needs often clafh with common fenfe and experience.

§. 138. In the next fection, he tells us, This patriarchal power continued not only till the food, but after it, as the name patriarch doth in part prove. The word patriarch doth more than in part prove, that patriarchal power continued in the world as long as there were patriarchs, for it is necefiary that patriarchal power mould be whilft there are patriarchs ; as it is necefiary there mould be paternal or conjpgdr power whilft there are fathers or hufbands ; but this is but playing with names. That which he would fallacioufly in fin u ate is the thing in queftion to be proved, viz. that the lordfiip which Adam had ever the world, the luppofed abfolute univerfal dominion of Adam by right defending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy. If he affirms such an abfolute monarchy continued to the flood, in the world, I would be glad to know what records he has it from ; for I confefs I cannot find a word of it in my Bible : if by patriarchal power he means any thing elfe, it is nothing to the matter in hand. And how the name patriarch in some part proves, that those, who are called by that

name,

Of Government. 159

name, had abfolute monarchical power, I confefs, I do not fee, and therefore I think needs no anfwer till the argument from it be made out a little clearer.

§. 139. The three fons of Noah had the world, Jays our author, divided amongjl them by their father, for of them was the whole world overfpread, p. 14. The world might be overfpread by the offspring of Noah's fons, though he never divided the world amongft them -, for the earth might be replenished without being divided : fo that all our author's argument here proves no such diviiion. However, I allow it to him, and then afk, the world being divided amongft them, which of the three was Adams heir ? If Adam's lordfjip, Adam's monarchy, by right defcended only to the eldeft, then the other two could be but his fabjecis, his /laves : if by right it defcended to all three brothers, by the fame right, it will defcend to all mankind; and then it will be impoffible v/hat he says, p. 19. that heirs are lords of their brethren, mould be true ; but all brothers, and confequently all men, will be equal and independent, all heirs to Adams monarchy, and confequently all monarchs too, one as much as another. But it will be faid, Noah their father divided the world amongft them ; fo that our author will allow more to Noah, than he will to God almighty, for Objervations, 211. he thought it hard, that God himfelf mould give the world to Noah' and his fons, to the prejudice of Noah's birth Z right :

160 Of Government.

right : his words are, Noah was left fole heir to the world : why fiould it be thought that God would difmherit him of his birth- right, and make him, of all ?nen in the world, the only tenant in common with his children f and yet here he thinks it fit that Noah mould disinherit Stem of his birth-right, and divide the world betwixt him and his brethren ; fo that this birthright, when our author pleafes, mud, and when he pleafes mufl not, be facred and inviolable.

§. 140. If Noah did divide the world between his fons, and his afiignment of dominions to them were good, there is an end of divine inflitution ; all our author's difcourfe of Adams heir, with whatfoever he builds on it, is quite out of doors; the natural power of kings falls to the ground; and then the form of the power governing, and the perfon having that power, will not be (as he says they are, Obfervations, 254.) the ordinance of God, but they will be ordinances of man : for if the right of the heir be the ordinance of God, a divine right, no man, father or not father, can alter it : if it be not a divine right, it is only human, depending on the will of man : and fo where human inflitution gives it not, the first-born has no right at all above his brethren ; and men may put government into what hands, and under what form, they pleafe.

§. 141. He goes on, Mofi of the civile jl nations of the earth labour to fetch their original

from

Of Government. 161

from some of the fins, or nephews of Noah, p. 14. How many do moft of the civileft nations amount to ? and who are they ? I fear the Chinefes, a very great and civil people, as well as feveral other people of the Eafi, IVeft, North and South, trouble not themselves much about this matter. All that believe the Bible, which I believe are our author's mof of the civileji nation nuft neceffarily derive themfelveo fro thi but

for the reft of the world, the) ink little of his fons or nephews. But if the heralds and antiquaries of all nations, for it is these men generally that labour to find out the originals of nations, or all the nations themselves, Jloould labour to fetch their original from some of the fins- or nephews of Noah, what would this be to prove, that the lord/hip which Adam had over the whole world, by right defended to the patriarchs ? Whoever, nations, or races of men, labour to fetch their original from, may be concluded to be thought by them, men of renown, famous to pofterity, for the greatnefs of their virtues and actions; but beyond these they look not, nor confider who they were heirs to, but look on them as such as raifed themfclves, by their own virtue, to a degree that would give a luflre to those who in future ages could pretend to derive themselves from them. But if it were Ogyges, Hercules, Brama, Tamberlain, Pharamond ; nay, if Jupiter and Saturn were the names, M from

\6z Of Government.

from whence divers races of men, both ancient and modern, have laboured to derive their original ; will that prove, that those men enjoyed the lordfhip of Adam, by right defcending to them ? If not, this is but a flouri/h of our author's to miflead his reader, that in itfelf figniiies nothing.

