§. 120. It is true, the civil lawyers have pretended to determine some of these cases concerning the succession of princes; but by our authors 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 descend only to his successive heirs, by the ordinance of God and divine institution, this is a right antecedent and paramount to all government; and therefore the positive laws of men cannot determine that which is itself the foundation of all law and government, and is to receive its rule only from the law of God and nature. And that being silent in the case, I am apt to think there is no such right to be conveyed this way: I am sure it would be to no purpose if there were, and men would be more at a loss concerning government, and obedience to governors, than if there were no such right; since by positive laws and compact, which divine institution (if there be any) shuts out, all these endless inextricable doubts can be safely provided against: but it can never be understood, how a divine natural right, and that of such moment as is all order and peace in the world, should be conveyed down to posterity, without any plain natural or divine rule concerning it. And there would be an end of all civil government, if the assignment of civil power were by divine institution to the heir, and yet by that divine institution the per- son of the heir could not be known. This 142 OF GOVERNMENT.
paternal regal power being by divine right only his, it leaves no room for human prudence, or consent, to place it any where else; for if only one man hath a divine right to the obedience of mankind, nobody can claim that obedience, but he that can shew that right; nor can men's consciences by any other pretence be obliged to it. And thus this doctrine cuts up all government by the roots.
§. 127. Thus we see how our author, laying it for a sure foundation, that the very person that is to rule, is the ordinance of God, and by divine institution, tells us at large, only that this person is the heir, but who this heir is, he leaves us to guess; and so this divine institu- tion, which assigns it to a person whom we have no rule to know, is just as good as an assignment to nobody at all. But, whatever our author does, divine institution makes no such ridiculous assignments: nor can God be supposed to make it a sacred law, that one certain person should have a right to some- thing, and yet not give rules to mark out, and know that person 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 had no such right by divine institution, than that God should give such a right to the heir, but yet leave it doubtful and undeterminable Avho such heir is.
§. 128. If God had given the land of Canaan to Abraham, and in general terms to some- OP GOVERNMENT. 143 body after him, without naming his seed, whereby it might be known who that some- body was, it would have been as good and useful an assignment, to determine the right to the land of Canaan, as it would be the de- termining the right of crowns, to give empire to Adam and his successive heirs after him, without telling who his heir is: for the word heir, without a rule to know who it is, signifies no more than somebody, I know not whom. God making it a divine institution, that men should not marry those who were near of kin, thinks it not enough to say, None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness; but moreover, gives rules to know who are those near of kin, for- bidden by divine institution; or else that law would have been of no use, it being to no purpose to lay restraint, or give privileges to men, in such general terms, as the particular person concerned cannot be known by. But God not having any where said, the next heir shall inherit all his father's estate or dominion, we are not to wonder, that he hath no where appointed who that heir should be; for never having intended any such thing, never designed any heir in that sense, we cannot expect he should any where nominate, or appoint any person to it, as we might, had it been otherwise. And therefore in scripture, though the word heir occur, vet there is no such tiling- as heir in our author's sense, one that was by right of 144 OF GOVERNMENT.
nature to inherit all that his father had, exclu- sive of his brethren. Hence Sarah supposes, that if Ishmael staid in the house, to share in Abrahams estate after his death, this son of a bond-woman might be heir with Isaac; and therefore, says she, cast out this bond-icoman and her son, for the son of this bond-woman shall iwl be heir with my son: but this cannot excuse 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 descent are; but he having been so sparing to instruct us by rules, how to know who is heir, let us see in the next, place, what his history out of scripture, on which he pretends wholly to build his government, give us in this necessary and fundamental point.
§. 129. Our author, to make good the title of his book, p. 13. begins his history of the descent of Adam's regal power, p. 13. in these words: This lordship which Adam by com- ma/id had over the whole world, and by right descending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, was a large, &c. How does he prove that the patriarchs by descent did enjoy it? for dominion of life and death, says he, we find Judah the father pronounced sentence of death against Thamar his daughter-in-law for playing the harlot, p. 13. How does this prove that Judah had absolute and sovereign authority? he pro- nounced sentence of death. The pronouncing of sentence of death is not a certain mark of OP GOVERNMENT. 145 sovereignty, but usually the office of inferior magistrates. The power of making laws of life and death is indeed a mark of sovereignty, but pronouncing the sentence according to those laws may be done by others, and there- fore this will but ill prove that he had sovereign authority: as if one should say, Judge Jefferies pronounced sentence of death in the late times, therefore Judge Jefferies had sovereign autho- rity. But it will be said, Judah did it not by commission from another, and therefore did it in his own right. Who knows whether he had any right at all? Heat of passion 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 exercised it, he pronounced sentence of death against Thamar: our author thinks it is very good proof, that because he did it, therefore he had a right to do it: he lay with her also: by the same way of proof, he had a right to do that too. If the consequence be good from doing to a right of doing, Absalom too may be reckoned amongst our author's sovereigns, for he pro- nounced such a sentence of death against his brother Amnon, and much upon a like occasion, and had it executed too, if that be sufficient to prove a dominion of life and death.
