Page images


[ocr errors]

the heirs, when that would not hold in a fucceffion, which our author could not exscept against ; and fo he has left his fucceffion

as undetermined, as if he had fäid nothing about it: for if the regal power be given by God to a man and his ifjue, as the land of Canaan was to Abraham and his feed, must they not all have a title to it, all share in it? And one may as well say, that by God's grant to Abrabam and his feed, the land of Canaan was to belong only to one of his feed exclusive of all others, as by God's grant of dominion to a man and bis issue, this domi

nion was to belong in peculiar to one of his iffue exclusive of all others. * S. 163. But how will our author prove that whensoever God made choice of any special person to be a king, he intended that the (I Tuppose he means his) issue also should have benefit thereof? has he fo foon forgot Moses and Joshua, whom in this very Lestion, he fays, God out of a special care chose to govern as princes, and the judges that God 'raised up? Had not these princes, having the authority of the supreme fatherhood, the same power that the kings had ; and being spel

God himself, should not their illue have the benefit of that? well as David's or Solomon's? If these had the

paternal authority put into their hands' im! mediately by God, why had not their fue

ilue the benefit of this grant in a succeflion to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

this power? or if they had it as Adam's heirs, why did not their heirs enjoy it, after them by right descending to them for they could not be heirs to one another. Was the power the fame, and from the fame original, in Mofes, Joshua and the Judges, as it was in David and the Kings; and was it inheritable in one, and not in the other? If it was not paternal authority, then God's own people were governed by those that had not paternal authority, and those governors did well enough without it: if it were paternal qu. thority, and God chose the persons that were to exercise it, our author's rule fails, that whenfoever God makes choice of any person to be Izpreme ruler (for I fuppose the name king has no spell in it, it is not the title, but the power makes the difference) be intends that tbe ilze also should have the benefit of it, since from their coming out of Egypt to David's time, 400 years, the issue was never fe fufficiently comprehended in the person of the father, as that any fon, after the death of his farher, succeeded to the government amongst all those judges that judged Ifrael. If, to avoid this, it be said, God always chose the person of the successor, and sa, transferring the fatherly authority to him, excluded his issue from succeeding to it, that is manifestly .. not fo in the story of Jephtha, where he ar

cicled with the people, and they made him - judge over them, as is plain, Yudg. 11.

$. 164.

S. 164. It is in vain then to say, that when foever God chooses any special person to have the exercise of paternal autbarity, (for if that be not to be king, I defire to know the dif ference between a king and one having the exercise of paternal authority) he intends the ifue also should have the benefit of it, fince we find the authority, the judges had, ended with them, and defçended not to their ifue; and if the judges had not paternal authority, I fear it will trouble our author, or any of the friends to his principles, to tell who had then the paternal authority, that is, the government and fupreme power amongst the Israelites; and I suspect they must confess that the chosen people of God continued a people feveral hundreds of

years, without any knowledge or thought of this paternal authority, or any appearance of monarchical government at all.

$. 165. To be satisfied of this, he need but read the story of the Levite, and the war thereupon with the Benjamites, in the three last chapters of Judges; and when he finds, that the Levite appeals to the people for justice that it was the tribes and the congregation, that debated, refolved, and directed all that was done on that occafion; hę must conclude, either that God was not careful to preferve the fatherly authority amongst his own chosen people; or else that the fatherly alle tbority may be preserved, where there is no

monarchical cette

[ocr errors]

monarchical government: if the latter, then it will follow, that though fatherly authority be never so well proved, yet it will not infer a necessity of monarchical government; if the former, it will seem very strange and improbable, that God should ordain fatberly duthority to be fo sacred amongst the sons of men, that there could be no power, or go vernment without it, and yet that amongst his own people, even whilst he is providing a government for them, and therein prescribes rules to the several states and relations of men, this great and fundamental one, this most material and necessary of all the rest, Mould be concealed, and lie neglected for 400 years

after. $. 166. Before I leave this, I must ask how our author knows that whenfoever God makes choice of any special person to be king, he intends that the issue should have the benefit thereof Does God by the law of nature or revelation fay fo? By the same law also he must say, which of his issue must enjoy the crown in fucceffion, and so point out the heir, or elfe leave his issue to divide or scramble for the government: both alike absurd, and such as will destroy the benefit of such grant to the iffue. When any such declaration of God's intention is produced, it will be our duty to believe God intends it fo; but till that be done, our author must Thew us fome better Warrant, before we fhall be obliged to re

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]


ccive him as the authentic revealer of God's intentions

....!! :71$. 167. Theiflue, says our author, is comprebended fufficiently in the person of the fatther, although the fatber, only was named in the grant : and yet God, when he gave the land of Cangan to Abraham, Gen. xii. 15. thought fit to put his feed into the grant too: fo the priesthood was given to Aaron and his feeds and the crown God gave not only to David, but his feed also: and however our author: assures us that God intends, that the issue should bave the benefit of it, when he chooses any perfon to be king, yet we see that the kingdom which he gave to Saul, without mentioning his feed after him, never came to any of his isue: and why, when God chose a person to be king, he should intend, that his ijue should have the benefit of it, more than when he chose one to be judge in Israel, I would fain know a reason ; or why does a grant of fatherly authority to a king more comprehend the issue, than when a like grant is made to a judge? Is paternal authority by right to descend to the issue of one, and not of the other? There will need some reason to be thewn of this difference, more than the name, when the thing given is the same fatherly authority, and the manner of giving it, God's choice of the person, the same too ; for- I suppose our author, when he says, God.


« PreviousContinue »