§. 142. To as much purpofe is what he tells us, p. 15. concerning this divifion of the world, That fane fay it was by Lot, and others that Noah failed round the Mediterranean in ten years, and divided the world into Afia, Afric and Europe, portions for his three fons. America then, it feems, was left to be his that could catch it. Why our author takes such pains to prove the divifion of the world by Noah to his fons, and will not leave out an imagination, though no better than a dream, that he can find any where to favour it, is hard to guefs, since such a divifion, if it prove any thing, mull necelfarily take away the title of Adams heir -, unlefs three brothers can all together be heirs of Adam ; and therefore the following words, Howfoever the manner of this divifion be uncertain, yet it is mojl certain the divifion itfelf was by families from Noah and his children, over which the parents were heads and princes, p. 15. if allowed him to be true, and of any force to prove, that all the power in the world is nothing but the lordfhip of Adam\f defcending by right, they will only prove, that

Reading section 16

the

Of Government. 163

the fathers of the children are all heirs to this lordfhip of Adam : for if in those days Cham and Japbet, and other parents, befides the eldeft ion, were heads and princes over their families, and had a right to divide the earth by families, what hinders younger brothers, being fathers of families, from having the fame right ? If Cha?n and Japhet were princes by right defcending to them, notwithstanding any title of heir in their elder! brother, younger brothers by the fame right defcending to them are princes now ; and fo all our author's natural power of kings will reach no farther than their own children, and no kingdom, by this natural right, can be bigger than a family : for either this lordJhip of Adam over the whole world, by right defcends only to the eldeft fon, and then there can be but one heir, as our author says, p. 19. or elfe, it by right defcends to all the fons equally, and then every father of a family will have it, as well as the three fons of Noah : take which you will, it deftroys the prefent governments and kingdoms, that are now in the world, since whoever has this natural power of a king, by right defcending to him, muft have it, either as our author tells us Cam had it, and be lord over his brethren, and fo be alone king of the whole world -, or elfe, as he tells us here, Shem, Cham and Japbet had ity three brothers, and fo be only prince of his own family, and all

M 2 families

164 Of Government.

families independent one of another : all the world mud be only one empire by the right of the next heir, or elfe every family be a didincl: government of itfelf, by the lordjlrip of Adam'i defcending to parents of families. And to this only tend all the proofs he here ^ives us of the defcent of Adam's lordfhip : for continuing his ftory of this defcent, he says,

§. 143. In the difperfion of 'Babel, we mujl

certainly find the efiablifoment of royal power,

throughout the kingdoms of the world, p. 14.

If you muft find it, pray do, and you will

help us to a new piece of hiflory : but you

mull mew it us before we mail be bound to

believe, that regal power was eftablifhed in

the world upon your principles : for, that

regal power was eftablifhed in the kingdoms

of the world, I think no body will difpute ;

but that there mould be kingdoms in the

world, whofe feveral kings enjoyed their

crowns, by right defcending to them from Adam,

that we think not only apocryphal, but alfo

utterly impoffible. If our author has no

better foundation for his monarchy than a

fuppofition of what was done at the difperfion

fA Babel, the monarchy he erects thereon,

whofe top is to reach to heaven to unite

mankind, will ferve only to divide and fcatter

them as that tower did -, and, inftead of eftablifning civil government and order in the

world, will produce nothing but confufion.

§. 144.

Of Government. 16$

§. 144. For he tells us, the nations they were divided into, were diftinSt families, which had fathers for rulers over them ; whereby it appears, that even in the confufion, God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority, by dijlributing the diverfty of languages according to the diverfty of families, p. 14. It would have been a hard matter for any one but our author to have found out to plainly, in the text he here brings, that all the nations in that difperfion were governed by fathers, and that God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority. The words of the text are ; these are the fons of Shem after their families, after their tongues in their lands, after their nations. % and the fame thing is faid of Cham and jfaphet, after an enumeration of their pofterities ; in all which there is not one word faid of their governors, or forms of government; of fathers, or fatherly authority. But our author, who is very quick lighted to fpv out fatherhood, where no body elfe could fee any the leafl glimpfes of it, tells us pofitivelv their rulers were fathers, and God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority ; and why ? Becaufe those of the fame family {poke the fame language, and fo of necefiity in the divifion kept together. Juft as if one mould argue thus : Hanibal in his army, confining of divers nations, kept those of the fame language together ; therefore fathers were captains of each band, and Hanibal was careful

M 3 of

i66 Of Government.

of the fatherly authority: or in peopling of Carolina* the Englifi, French, Scotch and Welch that are there, plant themselves together, and by them the country is divided in their lands after their tongues, after their families, after their nations ; therefore care was taken of the fatherly authority : or becaufe, in many parts of America, every little tribe was a diftincl: people, with a different language, one mould infer, that therefore God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority y or that therefore their rulers enjoyed Adam'i lordfcip by right defending to them, though we know not who were their governors, nor what their form of government, but only that they were divided into little independent focieties, fpeaking different languages,

