« PreviousContinue »
That Adam's children by donation, afsignation, or some kind of cefon before he was dead, had their diftinét territories by right of private dominion; Åbel bad his flocks and pastures for them : Cain had his fields for corn, and the land of Nod, where he built him a city, Obfervations, 210. Here it is obvious to demand, which of these two after Adam's death was sovereign ? Cain; fays our author, p. 1g. By what title ? As beir; for beirs 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 diftin&t territory for pasture. 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 sovereignty over his brother is gone with this private dominion, and so there are prefently two sovereigns, and his imaginary title of fatherhood is out of doors, and Cain is no prince over his brother : or else, if Cain retain his sovereignty over Abel, notwithstand ing his private dominion, it will follow, that the first grounds and principles of government have nothing to do with property, whatever
our author says 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 issue, or in Seth, or any of the posterity of Adam, not descended from Cain.
$.77. The same inconvenience he runs into about the three fons of Noah, who, as he says, p. 13. bad the whole world divided amongst them by their father. I alk then, in which of the three shall we find the establishment of regal power after Noah's death ? If in all three, as our author there seems 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 so-much-magnified fatherhood quite vanishes. If the regal power descended to Shem as eldest, and heir to his father, then Noah's division of the world by lot to his fons, or his ten years sailing about the Mediterranean to appoint each fon bis 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 assigned territories, were good, here were fet up two distinct sorts of power, not subordi
nate one to the other, with all those inconveniences which he musters up againīt the power of the people, Observations, 158. which I shall set down in his own words, only changing property for people. All pawer on earth.is either derived or usurped from the fatherly power, there þeing no other original to be found of any power whatsoever : for if there should be granted two forts of power, without any subordination of one to the other, they would be in perpetual Arife which should be supreme, for two supremes cannot agree : if the fatherly power be supreme, then the power grounded on private dominion must be subordinate, and depend on it ; and if the power grounded on property be supreme, then the
fatherly power must submit to it, and cannot be exercised without the licence of the proprietors, which must quite destroy the frame and course of nature. This is his own arguing against two distinct independent powers, which I have fet down in his own words, only putting power rising from property, for power of the people ; and when he has answered what he himself has urged here against two distinct powers, we shall be better able to see how, with any tolerable sense, he can derive all regal authority from the natural and private dominion of Adam, 'from fatherhood and property together, which are distinct titles, that do not always meet in the same person ; and it is plain, by his own confeffion, presently se
parated as soon both as Adam's and Noah's death made way for succession : though our author frequently in his writings jumbles them together, and omits not to make use of either, where he thinks it will found best to his purpose. But the absurdities of this will more fully appear in the next chapter, where we shall examine the ways of conveyance of the sovereignty of Adam, to princes that were to reign after him.
CH A P. VIII.
IR Robert, having not been very
happy in any proof he brings for the sovereignty of Adam, is not much more fortunate in conveying it to future princes; who, if his politics be true, muft all derive their titles from that first monarch. The ways he has assigned, as they lie scattered up and down in his writings, I will set down in his own words : in his preface he tells us, That Adam being monarch of the whole world, none of his posterity had any right to possess any thing, but by his grant or permission, or by succesion from him. Here he makes two ways of conveyance of
of any thing Adam stood pofsessed of; and those are grants or fucceffion. Again he says, All kings either are, or are to
be reputed, the next beirs to those first progenitors, wboʻwere at first the natural parents of the whole people, p. 19. There cannot be any multitude of men whatsoever, but that in it, confidered by itself, there is one man among them, that in nature bath a right to be the king of all the rest, as being the next heir ta Adam, Observations, 253,
Here in these places inheritance is the only way he allows of conveying monarchical power to princes, In other places he tells us, Obfervations, 155. All power on earth is either derived or usurped from tbe fatherly power, Observations, 158. All kings that now are, or ever were, are or were either fathers of their people, or beirs of such fathers, or ufurpers of the right of such fathers, Observations, 253; And here he makes inheritance or usurpation the only ways whereby kings come by this original power : but yet
he tells us, This fatherly empire, as it was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by patent, and seizable by an ufurper, Observations, 199. So then here inheritance, grant, or usurpation, will convey it. And last of all, which is most admirable, he tells us,
It skills not which way kings come by their power, whether by election, donation, jucceffion, or by any other means; for it is fill the manner of the government by supreme power, that makes them properly kings, and not the means of obtaining their crowns,
Which I think is a full answer to all his whole bypo