§. 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 lordship of Adam by right defcending 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 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 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 Shem's in Afia, and confequently no fuch 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 fcripture 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 confultation of many, a free people; let us build

us a city: they built it for themselves as free-men, not as flaves for their lord and master: that we be not scattered abroad; having a city once built, and fixed habitations to settle our abodes and families. This was the confultation and defign of a people, that were at liberty to part afunder, but defired to keep in one body, and could not have been either neceffary or likely in men tied together under the government of one monarch, who if they had been, as our author tells us, all flaves under the abfolute dominion of a monarch, needed not have taken fuch care to hinder themselves from wandering out of the reach of his dominion. I demand whether this be not plainer in fcripture than any thing of Adam's heir or fatherly authority?

§. 147. But if being, as God fays, Gen. xi. 6. one people, they had one ruler, one king by natural. right, absolute and supreme over them, what care had God to preferve the paternal authority of the fupreme fatherhood, if on a fudden he fuffer 72 (for fo many our author talks of) diftinct 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 please. Can it be sense to fay, that God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority in those who had it not? for if these were fubjects under a fupreme prince, what authority had they? Was it an

instance

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 several new governments with their governors start up, who could not all have fatherly `authority? And is it not as much reason to say, that God is careful to deftroy fatherly authority, when he suffers one, who is in poffeffion 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 fay, when any monarchy was shattered to pieces, and divided amongst revolted fubjects, that God was careful to preferve monarchical power, by rending a fettled 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 esteemed by men as neceffary or useful, it is a peculiar propriety of fpeech, which every one will not think fit to imitate: but this I am fure is impoffible to be either proper, or true fpeaking, that Shem, for example, (for he was then alive,) fhould 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 should have fatherly authority, or fovereignty by right of fatherhood, over the fame people, divided

into so many diftinct governments: either these 72 fathers actually were rulers, just before the confufion, and then they were not one people, but that God himself says they were; or else they were a common-wealth, and then where was monarchy ? or else these 72 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 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 fatherly authority to which he was a fubject. He that can think this arguing from fcripture, may from thence make out what model of an Eutopia will best fuit with his fancy or intereft; and this fatherhood, thus difpofed of, will justify both a prince who claims an univerfal monarchy, and his fubjects, who, being fathers of families, fhall quit all subjection 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 Shem, who was then alive, or thefe 72 new princes, beginning fo many new empires in his dominions, and over his subjects, had right to govern, fince our author tells us,

that

that both one and the other had fatherly, which is fupreme authority, and are brought in by him as inftances of thofe who did enjoy the lordships of Adam by right defcending to them, which was as large and ample as the abfoluteft dominion of any monarch. This at leaft is unavoidable, that if God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority, in the 72 newerected nations, it neceffarily follows, that he was as careful to deftroy all pretences of Adam's heir; fince he took care, and therefore did preferve the fatherly authority in fo many, at least 71, that could not poffibly be Adam's heirs, when the right heir (if God had ever ordained any fuch 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 fays, that he against right enlarged his empire, by feizing violently on the rights of other lords of families. Thefe lords of families here were called fathers of families, in his account of the difperfion at Babel: but it matters not how they were called, fo we know who they are; for this fatherly authority must 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