§. 145. The scripture says not a word of

their rulers or forms of government, but only

gives an account, how mankind came to be

divided into diffcindt languages and nations ;

and therefore it is not to argue from the

authority of scripture, to tell us pofitively,

fathers were their rulers, when the scripture

says no such thing ; but to fet up fancies of

one's own brain, when we confidently aver

matter of fact, where records are utterly

filent. Upon a like ground, /. e. none at all,

he says, That they were not confufed multitudes

without heads and governors, and at liberty

to choofe what governors or governments they

f leafed,

§. 146,

Of Government. 167

§. 146. For I demand, when mankind were all yet of one language, all congregated in the plain of Shinar, were they then all under one monarch, who enjoyed the lord/hip of Adam by right defc ending to him ?• If they were not, there were then no thoughts, it is plain, of Adam's heir, no right to government known then upon that title ; no care taken, by God or man, of Adams fatherly authority* If when mankind were but one people, dwelt all together, and were of one language, and were upon building a city together ; and when it was plain, they could not but know the right heir, for Shem lived till Ifaac's time, a long while after the divifion at Babel-, if then, I fay, they were not under the monarchical government of Adam's fatherhood, by right defcending to the heir, it is plain there was no regard had to the fatherhood, no monarchy acknowledged due to Adam's heir, no empire of Shenis in Afa, and con-^ fequently no such divifion of the world by Noah, as our author has talked of. As far as we can conclude any thing from scripture in this matter, it feems from this place, that if they had any government, it was rather a common-wealth than an abfolute monarchy : for the scripture tells us, Gen. xi. 'They faid: it was not a prince commanded the building of this city and tower, it was not by the command of one monarch, but by the consultation of many, a free people ; let us build M 4 us

1 68 Of Government.

us :fy : they builc it for themselves as i not as Haves for their lord and

mater: ib we be not feathered abroad; having a cil x "• and fixed habitations to fettle

or." - families* This was the confu! . 3 and defign of a people, that were at li ivij to part afunder, but defired to keep in one body, and could not have been either neceflarv or likelv in men tied together under the government of one monarch, who if they had been, as our author tells us, all JIaves under the abfolute dominion of a monarch, needed not have taken such care to hinder themselves from wandering out of the reach of his dominion. I demand whether this be not plainer in scripture than any thing of Adam's heir or fatherly authority f

§. 147. But if being, as God says, Gen. xi. 6. one people, they had one ruler, one king by natural right, abfolute and supreme over them, what care had God to preferve the paternal authority of the supreme fatherhood, if on a fudden he suffer 72 (for fo many our author talks of) difinfl nations to be erected out of it, under diftinct. governors, and at once to withdraw themselves from the obedience of their fovereign ? This is to intitle God's care how, and to what we pleafe. Can it be fenfe to fay, that God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority in those who had it not ? for if these were subjects under a supreme prince, what authority had they ? Was it an

inftance

Of Government. 169

inftance of God's care to preferve the fatherly authority, when he took away the true supreme fatherhood of the natural monarch ? Can it be reafon to fay, that God, for the prefervation of fatherly authority, lets feveral new governments with their governors ftart up, ""who could not all have fatherly authority ? And is it not as much reafon to fay, that God is careful to deflroy fatherly authority, when he fuffers one, who is in porTcffion of it, to have his government torn in pieces, and fhared by feveral of his fubjecls ? Would it not be an argument juft like this, for monarchical government, to fay, when any monarchy was mattered to pieces, and divided amongft revolted fubjecls, that God was careful to preferve monarchical power, by rending a settled empire into a multitude of little governments ? If any one will fay, that what happens in providence to be preferved, God is careful to preferve as a thing therefore to be efteemed by men as necefTary or ufefal, it is a peculiar propriety of fpeech, which every one will not think fit to imitate : but this I am fure is impoflible to be either proper, or true fpeaking, that Shem, for example, (for he was then alive,) mould have fatherly authority, or fovereignty by right of fatherhood, over that one people at Babel, and that the next moment, Shem yet living, 72 others mould have fatherly authority, or fovereignty by right of fatherhood, over the fame people, divided

into

170 Of Government.

into fo many diftinct governments : either these 72 fathers actually were rulers, juft before the confufion, and then they were not one people, but that God himfelf says they were ; or elfe they were a common-wealth, and then where was monarchy ? or elfe these 72 fathers had fatherly authority, but knew it not. Strange ! that fatherly authority mould be the only original of government amongft men, and yet all mankind not know it -, and ftranger yet, that the confufion of tongues fhould reveal it to them all of a fudden, that in an inftant these 72 fhould know that they had fatherly power, and all others know that they were to obey it in them, and every one know that particular jatherly authority to which he was a subject. He that can think this arguing from scripture, may from thence make out what model of an Eutopia will beft fuit with his fancy or intereft ; and this fatherhood, thus difpofed of, will juftify both a prince who claims an univerfal monarchy, and his fubjedts, who, being fathers of families, mall quit all fubje&ion to him, and canton his empire into lefs governments for themselves ; for it will always remain a doubt in which of these the fatherly authority refided, till our author refolves us, whether Stem, who was then alive, or these 72 new princes, beginning fo many new empires in his dominions, and over his subjects, had right to govern, since our author tells us,

