3. If this were intended by God as the char- ter of primogeniture, and the grant of dominion to elder brothers in general as such, by right of inheritance, we might expect it should have included all his brethren: for 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 sons than these two: whereas Abel himself is not so much as. named; and the words in the original can scarce, with any good construction, be applied to him.
4. It is too much to build a doctrine of so mighty consequence upon so doubtful and obscure a place of scripture, which may be well, nay better, understood in a quite dif- ferent sense, and so can be but an ill proof, being as doubtful as the thing to be proved by it; especially when there is nothing else in scripture or reason to be found, that favours or supports it.
§. 113. It follows, p. 19. Accordingly when Jacob bought his brothers birth-right, Isaac blessed him thus; Be lord over thy brethren, (uid let the sons of thy mother bow before thee. Another instance, I take it, brought by our OF GOVERNMENT. \'l.
author to evince dominion tine to birth-right, aud an admirable one it is: for it must he no ordinary way of reasoning in a man, that is pleading for the natural power of kings, and against all compact, to bring for proof of it, an example, where his own account of it founds all the right upon compact, and settles empire in the younger brother, unless buying and selling- be no compact; for he tells us, tvhen Jacob bought his brother s birth-right. But passing by that, let us consider the history itself, what use our author makes of it, and we shall find these following mistakes about it.
1. That our author reports this, as if Isaac had given Jacob this blessing, immediately up- on his purchasing the birth-right; for he says, when Jacob bought, Isaac blessed him; which is plainly otherwise in the scripture: for it appears, there was a distance of time between, and if we will take the story in the order it lies, it must be no small distance; all Isaac's sojourning in Gerar, and transactions with Abimelech, Gen. xxvi. coming between; Re- becca being then beautiful, and consequently young; but Isaac, when he blessed Jacob, was old and decrepit; and Esau also complains of Jacob, Gen. xxvii. 36. that two times he had supplanted him; He took aivay my birth-right, says he, and behold now he hath taken away my blessing; words, that I think signify dis- tance of time and difference of action.
2. Another mistake of our author's is, that 128 OF GOVERNMENT.
he supposes Isaac gave Jacob the blessing, and bid him be lord over his brethren, because 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 also manifest by the text, that Isaac had no consideration of Jacob's having bought the birth-right; for when he blessed him, he considered him not as Jacob, but took him for Esau. Nor did Esau under- stand any such connection between birth-right and the blessing; for he says, He hath sup- planted me these two times, he took away my birth-right, and behold now he hath taken away my blessing: whereas had the blessing, which was to be lord over his brethren, belonged to the birth-right, Esau could not have com- plained of this second, as a cheat, Jacob having got nothing but what Esau had sold him, when he sold him his birth-ri<rht; so that it is plain, dominion, if these words signify it, was not understood to belong to the birth-ri<>'ht.
\. 114. And that in those days of the pa- triarchs, dominion was not understood to be the right of the heir, but only a greater portion of goods, is plain from Gen. xxi. 10. for Sarah, taking Isaac to be heir, says, Cast out this bondwoman and her son, for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son: whereby could be meant nothing, but that he should not have a pretence to an equal share of his father's estate after his death, but should OF GOVERNMENT. 129 have his portion presently, and begone. Ac- cordingly we read, Gen. xxv. 5, 6. That Abraham gave all he had unto Isaac, but unto the sons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac Ms son, ivhile he yet lived. That is, Abra- ham having- given portions to all his other sons, and sent them away, that which he had re- served, being the greatest part of his substance, Isaac as heir possessed after his, death: but by being heir, he had no right to be lord over his brethren; for if he had, why should Sarah endeavour to rob him of one of his subjects, or lessen the number of his slaves, by desiring to have Ishmael sent away?
§. 115. Thus, as under the law, the privi- lege of birth-right was nothing but a double portion: so we see that before Moses, in the patriarchs time, from whence our author pre- tends to take his model, there was no know- ledge, no thought, that birth-right gave rule or empire, paternal or kingly authority, to any one over his brethren. If this be not plain enough in the story of Isaac and Ishmael, he that will look into 1 Chron. v. 12. may read these words; Reuben ivas the first-born; but forasmuch as he defiled his father's bed, his birth-right, ivas given unto the sons of Joseph, the son of Israel: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birth-right; for Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief rider; but the birth-right was Joseph's.
