heir had no fuch right by divine inftitution, than that God fhould give fuch a right to the heir, but yet leave it doubtful and undeterminable who fuch heir is. §. 128. If God had given the land of Canaan to Abraham, and in general terms to fome body after him, without naming his feed, whereby it might be known who that fomebody was, it would have been as good and useful an affignment, 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 fome body, I know not whom. God making it a divine inftitution, that men fhould not marry those who were near of kin, thinks it not enough to fay, 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, forbidden by divine inftitution; or else that law would have been of no ufe, it being to no purpose to lay reftraint, or give privileges to men, in fuch general terms, as the particular perfon concerned cannot be known by. But God not having any where faid, the next heir shall inherit all his father's eftate or dominion, we are not to wonder, that he hath no where appointed who that heir should be; for never having intended any fuch thing, never de L 2 figned figned any heir in that sense, we cannot expect he fhould any where nominate, or appoint any person to it, as we might, had it been otherwife. And therefore in scripture, though the word heir occur, yet there is no fuch 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 Ishmael staid in the house, to fhare in Abraham's eftate after his death, this fon of a bond-woman might be heir with Ifaac; and therefore, fays fhe, caft out this bond-woman and her fon, for the fon of this bond-woman shall 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 descent are: but he having been fo fparing to inftruct us by rules, how to know who is heir, let us fee in the next place, what his history out of fcripture, on which he pretends wholly to build his government, gives us in this neceffary and fundamental point. §. 129. Our author, to make good the title of his book, p. 13. begins his history of the defcent of Adam's regal power, p. 13. in thefe words: This lordship which Adam by command had over the whole world, and by right defcending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, was a large, &c. How does he prove that the patriarchs by defcent did enjoy it? for for dominion of life and death, fays he, we find Judah the father pronounced fentence of death against Thamar bis daughter in law for playing the barlot, p. 13. How does this 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 usually the office of inferior magistrates. The power of making laws of life and death is indeed a mark of fovereignty, but pronouncing the fentence according to thofe laws may be done by others, and therefore this will but ill prove that he had fovereign authority: as if one fhould fay, Judge Jefferies pronounced fentence of death in the late times, therefore Judge Jefferies had fovereign authority. But it will be faid, Judah did it not by commiffion from another, and therefore did it in his own right. Who knows whether he had any right at all? Heat of paffion might carry him to do that which he had no authority to do. Judah bad dominion of life and death: how does that appear? He exercised it, he pronounced fentence 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 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 amongst our author's fove reigns, for he pronounced such a sentence of death against his brother Amnon, and much upon a like occafion, and had it executed too, if that be fufficient to prove a dominion of life and death. But allowing this all to be clear demonftration of fovereign power, who was it that had this lord/hip by right defcending to him from Adam, as large and ample as the abfoluteft dominion of any monarch? Judah, fays 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's monarchical power; 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, we 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? A planter in the Weft Indies has more, and might, if he pleased, (who doubts?) mufter them up and lead them out against against the Indians, to feek reparation upon any injury received from them; and all this without the abfolute dominion of a monarch, defcending to him from Adam. 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, because he had power in his family over fervants, born in his house, and bought with his money? For this was just Abraham's cafe; those who were rich in the patriarch's days, as in the Weft Indies now, bought men and maid fervants, and by their increase, as well as purchafing 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 defcended from Adam, when it was the purchase of their money? A man's riding in an expedition against an enemy, his horfe 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 defcending to him, as Abraham's leading out the fervants of his family is, that the patriarchs enjoyed this lordship by defcent from Adam: fince the title to the power, the mafter had in both cafes, whether over flaves or horfes, was only from his purchase; and the getting a dominion over any thing by bargain and L. 4 money, |