that

Of Government. 171

that both one and the other had fatherly, which is supreme authority, and are brought in by him as inftances of those who did enjoy the lordfiips of Adam by right defending to them , which was as large and ample as the abfoluteft dominion of any monarch. This at leait is unavoidable, that if God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority, in the 72 newer ebled nations, it necerTarily follows, that he was as careful to deflroy all pretences ot Adams heir ; since he took care, and therefore did preferve the fatherly authority in fo many, at leafl 71, that could not poffibly be Adams, heirs, when the right heir (if God had ever ordained any such inheritance) could not but be known, Shem then living, and they being all one people.

§. 148. Nimrod is his next inftance of enjoying this patriarchal power, p. 16. but I know not for what reafon our author feems a little unkind to him, and says, that he againjl right enlarged his empire, by feizing violently on the rights of other lords of families. these lords of families here were called fathers of families, in his account of the difperlion at Babel : but it matters not how they were called, fo we know who they are ; for this fatherly authority muil be in them, either as heirs to Adam, and fo there could not be 72, nor above one at once; or elfe as natural parents over their children, and fo every father will have paternal authority over

his

172 Of Government.

his children by the fame right, and in as large extent as those 72 had, and fo be independent princes over their own offspring. Taking his lords of families in this later fenfe, (as it is hard to give those words any other fenfe in this place) he gives us a very pretty account of the original of monarchy, in these following words, p. 16. And in this fenfe he may be faid to be the author andjoimder of monarchy, viz. As againft, right feizing violently on the rights of fathers over their children ; which paternal authority, if it be in them, by right of nature, (for elfe how could those 72 corne by it ?) no body can take from them without their own confents ; and then I defire our author and his friends to conlider, how far this will concern other princes, and whether it will not, according to his conclufion of that paragraph, refolve all regal power of those, whofe dominions extend beyond their families, either into tyranny and ufurpation, or election and confent of fathers of families, which will differ very little from confent of the people.

§. 149. All his inftances, in the next fet~liony p. 17. of the 12 dukes of Edom, the nine kings in a little corner of Afia in Abrahams days, the 3 1 kings in Canaan deftroyed by Jofjua, and the care he takes to prove that these were all fovereign princes, and that every town in those days had a king, are fo many direct proofs againft him, that it was 5 not

Of Government. 173

not the lordflnp of Adam by right defc ending to them, that made kings : for if they had held their royalties by that title, either there muft have been but one fovereign over them all, or elfe every father of a family had been as good a prince, and had as good a claim to royalty, as these : for if all the fons of Efau had each of them, the younger as well as the elder!:, the right of fatherhood, and fo were fovereign princes after their fathers death, the fame right had their ,fons after them, and fo on to all pofterity ; which will limit all the natural power of fatherhood, only to be over the iffue of their own bodies, and their defcendents; which power of fatherhood dies with the head of each family, and makes way for the like power of fatherhood to take place in each of his fons over their refpective pofterities : whereby the power of fatherhood will be preferved indeed, and is intelligible, but will not be at all to our author's purpofe. None of the inftanees he brings are proofs of any power they had, as heirs of Adams paternal autho^ rity by the title of his fatherhood defcending to them ; no, nor of any power they had by virtue of their own : for Adam's fatherhood being over all mankind, it could defcend but to one at once, and from him to his right heir only, and fo there could by that title be but one king in the world at a time : and by right of fatherhood, not defcending' from Adam, it muft be only as they themselves

Reading section 17

1 74 O F Government

felves were fathers, and fo could be over none but their own posterity. So that if those 12 dukes of Edom ; if Abraham and the nine kings his neighbours 5 if Jacob and E/2z#, and the 31 kings in Canaan, the 72 kings mutilated by Adonibefeck, the 32 kings that came to Benhadad, the 70 kings of Greece making war at Troy, were, as our author contends, all of them fovereign princes ; it is evident that kings derived their power from some other original than fatherhood, fincc some of these had power over mure than their own posterity ; and it is demonstration, they could not be all heirs to Adam : for I challenge any man to make any pretence to power by right of fatherhood, either intelligible or poflible in any one, other wife, than either as Adam's heir, or as progenitor over his own dependents, naturally fprung from him. And if our author could mew that any one of these princes, of which he gives us here fo large a catalogue, had his authority by either of these titles, I think I might yield him the caufe ; though it is manifeft they are all impertinent, and directly contrary to what he brings them to prove, viz. That the lordfiip which Adam had over the world by right defcended to the patriarchs.

