Page images


Sometimes he that can catch it, an ufurper, p. 23. Observations, 155,

Thus this new nothing, that is to carry with it all power, authority, and government; this fatherhood, which is to design the person, and establish the throne of monarchs, whom the people are to obey, may, according to Sir Robert, come into any hands, any how, and so by his politics give to democracy royal authority, and make an usurper a lawful prince. And if it will do all these fine feats, much good do our author and all his followers with their omnipotent fatherhood, which can serve for nothing but to unsettle and destroy all the lawful governments in the world, and to establish in their room disorder, tyranny, and usurpation,

снА . P. VII. .

Of Fatherhood and Property considered together

as Fountains of Sovereignty.

$. 73.


the foregoing chapters we have

feen what Adam's monarchy was, in our author's opinion, and upon

what titles he founded it. The foundations which he lays the chief stress on, as those from which he thinks he may best derive monarchical power to future princes, are two, viz. Fatber


G 3

bood and property: and therefore the way he proposes to remove the absurdities and inconveniencies of the doctrine of natural freedom, is, to maintain the natural and private dominion of Adam, Observations, 222. Conformable hereunto, he tells us, the grounds and principles of government necessarily depend upon the original of property, Observations, 108. The subjection of children to their parents is the fountain of all regal authority, p. 12. And all power on earth is either derived or usurped from the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whatsoever, Observations, 158. 1 will not Stand here to examine how it can be faid without a contradiction, that the first grounds and principles of government necessarily

, depend upon the original of property, and yet, that there is no other original of any power whatsoever, but that of the father : it being hard to understand how there can be no other original but fatherhood, and yet that the grounds and principks of government depend upon the original of property; property and fatherhood being as far different as lord of a manor and father of children. Nor do I see how they will either of them agree with what our author says, Observations, 244. of God's sentence against Eve, Gen. iii. 16. That it is the original grant of government : fo that if that were the original, government had not its original, by our author's own confession, either from property or. fa


[ocr errors]

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

$. 74. But I leave him to reconcile these 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 shall come now to consider, how these two originals of government, Adam's natural and private dominion, will confift, and serve to make out and establish the titles of succeeding monarchs, who, as our author obliges them, muft all derive their power from these fountains. Let us then suppose Adam made, by God's donation, lord and sole proprietor of the whole earth, in as large and ample a manner. as Sir Robert could wish ; let us suppose him also, by right of fatherhood, absolute ruler over his children with an unlimited supremacy ; I ask then, upon Adam's death what becomes of both his natural and private dominion ? and Į doubt not it will be answered, that they descended to his next heir, as our author tells us in several places. But this way, it is plain, cannot possibly convey both his natural and private dominion to the fame person : for should we allow, that all the property, all the estate of the father, ought to descend to

the eldest son, (which will need some proof to establish it) and so he has by that title all the private dominion of the father, yet the father's natural dominion, the paternal power cannot descend 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 ; unless it can be supposed, that a man can have a right to any thing, without doing that upon which that right is solely 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 says, Observations, 156. That every man that is born, by his very birth becomes a subject ta bim that begets bim, this necessarily follows, viz. That a man by his birth cannot become a subject to his brother, who did not beget him ; unless it can be supposed that a man by the very same title can come to be under the natural and absolute dominion of two different men at once ; or it be sense to say, 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. e. his property in the creatures, descended at his death all entirely to his eldest son,


[ocr errors]

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 sons who had children, by the
same title their father had it, the sove-
reignty founded upon property, and the so-
vereignty 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 sovereignty
he sets up in Adam ; one of them will either ,
fignify nothing; or, if they both must stand,
they can serve only to confound the rights
of princes, and disorder government in his
posterity: for by bụilding upon two titles to
dominion, which cannot descend together,
and which he allows may be separated(for
he yields that Adam's children had their diftin&t
territories by right of private dominion, Ob-
servations, 210.p.40.) he makes it perpetually
a doubt upon his principles where the love-
reignty is, or to whom we owe our obe-
dience, since fatherbood and property are di-
stinct titles, and began presently upon Adam's
death to be in distinct persons. 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,


« PreviousContinue »