division of the world by Noah to his sons, 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 guess, since such a division, if it prove any thing, must necessarily take away the title of Adam's heir; unless three brothers can all together be heirs of Adam; and therefore the following words, Howsoever the manner of this division be un- certain, yet it is most certain the division itself was by families from Noah and his children, over which the parents were heads and princes, p. 1-5. if allowed him to be true, and of any force to prove, that all the power in the world is nothing but the lordship of Adam's descend- ing by right, they will only prove, that the fa- thers of the children are all heirs to this lord- ship of Adam: for if in those days Cham and Japhet, and other parents, besides the eldest son, were heads and princes over their fami- milies, and had a right to divide the earth by families, what hinders younger brothers, being fathers of families, from having the same right? If Cham and Japhet were princes by right descending to them, notwithstanding any title of heir in their eldest brother, younger brothers by the same right descending to them are princes now; and so 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 lordship of Adam over the whole world, by right OF GOVERNMENT.!•">!»
descends only to the eldest son, and then there can be but one heir, as our author says, p. 19. or else, it by right descends to all the sons equally, and then every father of a family will have it, as well as the three sons of Noah: take which you will, it destroys the present governments and kingdoms, that are now in the world, since whoever has this natural power of a king, by right descending to him, must have it, either as our author tells us Cain had it, and be lord over his brethren, and so be alone king of the whole world; or else, as he tells us here, S/iem, Cham and Japhet had it, three brothers, and so be only prince of his own family, and alt families independent one of another: all the world must be only one empire by the right of the next heir, or else every family be a distinct government of itself, by the lordship of Adam's descending to pa- rents of families. And to this only tend all the proofs he here gives us of the descent of Adams lordship: for continuing his story of this descent, he says, §. 143. In the dispersion of Babel, ice must certainly find the establishment of royal power, throughout the kingdoms of the world, p. 14. If you must find it, pray do, and you will help us to a new piece of history: but you must shew it us before we shall be bound to believe, that regal power was established in the world upon your principles: for, that regal power was established in the kingdoms of the world, I 1G0 OP GOVERNMENT.
think nobody will dispute; but that there should be kingdoms in the world, whose se- veral kings enjoyed their crowns, by right de- scending to them from Adam, that we think not only Apocryphal, but also utterly impossible. If our author has no better foundation for his monarchy than a supposition of what was done at the dispersion of Babel, the monarchy he erects thereon, whose top is to reach to heaven to unite mankind, will serve only to divide and scatter them as that tower did; and, instead of establishing civil government and order in the world, will produce nothing but confusion.
§. 144. For he tells us, the nations they were divided into, were distinct families, which had fathers for rulers over them; whereby it appears, that even in the confusion, God was careful to preserve the fatherly authority, by distributing the diversity of languages according to the diversity of families, p. 14. It would have been a hard matter for any one but our author to have found out so plainly, in the text he here brings, that all the nations in that dispersion were governed by father s, and that God was careful to preserve the fatherly authority. The words of the text are; These are the sons of Shem after their families, ajter their tongues in their lands, ajter their nations; and the same thing is said of Cham and Japhet, after an enumeration of their posterities; in all which there is not one word said of their go- vernors, or forms of government; of fathers, OF GOVERNMENT 161 or fatherly authority. But our author, who is very quick sighted to spy out fatherhood, where nobody else could see any the least glimpses of it, tells us positively their riders were fathers, and God was careful to preserve the fatherly authority; and why? Because those of the same family spoke the same lan- guage, and so of necessity in the division kept together. Just as if one should argue thus Hannibal in his army, consisting of divers nations, kept those of the same language to- gether; therefore fathers were captains of each band, and Hannibal was careful of the fatherly authority: or in peopling of Carolina, the En- glish, French, Scotch and Welch that are there, plant themselves together, and by them the country is divided in their lands ajter their tongues, after their families, after their nations; therefore care was taken of the fatherly autho- rity: or because, in many parts of America, every little tribe was a distinct people, with a different language, one should infer, that there- fore God was careful to preserve the fatherly authority, or that therefore their rulers enjoyed Adam's lordship by right descending 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 societies, speaking 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 M 162 OF GOVERNMENT.
divided into distinct languages and nations, and therefore it is not to argue from the authority of scripture, to tell us positively, fathers were their rulers, when the scripture says no such thing; but to set up fancies of one's own brain, when we confidently aver matter of fact, where records are utterly silent. Upon a like ground, i. e. none at all, he says, That they were not confused multitudes without heads and governors, and at liberty to choose what gover- nors or governments they pleased.
