his children by the fame right, and in as large extent as thofe 72 had, and fo be independent princes over their own offspring. Taking his lords of families in this later fenfe, (as it is hard to give those words any other fense in this place) he gives us a very pretty account of the original of monarchy, in these following words, p. 16. And in this fenfe he may be faid to be the author and founder be of monarchy, viz. As against right seizing violently on the rights of fathers over their children; which paternal authority, if it be in them, by right of nature, (for else how could thofe 72 come by it?) no body can take from them without their own confents ; and then I defire our author and his friends to confider, how far this will concern other princes, and whether it will not, according to his conclufion of that paragraph, refolve all regal power of thofe, whofe dominions extend beyond their families, either into tyranny and ufurpation, or election and confent of fathers of families, which will differ very little from consent of the people.

§. 149. All his inftances, in the next fection, p. 17. of the 12 dukes of Edom, the nine kings in a little corner of Afia in Abraham's days, the 31 kings in Canaan destroyed by Joshua, and the care he takes to prove that these were all fovereign princes, and that every town in those days had a king, are so many direct proofs against him, that it was

5

not

not the lordship of Adam by right defcending to them, that made kings: for if they had held their royalties by that title, either there must have been but one fovereign 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 thefe: for if all the fons of Efau had each of them, the younger as well as the eldest, the right of fatherhood, and fo were fovereign princes after their fathers death, the fame right had their fons after them, and fo on to all posterity; which will limit all the natural power of fatherhood, only to be over the iffue of their own bodies, and their defcendents; 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 pofterities: 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 the inftances he brings are proofs of any power they had, as heirs of Adam's paternal authority by the title of his fatherhood defcending to them; no, nor of any power they had by virtue of their own: for Adam's fatherhood being over all mankind, it could defcend but to one at once, and from him to his right heir only, and fo there could by that title be but one king in the world at a time: and by right of fatherhood, not defcending from Adam, it must be only as they them

felves

felves were fathers, and fo could be over none but their own pofterity. So that if thofe 12 dukes of Edom; if Abraham and the nine kings his neighbours; if Jacob and Efau, and the 31 kings in Canaan, the 72 kings mutilated by Adonibefeck, the 32 kings that came to Benhadad, the 70 kings of Greece making war at Troy, were, as our author contends, all of them fovereign princes; it is evident that kings derived their power from fome. other original than fatherhood, fince fome of thefe had power over more than their own. pofterity; and it is demonftration, they could not be all heirs to Adam: for I challenge any man to make any pretence to power by right of fatherhood, either intelligible or poffible in any one, otherwife, than either as Adam's heir, or as progenitor over his own defcendents, naturally fprung from him. And if our author could fhew that any one of these princes, of which he gives us here fo large a catalogue, had his authority by either of these titles, I think I might yield him the cause; though it is manifeft they are all impertinent, and directly contrary to what he brings them to prove, viz. That the lordship which Adam bad over the world by right defcended to the patriarchs.

§. 150. Having told us, p. 16, That the patriarchal government continued in Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, until the Egyptian bondage, p. 17. he tells us, By manifeft footsteps we may trace this paternal government unto the

3

Ifraelites

Ifraelites coming into Egypt, where the exercise of fupreme patriarchal government was intermitted, because they were in fubjection to a Stronger prince. What these footsteps are of paternal government, in our author's sense, i. e. of abfolute monarchical power defcending from Adam, and exercised by right of fatherhood, we have feen, that is for 2290 years no footsteps at all; fince in all that time he cannot produce any one example of any perfon who claimed or exercised regal authority by right of fatherhood; or fhew any one who being a king was Adam's 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 abfolute arbitrary power, or by what titles those kings had their's, and of what extent it was, the fcripture is wholly filent; it is manifeft by right of fatherhood they neither did, nor could claim any title to dominion and empire.

§. 151. To fay, that the exercise of fupreme patriarchal government was intermitted, becaufe they were in fubjection to a stronger prince, proves nothing but what I before suspected, viz. That patriarchal jurifdiction or government is a fallacious expreffion, and does not in our author fignify (what he would yet infinuate by it) paternal and regal power, fuch an absolute fovereignty as he fuppofes was in Adam.

§. 152.

ན་

§. 152. For how can he fay that patriarchal jurifdiction was intermitted in Egypt, where there was a king, under whofe regal government the Ifraelites were, if patriarchal were abfolute monarchical jurifdiction? And if it were not, but fomething else, why does he make fuch ado about a power not in quef tion, and nothing to the purpose? The exer-u cife of patriarchal jurifdiction, if patriarchal be regal, was net intermitted whilft the I raelites were in Egypt. It is true, the exer cife of regal power was not then in the hands of any of the promised feed of Abraham, nor before neither that I know; but what is that to the intermiffion of regal authority, as defcending from Adam, unless our author will have it, that this chofen line of Abraham had the right of inheritance to Adam's lordship? and then to what purpose are his inftances of the 72 rulers, in whom the fatherly authority was preserved in the confufion at Babel? Why does he bring the 12 princes fons of Ifmael; and the dukes of Edom, and join them with Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, as examples of the exercife of true patriarchal government, if the exercise of patriarchal jurisdiction were intermitted in the world, whenever the heirs of Jacob had not fupreme power? I fear, fupreme patriarchal jurifdiction was not only intermitted, but from the time of the Egyptian bondage quite loft in the world, fince it will

be