\ I TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT. IN THE FORMER THE FALSE PRIN- CIPLES AND FOUNDATION OF SIR ROBERT FILMER AND HIS FOL- LOWERS ARE DETECTED AND OVERTHROWN. THE LATTER IS AN ESSAY CON- CERNING THE TRUE ORIGINAL EXTENT AND END OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT. TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT BY IOHN LOCKE SALtTS POPULI SUPREMA LEX ESTO London Printed mdclxxxviiii reprinted, the sixth time, by a. millar, h. woodfall, i. whiston and b. white, i. ri- vington, l. £>avis and c. reymers, r. bald- win, hawes clarke and collinsj w. iohn- ston, w. owen, i. richardson, s. crowder, T. LONGMAN, B. LAW, C. RIVINGTON, fc DILLY, R. WITHY, C. AND R. WARE, S. BAKER, T. PAYNE, A. SHUCKBURGH, I. HINXMAN MDCGLXIIII CONTENTS OF BOOK I Chap. I. The Introduction I Chap. II. Of Paternal and Regal Power 5 Chap. III. Of Adam's Title to Sove- reignty by Creation 1 6 Chap. IV. Of Adam's Title to Sove- reignty by Donation Gen.i. 28. , 24 Chap. V. Of Adam's Title to Sove- reignty by the Subjeclion of Eve 49 Chap. VI. Of Adam's Title to Sove- reignty by Fatherhood $j Chap. VII. Of Fatherhood and Property confidered together as Fountains of So- vereignty 85 Chap. VIII. Of the Conveyance of A- dam's fovereign Monarchical Power 93 Chap. IX. Of Monarchy by Inheritance from Adam 97 Chap. X. Of the Heir to Adam's Mo- narchical Power 119 Chap. XI. Who Heir 122 CONTENTS OF BOOK It Chap. I. The Introduction 193 Chap. It. Of the State of Nature 195 Chap. III. Of the State of War 206 Chap. IV. Of Slavery 212 Chap. V. Of Property 2i£ Chap. VI. Of Paternal Power 238 Chap. VII. Of Political or Civil Society 261 Chap. Vill. Of theBeginningof Political Societies 279 Chap. IX. Of the Ends of Political So- ciety and Government 305 Chap. X. Of the Forms of a Common- wealth 310 Chap. XI. Of the Extent of the Legis- lative Power 312 Chap. XII. Of the Legislative, Execu- tive, and Federative Power of the Common- wealth 324 Chap. XIII. Of the Subordination of the Powers of the Common-wealth 328 Chap. XIV. Of Prerogative 339 Chap. XV. Of Paternal, Political, and Defpotical Power, confidered together 348 Chap. XVI. Of Conquefl 353 Chap. XVJI. Of Ufurpation 372 Chap. XVIII. Of Tyranny 373 Chap. XIX. Of the DilTolution ef Go- ▼ernment 384 PREFACE Reader, thou haft here the beginning and end of a difcourfe concerning government; \4 what fate has otherwife difpofed of the papers that mould have filled up the middle, and were more than all the reft, it is not worth while to tell thee. Thefe, which remain, I hope are fufficient to efta- blifti the throne of our great reftorer, our % prefent King William ; to make good his title, in the confent of the people^-avhich (J^ being the only one of all lawful governments, he has more fully and clearly, than any prince in Chriftendom ; and to juftify to the world the people of England, whofe love of their juft and natural rights, with their re- folution to preferve them, faved the nation when it was on the very brink of flavery and ruin. If thefe papers have that evidence, I flatter myfelf is to be found in them, there will be no great mifs of thofe which are loft, and my reader may be fatisfied without them : for I imagine, I mall have neither the time, nor inclination to repeat my pains, and fill up the wanting part of my anfwer, by tracing Sir Robert again, through all the windings and obfcurities, which are to be met with in the feveral branches of his wonderful fy- ftem. The king, and body of the nation, have fince fo throughly confuted his Hypo- thefts, that 1 fuppofe no body hereafter will I have V have cither the confidence to appear againft our common fafety, and be again an advocate for flavery ; or the weaknefs to be deceived with contradictions drefled up in a popular flile, and well-turned periods : for if any one will be at the pains, himfelf, in thofe parts, which are here untouched, to ftrip Sir Ro- bert's difcourfes of the flourifh of doubtful expreffions, and endeavour to reduce his words to direct, pofitive, intelligible propo- rtions, and then compare them one with an- other, he will quickly be fatisrled, there was never fo much glib nonfenfe put together in well-founding Englifh. V/If he think it not worth while to examine his works all thro', let him make an experiment in that part, where he treats of ufurpation ; and let him try, whether he can, with all his fkill, make Sir Robert intelligible, and confident with himfelf, or common fenfe. I mould not fpeak fo plainly of a gentleman, long fince paft anfwering, had not the pulpit, of late years, publicly owned his doctrine, and made it the current divinity of the times. It is neceffary thofe men, who taking on them to be teachers, have fo dangeroufly milled others, mould be openly (hewed of what authority this their Patriarch is, whom they have fo blindly followed, that fo they may either retract what upon fo ill grounds they have vented, and cannot be maintained ; or elfe juftify thofe principles which they preached up for gofpel -, though they had no better an author author than an English eourtier : for I fhould not have writ againfr. Sir Robert, or taken the pains to mew his miftakes, inconfiftencies, and want of (what he fo much boafts of, and pretends wholly to build on) fcripture-proofs, were