§. 14(3. 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 lordship of Adam by right descending to him? If they were not, there were then no thoughts, it is plain, of Adam's heir, no right of government known then upon that title; no care taken, by God or man, of Adam's 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 Isaac s time, a long while after the division at Babel; if then, I say, they were not under the monarchical go- vernment of Adams fatherhood, by right de- scending 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 Shems in Asia, and consequently no such OF GOVERNMENT. 163 OF GOVERNMENT. 163 division 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 seems from this place, that if they had any govern- ment, it was rather a commonwealth than an absolute monarchy: for the scripture tells us, Gen. xi. They said: it was not a prince com- manded 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 us a city: they built it for themselves as free-men, not as slaves for their lord and master: that ive be not scattered abroad; having a city once built, and fixed habitations to settle our abodes and families. This was the consultation and design of a people, that were at liberty to part asunder, but desired to keep in one body, and could not have been either necessary or likely in men tied together under the government of one monarch, who if they had been, as our author tells us, all slaves under the absolute 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 Adams heir or fatherly authority?
§. 147. But if being, as God says, Gen. xi. 6. one people, they had one ruler, one king by natural right, absolute and supreme over them, what care had God to preserve the paternal authority of the supreme fatherhood, if on a lf)4 OF GOVERNMENT.
sudden lie suffer seventy-two (for so many our author talks of) distinct nations to be erected out of it, under distinct governors, and at once to withdraw themselves from the obedience of their sovereign? This is to intitle God's carehow, and to what we please. Can it be sense to say, that God was careful to preserve 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 instance of God's care to preserve the fatherly authority, when he took away the true supreme father- hood of the natural monarch? Can it be reason to say, that God, for the preservation of father- ly authority, lets several new governments with their governors start up, w ho could not all have fatherly authority? And is it not as much reason to say, that God is careful to destroy fatherly authority, when he suffers one, who is in possession of it, to have his government torn in pieces, and shared by several of his subjects? Would it not be an argument just like this, for monarchical government to say, when any mo- narchy was shattered to pieces, and divided amongst revolted subjects, that God was care- ful to preserve monarchical power, by rending a settled empire into a multitude of little governments? If any one will say, that what hap- pens in providence to be preserved, God is careful to preserve as a thing therefore to be esteemed by men as necessary or useful, it is a peculiar propriety of speech, which every OF GOVERNMENT. \()0 one a\ ill not think fit to imitate: but this 1 am sdre is impossible to be cither proper, or true speaking, that Shem, for example, (for he was then alive,) should have fatherly authority, or sovereignty by right of fatherhood, over that, one people at Babel, and that the next moment, Shem yet living, seventy-two others should have fatherly authority, or sovereignty by right of fatherhood, over the same people, divided into so many distinct governments: either these seventy-two fathers actually were rulers, just before the confusion, and then they were not one people, but that God himself says they Were-; or else they were a commonwealth, and then* where was monarchy? or else these seventy-two fathers had fatherly authority, but knew it not. Strange! that fatherly authority should be the only original of government amongst men, and yet all mankind not know it; and stranger yet, that the confusion of ton- gues should reveal it to them all of a sudden, that in an instant these seventy-two should know that they had jalherhj power, and all others know that they were to obey it in them, and every one know that particular fatherly authority to which he was a subject. He that can think this arguing from scripture, may from thence make out what model of an Utopia will best suit with his fancy or interest; and this fatherhood, thus disposed of, will justify both a prince who claims an universal monarchy^ and his subjects, who. being fathers of families, J 66 OF GOVERNMENT.
shall quit all subjection to him, and canton his empire into less governments for themselves; for it will always remain a doubt in which of these the fatherly authority resided, till our author resolves us, wheher Shem, who was then alive, or these seventy-two new princes, begin- ning so many new empires in his dominions, and over his subjects, had right to govern, since our author tells us, that both one and the other had fatherly \t which is supreme authority, and are brought in by him as instances of those who did enjoy the lordships of Adam by right descending to them, which was as large and ample as the absolulest dominion of any monarch. This at least is unavoidable,' that if God ivas careful to preserve the fatherly au- thority, in the seventy-two new-erected nations, it necessarily follows, that he was as careful to destroy all pretences of Adam's heir; since he took care, and therefore did preserve the fatherly authority in so many, at least seventy- one, that could not possibly 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 instance of en- joying this patriarchal power, p. 16. but I know not for what reason our author seems a little unkind to him, and says, that he against right enlarged his empire, by seizing violently on the rights of other lords of families. These OF GOVERNMENT. 1G7 lords of families here were called fathers of families, in his account of the dispersion at Babel: but it matters not how they were called, so we know who they are; for this fatherly authority must be in them, either as heirs to Adam, and so there could not be seventy-two, nor above one at once; or else as natural parents over their children, and so every father will ha? e paternal authority over his children by the same right, and in as large extent as those seventy-two had, and so be independent princes over their own offspring. Taking his lords of families in this latter sense, (as it is hard to give those words any other sense in this place) he gives us a very pretty account of the original of monarchy, in these following words, p. 16. And in this sense he may be said to be the author and founder of monarchy, viz. As against right seizing vio- lently on the rights of fathers over their chil- dren; which paternal authority, if it be in them, by right of nature, (for else how could tiiose seventy-two come by it?) nobody can take from them without their own consents; and then 1 desire our author and his friends to consider, how far this will concern other princes, and whether it will not, according to his conclusion of that paragraph, resolve all regal power of those, whose dominions extend beyond their families, either into tyranny and usurpation, or election and consent of fathers 168 OF GOVERNMENT.
of families, which will differ very little from consent of the people.