K J.30 OF GOVERNMENT.
What this births-right was, Jacob blessing* Jo- seph, 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 sword and with my bow. AVhereby it is not only plain, that the birth- right was nothing but a double portion; but the text in Chronicles is express against our author's doctrine, and shews that dominion was no part of the birth-right; for it tells us, that Joseph 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 instance of Jacob and Esau, to prove that dominion belongs to the heir over his brethren.
§.116. 1. Because it will be but an ill ex- ample to prove, that dominion by God's ordi- nation belonged to the eldest son, because Ja- cob the youngest here had it, let him come by it how he would: for if it prove any thing, it can only prove, against our author, that tin1 assignment of dominion to the eldest is not by divine institution, which would then be unalter- able: for if by the law of God, or nature, absolute power and empire belongs to the eldest son and his heirs, so that they are su- preme monarchs, and all the rest of their brethren slaves, our author gives us reason to doubt whether the eldest son has a power to part with it, to the prejudice of his posterity, since he tells us, Observations, 158. That in OF GOVERNMENT. 131 grants and gifts that have their original from God or nature, no inferior power of man can limit or make any law of prescription against them.
<§. 117. 2. Because this place, Gen. xxvii. 29. brought by our author, concerns not at all the dominion of one brother over the other, nor the subjection of Esau to Jacob: for it is plain in the history, that Esau was never subject to Jacob, but lived apart in mount Seir, where he founded a distinct people and government, and was himself prince over them, as much as Jacob was in his own family. This text, if considered, can never be understood of Esau himself, or the personal dominion of Jacob over him: for the words brethren and sons of thy mother, could not be used literally by Isaac, who knew Jacob had only one brother; and these words are so far from being true in a literal sense, or establishing any dominion in Jacob over Esau, that in the story we find the quite contrary, for Gen. xxxii. Jacob several times calls Esaulord, and himself his servant; and Gen. xxxiii. he bowed himself seven times to the ground to Esau. Whether Esau then were a subject and vassal (nay, as our author tells us, all subjects are slaves) to Jacob, and Jacob his sovereign prince by birth -right, I leave the reader to judge; and to believe if he ran, that these words of Isaac, Ee lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother s sons bow down to thee, confirmed Jacob in a sovereignty over 132 OF GOVERNMENT.
Esau, upon the account of the birth-right he had got from him.
§. 118. He that reads the story of Jacob and Esau, will find there was never any jurisdiction or authority, that either of them had over the other after their father's death: they lived with the friendship and equality of brethren, neither lord, neither slave to his brother; but indepen- dent each of other, were both heads of their distinct families, where they received no laws from one another, but lived separately, and were the roots out of which sprang two distinct people under two distinct governments. This blessing then of Isaac, whereon our author would build the dominion of the elder brother, signifies no more, but what Rebecca had been told from God, Gen. xxv. 23. Two nations are in thy ivomb, and tico manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger; and so Jacob blessed Judah, Gen, xlix. and gave him the sceptre and dominion, from whence our author might have argued as well, that jurisdiction and dominion belongs to the third son over his brethren, as well as from this blessing of Isaac, that it belonged to Jacob: both these places contain only predictions of what should long after happen to their posterities, and not any declaration of the right of inheritance to dominion in either. And thus we have our an- OF GOVERNMENT. 133 thDr's two great and only arguments to prove, that heirs are lords over their brethren.
1. Because God tells Cain, Gen. iv. that however sin might set upon him, he ought or might be master of it: for the most learned in- terpreters understood the words of sin, and not of Abel, and give so strong reasons for it, that nothing can convincingly be inferred from so doubtful a text, to our author's purpose.
2. Because in this of Gen. xxvii. Isaac fore- tels that the Israelites, the posterity of Jacob, should have dominion over the Edomites, the posterity of Esau; therefore says our author, heirs are lords of their brethren: I leave any one to judge of the conclusion.