§. 150. Having told us, p. 16, That the patriarchal government continued in Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, until the Egyptian bondage, p. 17. he tells us, By maaifejl footfieps we may trace this paternal government unto the 3 Ifraelites

Of Government. 17$

Ifraelites coming into Egypt, 'where the exercife of supreme patriarchal government was intermitted, becaufe they were in JubjeSlion to a fironger prince. What these footfteps are of paternal government, in our author's fenfe, i. e. of abfolute monarchical power defcending from Adam, and exercifed by right of fatherhood, we have feen, that is for 2290 years no footfteps at all ; since in all that time he cannot produce any one example of any perfon who claimed or exercifed regal authority by right of fatherhood; or mew any one who being a king was Adams heir : all that his proofs amount to, is only this, that there were fathers, patriarchs and kings, in that age of the world; but that the fathers and patriarchs had any abfolute arbitrary power, or by what titles those kings had their's, and of what extent it was, the scripture is wholly filent; it is manifeft by right of fatherhood they neither did, nor could claim any title to dominion and empire.

§. 151. To fay, that the exercife of supreme patriarchal government was intermitted, becaufe they were in fubjeclion to a fironger prince, proves nothing but what I before fufpetted, viz. That patriarchal jurifdiclion or government is a fallacious expreftion, and does not in our author fignify (what he would yet iniinuate by it) paternal and regal power, such an abfolute fovereignty as he fuppofes was in Adam.

§. 152.

176 Of Government.

§. 152. For how can he fay that patriarchal jurifdiclion was intermitted in Egypt, where there was a king, under whofe regal government the Ifraelites were, if patriarchal were abfolnte mo?2archical jurifdiclion ? And if it were not, but fomething elfe, why does he make such ado about a power not in queftion, and nothing to the purpofe ? The exercife of patriarchal jurifdiclion, if patriarchal be regal, was not intermitted whilft the Israelites were in Egypt. It is true, the exercife of regal power was not then in the hands of any of the promifed feed of Abraham, nor before neither that I know ; but what is that to the intermirlion of regal authority, as defcending from Adam, unlefs our author will have it, that this chofen line of Abraham had the right of inheritance to Adams lordmip ? and then to what purpofe are his inftances of the 72 rulers, in whom the fatherly authority waspreferved in the confufion ^.t Babel? Why does he bring the 12 princes fons of Ifmael-, and the dukes of Edom, and join them with Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, as examples of the exercife of true patriarchal government, if the exercife of patriarchal jurifdiclion were intermitted in the world, whenever the heirs of Jacob had not supreme power ? I fear, supreme patriarchal jurifdiclion was not only intermitted, but from the time of the Egyptian bondage quite loft in the world, since it will

be

Of Government. 177

be hard to find, from that time downwards, any one who exercifed it as an inheritance descending to him from the patriarchs Abraham, Ifaac, and "Jacob. I imagined monarchical government would have ferved his turn in the hands of Pharaoh, or any body. But one cannot eafily difcover in all places what his difcourfe tends to, as particularly in this place it is not obvious to guefs what he drives at, when he says, the exercife of supreme patriarchal ' jurifdiBion in Egypt, or how this ferves to make out the defcent of Adam's lordfhip to the patriarchs, or any body elfe.

§. 153. For I thought he had been giving us out of scripture, proofs and examples of monarchical government, founded on paternal authority, defcending from Adam ; and not an hiftory of the Jews : amongft whom yet we find no kings, till many years after they were a people : and when kings were their rulers, there is not the leaft mention or room for a pretence that they were heirs to Adam, or kings by paternal authority. I expected, talking fo much as he does of scripture, that he would have produced thence a feries of monarchs, whofe titles were clear to Adam s fathei'hood, and who, as heirs to him, owned and exercifed paternal jurisdiction over their subjects, and that this was the true patriarchical government; whereas he neither proves, that the patriarchs were kings j nor that either kings or patriarchs

N were

178 Of Government.

were heirs to Adam, or fo much as pretended to it : and one may as well prove, that the patriarchs were all abfolute monarchs j that the power both of patriarchs and kings was only paternal ; and that this power defcended to them from Adam : I fay all these proportions may be as well proved by a confufed account of a multitude of little kings in the WeftIndies, out of Ferdinando Soto, or any of our late hiftories of the Northern America, or by our author's 70 kings of Greece, out of Homer, as by any thing he brings out of scripture, in that multitude of kings he has reckoned up.

§. 154. And methinks he fhould have let Homer and his wars of Troy alone, iince hi& great zeal to truth or monarchy carried him to such a pitch of tranfport againft philofophers and poets, that he tells us in his preface, that there are too many in these days, who fleaje themfehes in running after the opinions of.philofophers and poets, to find out such an original of government, as might pro??iife them fame title to liberty, to the great fcandal of Chri/lianity, and bringing in of at h elfin. And yet these heathens, philofopher Ariftotle, and poet Homer, are not rejected by our zealous Christian politician, whenever they offer any thing that feems to ferve his turn ; whether to the great fcandal ^Chriftianity and bringing in of atheifm, let him look. This I cannot but obferve, in authors who it is vifible write

not

Of Government. 179

not for truth, how ready zeal for interest and party is to entitle Chrijlianity to their deiigns, and to charge atheifm on those who will not without examining fubmit to their doctrines, and blindly fwallow their nonfenfe.