But allowing this all to be clear demonstra- tion of sovereign power, who was it that had this lordship by right descending to him from Adam, as large and ample as the absolutcst L 146' OF GOVERNMENT.
dominion of any monarch? Judah, says ouv author, Judah, a younger son of Jacob, his father and elder brethren living; so 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 descent, enjoy Adam's monarchical power; and if one so qualified may be monarch by descent, why may not every man? If Judah, his father and elder brother living, were one of Adams 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, we see that Abraham commanded an army of three hundred and eighteen soldiers of his own family, and Esau met his brother Jacob with four hundred men at arms: for matter of peace, Abraham made a league with Abimelech, Src. p. 13. Is it not possible for a man to have three hundred and eighteen men in his family, without being heir to Adam? A planter in the West Indies has more, and might, if he pleased, (who doubts?) muster them up and lead them out against the Indians, to seek reparation upon any injury received from them; and all this without the absolute dominion of a monarch, descending to him from Adam. Would it not be an ad- mirable argument to prove, that all power by God's institution descended from Adam by inheritance, and that the very person and power of this planter were the ordinance of God, OF GOVERNMENT I 17 OF GOVERNMENT I 17 because he had power in his family over ser- vants, horn in his house, and bought with his money? For this was just Abraham's case; Ihose who were rich in the patriarch's days, as in the West Indies now, bought men and maid servants, and by their increase, as well as purchasing- of new, came to have large and numerous families, which though they made use of in war or peace, can it be thought the power they had over them was an inheritance descended from Adam, when it was the pur- chase of their money? A man's riding in an expedition against an enemy, his horse bought in a fair would be as good a proof that the owner enjoyed the lordship which Adam by command had over the whole world, by right of descending to him, as Abrahams leading out the servants of his family is, that the patriarchs enjoyed this lordship by descent from Adam: since the title to the power, the master had in both cases, whether over slaves or horses, was only from his purchase; and the getting a dominion over any thing by bargain and money, is a new way of proving one had it by descent and inheritance.
§. 131. 13 Hi making tear and peace are marks of sovereignty. Let it be so in politic socie- ties: may not therefore a man in the West Indies, who hath with him sons of his own, friends, or companions, soldiers under pay, or slaves bought with money, or perhaps a band made up all of these, make war and peace, if 148 OF GOVERNMENT.
there should be occasion, and ratify the articles too with an oath, without being a sovereign, an absolute king over those who went with him? He that says he cannot, must then allow many masters of ships, many private planters, to be absolute monarchs, for as much as this they have done. War and peace cannot be made for politic societies, but by the supreme power of such societies; because war and peace, giving 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 societies is only the supreme power. In voluntary societies for the time, he that has such a power by consent, may make war and peace, and so may a single man for himself, the state of war not consisting in the number of jJartisans, 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 of disposing those to exercise or cease acts of enmity for whom he makes it; and this power in many cases any one may have without any politic supremacy: and therefore the making of war or peace will not prove that every one that does so is a politic ruler, much less a king; for then commonwealths must be kings too, for they do as certainly make war and peace as monarchical government.
§. 133. But granting this a mark of sove- OP GOVERNMENT. 149 reignty in Abraham, it is a proof of the descent to him of Adam's sovereignty over the whole world? If it be, it will surely be as good a proof of the descent of Adam's lordship to other's too. And then commonwealths, as well as Abraham, will be heirs of Adam, for they make ivar and peace, as well as he. If you say, that the lordship of Adam doth not by right descend to commonwealths, though they make war and peace, the same say I of Abra- ham, and then there is an end of your argu- ment: if you stand to your argument, and say those that do make war and peace, as com- monwealths do without doubt, do inherit Adam's lordship, there is an end of your mo- narchy, unless you will say, that common- wealths by descent enjoying Adam's lordship are monarchies; and that indeed would be a new way of making all the governments in the world monarchical.