§. 149. All his instances, in the next section, p. 17. of the twelve dukes of Edom, the nine kings in a little corner of Asia in Abraham's days, the thirty-one kings in Canaan destroyed by Joshua, and the care he takes to prove that these were all sovereign princes, and that every town in those days had a king, are so many direct proofs against him, that it was not the lordship of Adam by right descending to them, that made kings: for if they had held their royalties by that title, either their must have been but one sovereign over them all, or else 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 sons of Esau had each of them, the younger as well as the eldest, the right of father hood, and so were sovereign princes after their father's death, the same right had their sons after them, and so on to all posterity; which will limit all the natural power of fatherhood, only to be over the issue of their own bodies, and their descendents; 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 sons over their respective posterities: whereby the power of fatherhood will be preserved indeed, and is intelligible, but will not be at all to our author's purpose. None of flic instances he brings arc proofs of any power OF GOVERNMENT. 1 09 they had, as heirs of Adam's paternal authority by the title of his fatherhood descending to them; no, nor of any power they had by virtue of their own: for Adam's fatherhood being" over all mankind, it could descend but to one at once, and from him to his right heir only, and so there could by that title be but one king in the world at a time: and by right of father- hood, not descending from Adam, it must be only as they themselves were fathers, and so could be over none but their own posterity. So that if those twelve dukes of Edom; if Abraham and the nine kings his neighbours; if Jacob and Esau, and the thirty-one kings in Canaan, the seventy-two kings mutilated by Adonibcseck, the thirty-two kings that came to J3enhadad, the seventy kings of Greece making war at Troy, were, as our author contends, all of them sovereign princes; it is evident that kings derived their power from some other original than fatherhood, since some of these had power over more than their own posterity; and it is demonstration, they could not be all heirs to Adam; for 1 challenge any man to make any pretence to power by right of father- hood, either intelligible or possible in any one, otherwise than either as Adams heir, or as progenitor over his own descendents, naturally sprung from him. And if our author could shew that any one of these princes, of which he gives us here so large a catalogue, had his authority by either of these titles, 1 think I ]70 OF GOVERNMENT.
might yield him the cause; though it is mani- fest they are all impertinent, and directly contrary to what be brings them to prove, viz. That the lordship which Adam had over the world by right descended to the patriarchs.
§. 150. Having told us, p. 16. That the patriarchal government continued in Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, until the Egyptian bondage, p. 17. he tells us, J3y manifest footsteps we may trace this paternal government unto the Israelites coming* into Egypt, where the exercise of su- preme patriarchal government was intermitted, because they ivere in subjection to a stronger prince. What these footsteps are of paternal government, in our author's sense, i. e. of ab- solute monarchical power descending from Adam, and exercised by right of fatherhood, we have seen, that is for 2290 years no foot- steps at all; since in all that time he cannot produce any one example of any person who claimed or exercised regal authority by right of fatherhood; or shew 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 absolute arbitrary power, or by what titles those kings had theirs, and of what extent it was, the scripture is wholly silent; it is mani- fest by right of fatherhood they neither did, nor could claim any title to dominion and empire.
OF GOVERNMENT. 171 OF GOVERNMENT. 171 §. 151. To say, that the exercise of supreme •patriarchal government ivas intermitted, because they were in subjection to a stronger prince, proves nothing but what 1 before suspected, viz. That patriarchal jurisdiction or govern- ment is a fallacious expression, and does not in our author signify (what he would yet in- sinuate by it) paternal and regal power, such an absolute sovereignty as he supposes was in Adam.
§. 152. For how can he say that patriarchal jurisdiction was intermitted in.Egypt, where there was a king, under whose regal govern- ment the Israelites were, if patriarchal were absolute monarchical jurisdiction? And if it were not, but something else, why does he make such ado about a power not in question, and nothing to the purpose? The exercise of patri- archal jurisdiction, if patriarchal be regal, was not intermitted whilst the Israelites were in Egypt. It is true, the exercise of regal power was not then in the hands of any of the pro- mised seed of Abraham, nor before neither that I know; but what is that to the intermission of regal authority, as descending from Adam, unless our author will have it, that this chosen line of Abraham had the right of inheritance to Adams lordship? aud then to what purpose are his instances of the seventy-two rulers, in whom the fatherly authority was preserved in the confusion at Babel? Why does he bring the twelve princes sons of Jshmael, and the 172 OF GOVERNMENT.