But to return to his scripture hiftory, our author farther tells us, p. 18. that after the return of the Ifraelites out ^bondage, God, out of a fpecial care of them, chofe iVTofes and Jofhua fuccejjively to govern as princes in the place and Jiead of the supreme fathers. If it be true, that they returned out of bondage, it mull be into a state of freedom, and mufl imply, that both before and after this bonclage they were free, unlefs our author will fay, that changing of mailers is returning out of bondage ; or that a ilave returns out of bondage, when he is removed from one gaily to another. If then they returned out of bondage, it is plain that in those days, whatever our author in his preface says to the contrary, there were difference between 2.fon, zfubjecl, and a Jlave ; and that neither the patriarchs before, nor their rulers after this Egyptian bondage, numbered their fons or fubjecls amongfi their pofefpons, and difpofed of them with as abfolute a dominion, as they did their other goods.

§. 155. This is evident in Jacob, to whom Reuben offered his two fons as pledges ; and Judah was at laft furety for Benjami?i$ fafe

N 2 return

1S0 Of Government.

return out of Egypt: which all had been vain, fuperfluous, and but a fort of mockery, if facob had had the fame power over everyone of his family, as he had over his ox or his afs, as an owner over his fubfiance ; and the offers that Reuben or jfudab made had been such a fecurity for returning of Benjamin, as if a man mould take two lambs out of his lord's flock, and offer one as fecurity, that he will fafely reftore the other.

§. 156. When they were out of this bondage, what then ? God out of a fpecial care of them, the Ifraelites. It is well that once in his book he will allow God to have any care of the people ; for in other places he fpeaks of mankind, as if God had no care of any part of them, but only of their monarch s, and that the reft: of the people, the focieties of men, were made as fo many herds of cattle, only for the fervice, ufe, and pleafure of their princes.

§. 157. Chofe Mofes and Jofhua fuccejjively to govern as princes ; a fhrewd argument our author has found out to prove God's care of the fatherly authority, and Adams heirs, that here, as an expreffion of his care of his own people, he choofes those for princes over them, that had not the lead: pretence to either. The perfons chofen were, Mofes of the tribe of Levi, and fofoua of the tribe of Ephraim, neither of which had any title of fatherhood. But says our author, they were in the place

and

Of Government. i$i

and flead of the supreme fathers. If God had any where as plainly declared his choice of such fathers to be rulers, as he did of Mofes and JoJJjua, we might believe Mofes and fofiua were in their place and Jiead: but that being the queftion in debate, till that be better proved, Mofes being chofen by God to be ruler of his people, will no more prove that government belonged to Adams heir, or to the fatherhood, than God's choofing Aaron of the tribe of Levi to be prieft, will prove that the priefthood belonged to Adam's heir, or the prime fathers ; since God would choofe Aaron to be prieft, and Mofes ruler in Ifrael, though neither of those offices were settled on Adam's heir, or the fatherhood.

§. 158. Our author goes on, and after them likewife for a time he r a fed up judges, to defend his people in time of peril, p. 18. This proves fatherly authority to be the original of government, and that it defcended from Adam to his heirs* juft as well as what went before : only here our author feems to confefs, that these judges, who were all the governors they then had, were only men of valour, whom they made their generals to defend them in time of peril; and cannot God raife up such men, unlefs fatherhood have a title to government ?

But says our author, when God gave the Israelites kings, he re-eflabliflded the ancient and

N 3 prime

182 Of Government.

prime right of lineal fuccejjion to paternal government, p. 1 8.

§. 1 60. How did God re-eftablijh it ? by a law, a pofitive command ? We find no such thing. Our author means then, that when God gave them a king, in giving them a king, he r:-ejlablijl:ed the right, &c. To reeflablifh de Jaclo the right of lineal succession to paternal government, is to put a man in poffeffion of that government which his fathers did enjoy, and he by lineal succession had a right to : for, first, if it were another government than what his anceflors had, it was not fucceeding to an ancient right, but beginning a new one : for if a prince mould give a man, belides his antient patrimony, which for ibme ages his family had been diffeized of, an additional eflate, never before in the poffeffion of his anceflors, he could not be faidto re-ejlablifo the right of lineal succession to any more than what had been formerly enjoyed by his anceflors. If therefore the power the kings of Ifrael had, were any thing more than Ifaac or Jacob had, it was net the re-efiablifing in them the right of succession to a power, but giving them a new power, however you pleafe to call it, paternal or not : and whether Ifaac and Jacob had the fame power that the kings of Ifrael had, I delire any one, by what has been above iaid, to confider 3 and I do not think they

will

Of Government. 183

will find, that either Abraham, Ifaac, or "Jacob, had any regal power at all.