<§. 134. To give our author the honour of this new invention, for I confess it is not I have first found it out by tracing his principles, and so charged it on him, it is fit my readers know that (as absurd as it may seem) he teaches it himself, p. 23. where he ingenuously says, In all kingdoms and commonwealths in the world, whether the prince be the supreme father of the people, or but the true heir to such a father, or come to the crown by usurpation or election, or whether some few or a multitude govern the J 50 OF GOVERNMENT.
J 50 OF GOVERNMENT.
commonwealth; yet still 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 instance of Abraham. This regal authority, he says, those that govern commonwealths have; and if it be true, that regal and royal authority be in those that govern commonwealths, it is as true that commonwealths are governed by kings; for if regal authority be in him that go- verns, he that governs must needs be a king, and so all commonwealths are nothing but downright monarchies; and then what need any more ado about the matter? The govern- ments of the world are as they should be, there is nothing but monarchy in it. This, without doubt, was the surest way our author could have found, to turn all other governments, but monarchical, out of the world.
^. 13-5. But all this scarce proves Abraham to have been a king as heir to Adam. If by inheritance he had been king, Lot, who was of the same family, must needs have been his subject, by that title, before the servants in his family; but we see they lived as friends and equals, and when their herdsmen could not agree, there was no pretence of jurisdiction or superiority between them, but they parted by consent, Gen. xiii. hence he is called both by OF GOVERNMENT. 151 Abraham, and by the text, Abrahams brother, the name of friendship and equality, and not of jurisdiction and authority, though he were really but his nephew. And if our author knows that Abraham was Adams heir, and a king-, it was more, it seems, than Abraham himself knew, or his servant whom he sent a wooing for his son; for when he sets out the advantages of the match, Gen. xxiv. 35. there- by to prevail with the young woman and her friends, he says, / am Abraham's servant, and the Lord hath blessed my master greatly, and he is become great; and he hath given him flocks and herds, and silver and gold, and men-ser- vants and maid-servants, and camels and asses: and Sarah, my master s wife, bare a son to my master when she teas old, and unto him hath he given all he hath. Can one think that a dis- creet servant that was thus particular to set out his master's greatness, would have omitted the crown Isaac was to have, if he had known of any such? Can it be imagined he should have neglected to have told them on such an occa- sion 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 master had thought any such thing, the likeliest matter of all the rest, to make his errand successful?
§. 136. But this discovery it seems was re- served for our author to make two or three thousand years after, and let him enjoy the credit of it; only he should have taken care 152 OF GOVERNMENT.
that some of Adam's land should have de- scended to this bis heir, as well as all Adam's lordship: for though this lordship which Abra- ham, (if we may believe our author) as well as the other patriarchs, by right descending to him did enjoy, ivas as large and ample as the abso- lutest dominion of any monarch which hath been since the creation; yet his estate, his territories, his dominions were very narrow and scanty, for he had not the possession of a foot of land, till he bought a field and a cave of the sons of Heth to bury Sarah in.
§. 137. The instance of Esau joined with this of Abraham, to prove that the lordship which Adam had over the whole icorld, by right descending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, is yet more pleasant than the former. Esau met his brother Jacob with four hundred men at arms: he 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 so honourable an opi- nion of them, especially if there had been no- body near with a better title of five hundred armed men, to question their royal authority of four hundred. It is a shame for men to trifle so, to say no worse of it, in so serious an argu- ment. Here Esau is brought as a proof that Adams lordship, Adams absolute dominion, as OF GOVERNMENT. 153 OF GOVERNMENT. 153 huge as that of any monarch, descended by right to the patriarchs, and in this very chap. p. 19. Jacob is brought as an instance of one, that by birth-right ivas lord over his brethren. So we have here two brothers absolute monarchs by the same title, and at the same time heirs to Adam, the eldest, heir to Adam, because he met his brother with four hundred men; and the youngest, heir to Adam by birth-right. Esau enjoyed the lordship ivhich Adam had over the ivhole world by right descending to him in as large and ample manner, as the absolutest dominion of any monarch; and at the same time, Jacob lord over him, by the right heirs have to be lords over their brethren. JRismn tcneatis? I never, I confess, met with any man of parts so dexterous as Sir Robert at this way of arguing: but it was his misfortune to light upon an hypothesis, that could not be accom- modated to the nature of things, and humau affairs; his principles could not be made to agree with that constitution and order, which God had settled in the world, and therefore must needs often clash with common sense and experience.
