« PreviousContinue »
ments are to be found, I beseech those men, who have so much cried up this book, to consider, whether they do not give the world cause to suspect, that it is not the force of reason and argument, that makes them for absolute monarchy, but some other by interest, and therefore are resolved to applaud any author, that writes in favour of this doctrine, whether he support it with reason or no. But I hope they do not expect, that rational and indifferent men should be brought over to their opinion, because this their great doctor of it, in a discourse made on purpose, to set up the absolute monarchical power of Adam,
, in opposition to the natural freedom of mankind, has said so little to prove it, from whence it is rather naturally to be concluded, that there is little to be said.
$. 14. But that I might omit no care to inform myself in our author's full sense, I consulted his Observations on Aristotle, Hobbes, &c. to see whether in disputing with others he made use of any arguments for this his darling tenet of Adam's sovereignty; since in his treatise of the Natural Power of Kings, he hath been so sparing of them. In his Observations on Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, I think he has put, in short, all those arguments for it together, which in his writings I find him any
where to make use of: his words are these : If God created only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman, and if by, gene
ration from them two, as parts of them, all mankind be propagated : if also God gave to Adam not only the dominion over the woman and the children that should issue from them, but also over all the earth to subdue it, and over all the creatures on it, so that as long as Adam lived, no man could claim or enjoy any thing but by donation, asgnation or permision from him, I wonder, &c. Observations, 165. Here we have the sum of all his arguments, for Adam's sovereignty, and against natural freedom, which I find up
and down in his other treatises ; and they are these following; God's creation of Adam, the dominion he gave
him over Eve, and the dominion he had as father over his children: all which I shall particularly consider.
CH A P. III.
IR Robert, in
§. 15. S observations on Aristotle's politics,
tells us, A natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the creation of Adam: but how Adam's being created, which was nothing but his receiving a being immediately from omnipotence and the hand of God, gave Adam a sovereignty over any thing, I cannot see, nor consequently understand, how a supposition of natural freedom is
a denial of Adam's creation, and would be glad any body else (since our author did not vouchsafe us the favour) would make it out for him ; for I find no difficulty to suppose the freedom of mankind, though I have always believed the creation of Adam. created, or began to exist, by God's immediate power, without the intervention of parents or the pre-existence of any of the same species to beget him, when it pleased God he should ; and so did the lion, the king of beasts, before him, by the same creating power of God: and if bare existence by that power, and in that way, will give dominion, without any more ado, our author, by this argument, will make the lion have as good a title to it, as he, and certainly the antienter. No! for Adam had his title by the appointment of God, says our author in another place. Then bare creation gave
him not dominion, and one might have supposed mankind free without the denying the creation of Adam, since it was God's appointment made him monarch.
§. 16. But let us see, how he puts his creation and this appointment together. By the appointment of God, says Sir Robert, as foon as Adam was created, be was monarch of the world, though he had no subječts ; for though there could not be actual government till there were subjects, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity:
though not in act, yet at leaft in habit, Adam
of his preface before cited : Adam, says he, being commanded to multiply and people the earth, and ta fubdue it, and having dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole world; none of his posterity kad any right to possess any thing but by bis grant or permission, or by succession from him. 2. Let us understand then by monarch proprietor of the world, and by appointment God's actual donation, and revealed positive grant made to Adam, i. Gen, 28. as we fee Sir
Robert himself does in this parallel place, and then his argument will stand thus, by the positive grant of God: as foon as Adam was created, he was proprietor of the world, because by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity. In which way of arguing there are two manifeft falfehoods. First, It is false, that God made that grant to Adam, as soon as he was created, since, tho’it stands in the text immediately after his creation, yet it is plain it could not be spoken to Adam, till after Eve was made and brought to him : and how then could he be monarch by appointment as soon as created, especially since he calls, if I mistake not, that which God says to Eve, iii. Gen. 16, the original grant of government, which not being till after the fall, when Adam was somewhat, at least in time, and very much distant in condition, from his creation, I cannot see, how our author can say in this sense, that by God's appointment, as soon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world. Secondly, were it true that God's actual donation appointed Adam monarch of the world as foon as he was created, yet the reason here given for it would not prove it; but it would always be a false inference, that God, by a positive donation, appointed Adam monarch of the world, because by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity : for having given him the right of government by nature, there was no need of a positive C2