§. 161. Next, there can be no re-eftablijhmerit of the prime and ancient right of lineal fiicceffion to any thing, unlefs he, that is put in pofieffion of it, has the right to fucceed, and be the true and next heir to him he succeeds to. Can that be a re-eftablifhment, which begins in a new family ? or that the re-eft abUJJjment of an ancient right of lineal fuccefion, when a crown is given to one, who has no right of fiicceffion to it, and who, if the lineal succession had gone on, had been out of all poffibility of pretence to it ? Saul, the first king God gave the Ifraelites, was of the tribe of Benjamin. Was the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccejjion re-ejlablijhed in him ? The next was David, the youngeil fon of Jefje, of the pofterity of Judah, Jacob's third fon. Was the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccejjion to paternal government retftablified in him ? or in Solomon, his younger fon and fuccefibr in the throne ? or in J ereboam over the ten tribes ? or in Athaliah, a woman who reigned fix years an utter fixanger to the royal blood ? If the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccejjion to paternal government were re-ejlablified in any of these or their pofterity, the ancient and prime right oj' lineal fuccejjion to paternal government belongs to younger brothers as well as elder, and may be re-eftabliihed in any man living ; for whatN 4 ever

184 Of Government.

ever younger brothers, by ancient and prime right of lineal Juccejjion, may have as well as the elder, that every man living may have a right to, by lineal fucceflion, and Sir Robert as well as any other. And fo what a brave right of lineal fucceflion, to his paternal or regal government, our author has re-ejiablijhedj for the fecuring the rights and inheritance of crowns, where every one may have it, let the world confider.

§. 162. But says our author however, p. 19. Whenjoever God made choice of any fpecial per Jon to be king, he intended that the ijfue alfo fiould have benefit thereof as being comprehended Jufficiently in the perfon of the father, altho' the father was only named in the grant. This yet will apt help out fucceflion ; for if, as our author says, the benefit of the grant be intended to the ijfue of the grantee, this will not direct the fucceflion -, since, if God give any thing to a man and his ijfue in general, the claim cannot be to any one of that ijfue in particular ; every one that is of his race will have an equal right. If it be faid, our author meant heir, I believe our author was as willing as any body to have ufed that word, if it would have ferved his turn : but Solomon, who fucceeded David in the throne, being no more his heir than Jerobobam, who fucceeded him in the government of the ten tribes, was his iflue, our author had reafon to avoid faying, That God intended it to

Reading section 18

the

Of Government. 185

the heirs, when that would not hold in a succession, which our author could not except againft ; and fo he has left his fuccetTion as undetermined, as if he had faid nothing about it : for if the regal- power be given by God to a man and his iffue, as the land of Canaan was to Abraham and his feed, mud they not all have a title to it, all mare in it ? And one may as well fay, that by God's grant to Abraham and his feed, the land of Canaan was to belong only to one of his feed exclulive of all others, as by God's grant of dominion to a man and his iffite, this dominion was to belong in peculiar to one of his ijfue exclufive of all others.

§. 163. But how will our author prove that whenfoever God made choice of any fpecial perfon to be a king, he intended that the (I suppose he means his) ijfue aljo Jloould have benefit thereof? has he fo foon forgot Mofes and Jojhua, whom in this very fecJion, he says, God out of a jpecial care choje to govern as princes, and the judges that God railed up ? Had not these princes, having the authority of the jupreme fatherhood, the fame power that the kings had ; and being fpecially chofen by God himfelf, mould not their ijfue have the benefit of that choice, as well as David's or Solomons ? If these had the paternal authority put into their hands immediately by God, why had not their ijfue the benefit of this grant in a succession to this

i£6 Of Government.

this power ? or if they had it as Adams heirs, why did not their heirs enjoy it after them by right defcending to them ? for they could not be heirs to one another. Was the power the fame, and from the fame original, in Mofes, fofiua and the 'Judges, as it was in David and the Kings j and was it inheritable in one, and not in the other ? If it was not paternal authority, then God's own people were governed by those that had not -paternal authority, and those governors did well enough without it : if it were paternal au." thority, and God chofe the perfons that were to exercife it, our author's rule fails, that whenfoever God makes choice ef any per/on to be reme ruler (for I suppose the name king has no fpell in it, it is not the title, but the power makes the difference) he intends that the ijjiie alfo Jhould have the benefit of it, since from their coming out of Egypt to David's time, 400 years, the iffue was never fo fufficie'ntly comprehended in the per/on of the father, as that any fon, after the death of his father, fucceeded to the government amongft all those judges that judged Ifrael. If, to avoid this, it be faid, God always chofe the perfon of the fucceffor, and fo, transferring the fatherly authority to him, excluded his iffue from fucceeding to it, that is manifeftly not fo in the ftory of Jephtha, where he articled with the people, and they made him judge over them, as is plain, judg. 11.

§. 164.