§. 138. In the next section, he tells us This patriarchal power continued not only till the flood, 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 necessary that patriarchal 154 OF GOVERNMENT.
power should be whilst there are patriarchs; as it is necessary there should be paternal or conjugal power whilst there are fathers or husbands; but this is but playing with names. That which he would fallaciously insinuate is the thing in question to be proved, viz. that the lordship which Adam had over the ivorld, the supposed absolute universal dominion of Adam by right descending Jrom him, the patriarchs did enjoy. If he affirms such an absolute monarchy continued to the flood, in the world, I would be glad to know what records he has it from; for I confess I cannot find a word of it in my Bible: if by patriarchal potter he means any thing else; 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, had absolute monarchical power, I confess, I do not see, and therefore I think needs no answer till the argument from it be made out a little clearer.
§. 139. The three sons of Noah had the world, says our author, divided amongst them by their father, for of them ivas the whole world overspread, p. 14. The world might be overspread by the offspring of Noah's sons, though he never divided the world amongst them; for the earth might be replenished without being divided: so that all our author's argument here proves no such division. How- ever, 1 allow it to him, and then ask, the world being divided amongst them, which of OF GOVERNMENT. 155 the three was Adams heir \ If Adams lordship, Adam's monarchy, by right descended only to the eldest, then the other two could be but his subjects, his slaves: if by right it descended to all three brothers, by the same right, it will descend to all mankind; and then it will be impossible what he says, p. 19. that heirs are lords of their brethren, should be true; but all brothers, and consequently all men, will be equal and independent, all heirs to Adam's monarchy, and consequently all monarchs too, one as much as another. But it will be said, Noah their father divided the world amongst them; so that our author will allow more to Noah, than he will to God Almighty, for Observations, 211. he thought it hard, that God himself should give the world to Noah and his sons, to the prejudice of Noah's birth- right: his words are, Noah was left sole heir to the world: ivhy should it be thought that God would disinherit him of his birth-right, and make him, of all men in the world, the only tenant in common with his children? and yet here he thinks it fit that Noah should disin- herit Shem of his birth-right, and divide the world betwixt him and his brethren; so that this birth-right, when our author pleases, must, and when he pleases must not, be sacred and inviolable.
§. 140. If Noah did divide the world be- tween his sons, and his assignment of do- minions to them were good, there is an end of 156 OF GOVERNMENT.
divine institution; all our author's discourse of Adam's heir, with whatsoever 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 person having that power, will not be (as he says they are, Observations, 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 so where human institution 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 please.
§. 141. He goes on, Most of the civilest na- tions of the earth labour to fetch their original from some of the sons, or nephews of Noah, p. 14. How many do most of the civilest nations amount to? and who are they? I fear the Chineses, a very great and civil people, as well as several other people of the East, West, North and South, trouble not themselves much about this matter. All that believe the Bible, which I believe are our author's most of the civilest nations, must necessarily derive themselves from Noah: but for the rest of the world, they think little of his sons or nephews. But if the heralds and antiquaries of all na- tions, for it is these men generally that labour to find out the originals of nations, or all the OF GOVERNMENT. 1-57 OF GOVERNMENT. 1-57 nations themselves, should labour to fetch their original from some of the sons or nephews of Noah, what would this be to prove, that the lordship which Adam had over the whole world, by right descended to the patriarchs? Whoever, nations, or races of men, labour to fetch their original from, maybe concluded to be thought by them, men of renown, famous to posterity, for the greatness of their virtues and actions; but beyond these they look not, nor consider who they were heirs to, but look on them as such as raised themselves, by their own virtue, to a degree that would give a lustre to those who in future ages could pretend to derive themselves from them. But if it were Ogyges, Hercules, JBrama, Tamerlane, Pharamond; nay, if Jupiter and Saturn were the names from whence divers races of men, both ancient and modern, have laboured to derive their original; will that prove, that those men enjoyed the lord- ship of Adam, by right descending to them? If not, this is but a flourish of our author's to mislead his reader, that in itself signifies nothing.
§. 142. To as much purpose is what he tells us, p. 15. concerning this division of the world, That some say it was by Lot, and others that Noah sailed round the Mediterranean in ten yearSy and divided the world into Asia, Afric and Europe, portions for his three sons. America then, it seems, was left to be his that could catch it. Why our author takes such pains to prove the 158 OF GOVERNMENT.