§. 119. And now we see how our author has provided for the descending, and convey- ance down of Adams monarchical power, or paternal dominion to posterity, by the inhe- ritance of his heir, succeeding 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 descended from his father, and so in infinitum. But yet who this heir is, he does not once tell us; and all the light we have from him in this so fundamental a point, is only, that in his in- stance of Jacob, by using the word birth-right, as that which passed from Esau to Jacob, he haves us to guess, that by heir, he means the eldest son; though I do not remember he any where mentions expressly the title of the first- 134 OF GOVERNMENT.
born, but all along keeps himself under the shelter of the indefinite term heir. But taking it to be his meaning, that the eldest son is heir, (for if the eldest be not, there will be no pre- tence why the sons should not be all heirs alike) and so by right of primogeniture has dominion over his brethren; this is but one step towards the settlement of succession, and the difficulties remain still as much as ever, till he can shew us who is meant by right heir, in all those cases which may happen where the present possessor hath no son. This he silently passes over, and perhaps wisely too: for what can be wiser, after one has affirmed, that the person having that power, as icell as the power and form of government, is the ordinance of God, and by divine institution, vid. Observations, 254. p. 12. than to be careful, not to start any question concerning the person, the resolution whereof will certainly lead him into a confes- sion, that God and nature hath determined nothing about him? And if our author cannot shew who by right of nature, or a clear positive 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 son, he might have spared his pains in all the rest, it being more necessary for the settling men's consciences, and determining their sub- jection and allegiance, to shew them who by original right, superior and antecedent to the will, or any act of men, hath a title to this OF GOVERNMENT. 13-5 paternal jurisdiction, than it is to shew that by nature there was such a jurisdiction; it being to no purpose for me to know there is such a paternal power, which I ought, and am dis- posed to obey, unless, where there are many pretenders, I also know the person that is rightfully invested and endowed with it.
<§. 120. For the main matter in question being concerning the duty of my obedience, and the obligation of conscience I am under to pay it to him that is of right my lord and ruler, 1 must know the person that this right of pater- nal power resides in, and so impowers him to claim obedience from me: for let it be true what he says, p. 12. That civil poiver not only in general is by divine institution, but even the assignment of it specially to the eldest parents; and Observations, 254. That not only the power, or right of government, but the form of the power of governing, and the person having that power, are all the ordinance of God; yet unless he shew us in all cases, who is this person ordained by God, who is this eldest parent; all his abstract notions of monarchical power will signify just nothing, when they are to be reduced to practice, and men are con- scientiously to pay their obedience: for paternal jurisdiction being not the thing to be obeyed, because 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 obeyed; 136 OF GOVERNMENT.
136 OF GOVERNMENT.
it is ridiculous to say, I pay obedience to the paternal powe?', when I obey him, to whom paternal power gives uo right to my obedience: for he can have no divine right to my obedience, who cannot shew 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 princes title to government, as heir to Adam, which therefore is of no use, and had been better let alone, he is fain to resolve all into present possession, and make civil obe- dience as due to an usurper, as to a lawful king; and thereby the usurper s title as good. His words are, Observations, 253. and they deserve to be remembered: If an usurper dis- possess the true heir, the subjects obedience to the fatherly power must go along, and wait upon God's providence. But I shall leave his title of usurpers to be examined in its due place, and desire my sober reader to consider what thanks princes owe such politics as this, which can suppose paternal poiver (i. e.) a right to government in the hands of a Cade, or a Cromwell; and so all obedience being due to paternal power, the obedience of subjects will be due to them, by the same right, and upon as good grounds, as it is to lawful princes; and yet this, as dangerous a doctrine as it is, must necessarily follow from making all politi- cal power to be nothing else, but Adam's pa- ternal power by right and divine institution, OF GOVERNMENT. 137 descending from him without being able to shew to whom it descended, or who is heir to it.
