Page images
PDF
EPUB

therhood; and this text, which he brings as a proof of Adam's power over Eve, neceffarily contradicts what he fays of the fatherhood, that it is the fole fountain of all power: for if Adam had any fuch regal power over Eve, as our author contends for, it must be by fome other title than that of begetting.

§. 74. But I leave him to reconcile thefe contradictions, as well as many others, which may plentifully be found in him by any one, who will but read him with a little attention and fhall come now to confider, how these two originals of government, Adam's natural and private dominion, will confift, and serve to make out and establish the titles of fucceeding monarchs, who, as our author obliges them, must all derive their power from these fountains. Let us then fuppofe Adam made, by God's donation, lord and fole proprietor of the whole earth, in as large and ample a manner. as Sir Robert could with; let us suppose him alfo, by right of fatherhood, abfolute ruler over his children with an unlimited fupremacy; I afk then, upon Adam's death what becomes of both his natural and private dominion ? and Į doubt not it will be answered, that they defcended to his next heir, as our author tells us in feveral places. But this way, it is plain, cannot poffibly convey both his natural and private dominion to the fame perfon: for hould we allow, that all the property, all the eftate of the father, ought to defcend to

the eldest fon, (which will need fome proof to establish it) and fo he has by that title all the private dominion of the father, yet the father's natural dominion, the paternal power cannot defcend to him by inheritance: for it being a right that accrues to a man only by begetting, no man can have this natural do minion over any one he does not beget; unlefs it can be fuppofed, that a man can have a right to any thing, without doing that upon which that right is folely founded: for if a father by begetting, and no other title, has natural dominion over his children, he that does not beget them cannot have this natural dominion over them; and therefore be it true or false, that our author fays, Obfervations, 1 56. That every man that is born, by his very birth becomes a fubject to him that begets him, this neceffarily follows, viz. That a man by his birth cannot become a fubject to his brother, who did not beget him; unless it can be fuppofed that a man by the very fame title can come to be under the natural and abfolute dominion of two different men at once; or it be fenfe to fay, that a man by birth is under the natural dominion of his father, only because he begat him, and a man by birth also is under the natural dominion of his eldest brother, though he did not beget him.

§. 75. If then the private dominion of Adam, i. c. his property in the creatures, defcended at his death all entirely to his eldest fon,

hiş

his heir; (for, if it did not, there is presently an end of all Sir Robert's monarchy) and his natural dominion, the dominion a father has over his children by begetting them, belonged immediately, upon Adam's decease, equally to all his fons who had children, by the fame title their father had it, the fovereignty founded upon property, and the fovereignty founded upon fatherhood, come to be divided; fince Cain, as heir, had that of property alone; Seth, and the other fons, that of father bood equally with him. This is the best can be made of our author's doctrine, and of the two titles of fovereignty he fets up in Adam: one of them will either fignify nothing; or, if they both must stand, they can ferve only to confound the rights of princes, and diforder government in his pofterity: for by building upon two titles to dominion, which cannot defcend together, and which he allows may be feparated, (for he yields that Adam's children had their diftinct territories by right of private dominion, Obfervations, 210. p. 40.) he makes it perpetually a doubt upon his principles where the fovereignty is, or to whom we owe our obedience, fince fatherhood and property are distinct titles, and began presently upon Adam's death to be in diftinct perfons. And which then was to give way to the other?

§. 76. Let us take the account of it, as he himself gives it us. He tells us out of Grotius,

That

That Adam's children by donation, affignation, or fome kind of ceffion before he was dead, bad their diftinct territories by right of private domi nion; Abel bad his flocks and paftures for them: Cain had his fields for corn, and the land of Nod, where be built him a city, Obfervations, 210. Here it is obvious to demand, which of these two after Adam's death was fovereign? Cain, fays our author, p. 19. By what title? As beir; for heirs to progenitors, who were natural parents of their people, are not only lords of their own children, but also of their brethren, says our author, p. 19. What was Cain heir to? Not the entire poffeffions, not all that which Adam had private dominion in; for our author allows that Abel, by a title derived from his father, had bis diftinct territory for pafture. by right of private dominion. What then Abel had by private dominion, was exempt from Cain's dominion: for he could not have private dominion over that which was under the private dominion of another; and therefore his fovereignty over his brother is gone with this private dominion, and fo there are prefently two fovereigns, and his imaginary title of fatherhood is out of doors, and Cain is no prince over his brother or else, if Cain retain his fovereignty over Abel, notwithstanding his private dominion, it will follow, that the first grounds and principles of government have nothing to do with property, whatever

3

our

our author fays to the contrary. It is true, Abel did not outlive his father Adam ; but that makes nothing to the argument, which will hold good against Sir Robert in Abel's iffue, or in Seth, or any of the posterity of Adam, not defcended from Cain.

§. 77. The fame inconvenience he runs into about the three fons of Noab, who, as he fays, p. 13. had the whole world divided among ft them by their father. I ask then, in which of the three fhall we find the establishment of regal power after Noah's death? If in all three, as our author there feems to fay; then it will follow, that regal power is founded in property of land, and follows private dominion, and not in paternal power, or natural dominion; and fo there is an end of paternal power as the fountain of regal authority, and the fo-much-magnified fatherhood quite vanishes. If the regal power defcended to Shem as eldeft, and heir to his father, then Noah's divifion of the world by lot to his fons, or his ten years failing about the Mediterranean to appoint each fon his part, which our author tells of, p. 15. was labour loft; his divifion of the world to them, was to ill, or to no purpose: for his grant to Cham and Japhet was little worth, if Shem, notwithstanding this grant, as soon as Noah was dead, was to be lord over them. Or, if this grant of private dominion to them, over their affigned territories, were good, here were fet up two distinct forts of power, not subordi

nate

K

« PreviousContinue »