Of Government. 187

§. 164. It is in vain then to fay, that when* Jbever God choofes any fpecial ferfon to have the exercife of paternal authority, (for if that be not to be king, I deftre to know the difference between a king and one having the exercife of paternal authority] he intends the iffue alfo fiould have the benefit of it, since we find the authority, the judges had, ended with them, and defcended not to their iffue ; and if the judges had not paternal authority, I fear it will trouble our author, or any of the friends to his principles, to tell who. had then the paternal authority, that is, the government and supreme power amongft. the Israelites $ and 1 fufpect they muft confefs that the chofen people of God continued a people feveral hundreds of years, without any knowledge or thought of this paternal authority, or any appearance of monarchical government at all.

§. 165. To be fatisfied of this, he need but read the ftory of the Levite, and the war thereupon with the Benjamites, in the three laft chapters of Judges; and when he finds, that the Levite appeals to the people for juftice that it was the tribes and the congregation, that debated, refolved, and directed all that was done on that occafion j he muft conclude, either that God was not careful to preferve the fatherly authority amongft his own chofen people ; or elfc that the fatherly authority may be preferved, where there is no

monarchical

1 88 Of Government.

monarchical government : if the latter, then it will follow, that though fatherly authority be never fo well proved, yet it will not infer a necefiity of monarchical government; if the former, it will feem very ftrange and improbable, that God fhould ordain fatherly authority to be fo facred amongft the fons of men, that there could be no power, or government without it, and yet that amongft his own people, even whilft he is providing a government for them, and therein prefcribes rules to the feveral flates and relations of men, this great and fundamental one, this mod material and necefTary of all the reft, mould be concealed, and lie neglected for 400 years after.

§. 166. Before I leave this, I muft afk how our author knows that whenfoever God makes choice of any fpecial perfon to be king> he intends that the iffue fhould have the benefit thereof? Does God by the law of nature or revelation fay fo ? By the fame law alfo he muft fay, which of his iffue muft enjoy the crown in fucceiTion, and fo point out the heir, or elfe leave his iffue to divide or fcramble for the government : both alike abfurd, and such as will deftroy the benefit of such grant to the iffue. When any such declaration of God's intention is produced, it will be our duty to believe God intends it fo ; but till that bs done, our author muft shew us some better warrant, before we shall be obliged to recede

Of Government. 189

ccive him as the authentic revealer of God's intentions.

§. 167. The iffue, says our author, is comprehended fufficieiitly in the perfon of the father, although the father only was named in the grant : and yet God, when he gave the land of Canaan to Abraham, Gen. xiii. 15. thought fit to put his feed into the grant too : fo the priefthood was given to Aaron and his feed*, and the crown God gave not only to David, but his feed alfo : and however our author affures us that God intends, that the if lie Jhould have the benefit of it, when he choofes any perfon to be king, yet we fee that the kingdom which he gave to Saul, without mentioning his feed after him, never came to any of his iffue ; and why, when God chofe a perfon to be king, he mould intend, that his iffue fhould have the benefit of it, more than when he chofe one to be judge in Ifrael, I would fain know a reafon ; or why does a grant of fatherly authority to a king more comprehend the iffue, than when a like grant is made to a judge ? Is paternal authority by right to defcend to the iffue of one, and not of the other ? There will need some reafon to be Ihewn of this difference, more than the name, when the thing given is the fame fatherly authority, and the manner of giving it, God's choice of the perfon, the fame too ; for I suppose our author, when he says, God

raifcd

1 90 Of Government.

raifed up judges, will by no means allow, they were chofen by the people.

§. 1 68. But since our author has Co confidently aflured us of the care of God to preferve the fatherhood, and pretends to build all he says upon the authority of the scripture, we may well expect that that people, whofe law, constitution and hiflory is chiefly contained in the scripture, fhould furnifh him with the cleared inftances of God's care of preferving the fatherly authority, in that people who it is agreed he had a mofl peculiar care of. Let us fee then what flate this paternal authority or government was in among!! the fews, from their beginning to be a people. It was omitted, by our author's confefiion, from their coming into Egypt, till their return out of that bondage, above 200 years : from thence till God gave the Ifraellies a king, about 400 years more, our author gives but a very (lender account of it; nor indeed all that time are there the leafl footfleps of paternal or regal government amongft them. But then says our author, God re-ejlablifoed the ancient and prime right of lineal jtic cefjion to paternal government.

§. 169. What a lineal face effion to paternal government was then eitablifhed, we have already feen. I only now confider how long this lafted, and that was to their captivity, about 500 years : from thence to their deduction by the Romans, above 650 years 4 after,

Of Government. 191

after, the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccefjion to paternal government was again loft, and they continued a people in the pi'omifed land without it. So that of 1750 years that they were God's peculiar people, they had hereditary kingly government amongft them not one third of the time ; and of that time there is not the leaft footftep of one moment of paternal government, nor the re-eflablijhment of the ancient and prime right of lineal fucce/jion to it, whether we suppose it to be derived, as from its fountain, from David, Saul, Abraham, or, which upon our author's principles is the only true, from Adam,

OF