§. 12*2. To settle government in the world, and to lay obligations to obedience on any man's conscience, it is necessary (supposing with our author that all power be nothing but the being possessed of Adams j at her hood) to satisfy him, who has a right to this power, this fatherhood, when the possessor dies without sons to succeed immediately to it, as it was to tell him, that upon the death of the father, the eldest son had a right to it: for it is still to be remembered, that the great question is, (and that which our author would be thought to contend for, if he did not sometimes forget it) what persons 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 resides: for so 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 su- preme brotherhood, will be all one, provided we know who has it.
§. 123. I go on then to ask, whether in the inheriting of this paternal power, this supreme fatherhood, the grandson by a daughter hath a right before a nephew by a brother? Whether the grandson by the eldest son, being an infant, before the younger son, a man and able? \\ hether the daughter before (he uncle? or any other man, descended by a male line? Whether J38 OF GOVERNMENT.
J38 OF GOVERNMENT.
a grandson by a young daughter, before a grand-daughter by an elder daughter? Whether the elder son by a concubine, before a younger son by a wife? From whence also will arise many questions of legitimation, and what in nature is the difference betwixt a wife and a concubine? for as to the municipal or positive laws of men, they can signify nothing here. It may farther be asked, Whether the eldest son, being a fool, shall inherit this paternal ■power, before the younger, a wise man? and what degree of folly it must be that shall ex- clude him? and who shall be judge of it? Whether the son of a fool, excluded for his folly, before the son of his wise brother who reigned? Who has the paternal power whilst the widow-queen is with child by the deceased king, and nobody knows whether it will be a son or a daughter? Which shall be heir of the two male-twins, who by the dissection of the mother were laid open to the world? Whether a sister by the half blood, before a brother's daughter by the whole blood?
§. 124. These, and many more such doubts, might be proposed about the titles of succes- sion, and the right of inheritance; and that not as idle speculations, but such as in history we shall find have concerned the inheritance of crowns and kingdoms; and if ours want them, we need not go farther for famous examples of it, than the other kingdom in this very island, which having been fully related by the ingenious OF GOVERNMENT. 130 and learned author of Patriarcha non Monar- ches, I need say no more of. Till our author hath resolved all the doubts that may arise about the next heir, and shewed that they are plainly determined by the law of nature, or the revealed law of God, all his suppositions of a monarchical, absolute, supreme, paternal power in Adam, and the descent of that power to his heirs, would not be of the least use to establish the authority, or make out the title, of any one prince now on earth; but would rather unsettle and bring all into question: for let our author tell us as long as he pleases, and let all men believe it too, that Adam had a paternal, and thereby a monarchical power; that this (the on\y power in the world) descended to his heirs; and that there is no other power in the world but this: let this be all as clear demonstration, as it is manifest error, yet if it be not past doubt, to whom this paternal power descends, and whose now it is, nobody can be under any obligation of obedience, unless any one will say, that I am bound to pay obedience to paternal poiver in a man who has no more paternal power than 1 myself; which is all one as to say, I obey a man, because he has a right to govern; and if I be asked, how I know he has a right to govern, I should answer, it cannot be known, that he has any at all: for that cannot be the reason of my obedience, which I know not to be so; much less can that be a reason of my obe- dience, which nobody at all can know to be so.
140 OF GOVERNMENT.
§. 125. And therefore all this ado about Adam's fatherhood, the greatness of its power, and the necessity of its supposal, helps nothing to establish the power of those that govern, or to determine the obedience of subjects 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 fatherhood, this monar- chical power of Adam, descending to his heirs, would be of no more use to the government of mankind, than it would be to the quieting of men's consciences, or securing their healths, if our author had assured them, that Adam had a power to forgive sins, or cure diseases, which by divine institution descended to his heir, whilst this heir is impossible to be known. And should not he do as rationally, who upon this assurance of our author went and confes- sed his sins, and expected a good absolution; or took physic with expectation of health, from any one who had taken on himself the name of priest or physician, or thrust himself into those employments, saying, I acquiesce in the absolving power descending from Adam, or I shall be cured by the medicinal power descend- ing from Adam; as he who says, I submit to and obey the paternal power descending from Adam, when it is confessed all these powers descend only to his single heir, and that heir is unknown.
OF GOVERNMENT. 141