there not men amongft us, who, by crying up his books,4 and efpoufing his doc- trine, fave me from the reproach of writing againfr. a dead adverfary. They have been fo zealous in this point, that, if I have done him any wrong, I cannot hope they fhould fpare me, I wifh, where they have done the truth and the public wrong, they would be as ready to redrefs it, and allow its juft weight to this reflection, viz. that there cannot be done a greater mifchief to prince and people, than the propagating wrong notions concerning government; that fo at laft all times might not have reafon to complain of the Drum Ecclefiaftic. If any one, concerned really for truth, undertake the confutation of my Hy- pothecs, I promife him either to recant my miflake, upon fair conviction ; or to anfwer his difficulties. But he muft remember two things, Firft, That cavilling here and there, at fome exprerlion, or little incident of my dif- courfe, is not an anfwer to my book. Secondly, That I ihall not take railing for arguments, nor think either of thefe worth my notice, though I fhall always look on myfelf as bound to give fatisfacton to any pne, who mall appear to be confcientioufly fcrupulous fcrupulous in the point, and mall mew any juft ground0 for his fcruples. I have nothing more, but to advertife the reader, that Oblervations (lands for Obferva- tions on Hobbs, Milton, &c. and that a bare quotation of pages always means pages of his Patriarchal Edition 1680. —k $JL*>* OF GOVERNMENT BOOK I Chap. I. §. i . Slavery is fo vile and miferable an eftate of man, and fo directly oppofite to the generous temper and courage of our na- tion ; that it is hardly to be conceived, that an Englt/hman, much lefs a gentleman, mould ji/j/^ plead for it. And truly I mould have takeiyy '* Sir Robert Fi/mers Patriarcba> as any other fal& treatife, which would perfuade all men, that/ they are flaves, and ought to be fo, for fucfr. another exercife of wit, as was his who writ the encomium of Nero ; rather than for a ferious difcourfe meant in.earneft, had not the gravity of the title and epiftle, the picture in the front of the book, and the applaufe that followed it, required me to believe, that the B author V 2 Of Government. author and publisher were both in earned. I therefore took it into my hands with all the expectation, and read it through with all the attention due to a treatife that made fuch a noife at its coming abroad, and cannot but confefs my felf mightily furprifed/f that in a book, which was to provide chains for all mankind, I mould find nothing but a rope of fand, ufeful perhaps to fuch, whofe fkill and bullnefs it is to raife a duft, and would blind the people, the better to miflead them ;*) but in truth not of any force to draw thofe into bondage, who have their eyes open, and fo much fenfe about them, as to confider, that chains are but an ill wearing, how much care foever hath been taken to file and polifli them. §. 2. If any one think I take too much liberty in fpeaking fo freely of a man, who is the great champion of abfolute power, and the idol of thofe who worfhip it ; I befeech him to make this fmall allowance for once, to one, who, even after the reading of Sir Robert's book, cannot but think himfelf, as the laws allow him, a freeman: and I know no fault it is to do fo, unlefs any one better billed in the fate of it, than I, mould have it revealed to him, that this treatife, which has lain dormant fo long, was, when it appeared in the world, to carry, by ftrength of its arguments, all liberty out of it ^ and that from Op Government. 3 from thenceforth our author's fhort model- was to be the pattern in the mount, and the perfect flandard of politics for the future. His fyftem lies in a little compafs, it is no more but this, Tbat all government is abfolute monarchy. And the ground he builds on, is this, "That no man is born free. §.3. In this lad age a generation of men has fprung up amongft us, that would flatter princes with an opinion, that they have a divine right to abfolute power, let the laws by which they are conftituted, and are to govern, and the conditions under which they enter upon their authority, be what they will, and their engagements to obferve them never fo well ratified by folemn oaths and promifes. To make way for this doctrine, they have denied mankind a right to natural freedom ; whereby they have not only, as much as in them lies, expofed all fubjects to the utmoft mifery of tyranny and opprefTion, but have alfo unfettled the titles, and fhaken the thrones of princes : (for they too, by thefe mens fyftem, except only one, are all born flaves, and by divine right are fa bj efts to Adam's right heir j) as if they had deHgned to make war upon all government, and fubvert the very foundations of human fbciety, to ferve their prefent turn. §. 4. However we muft believe them upon their own bare words, when they tell us, we B 2 are 4 Of Government. are all born Haves, and we mud continue Co, there is no remedy for it -, life and thraldom we enter'd into together, and can never be quit of the one, till we part with the other. Scripture or reafon I am fure do not any where fay fo, notwithstanding .the noife of divine right, as if divine authority hath fubjected us to the unlimited will of another. An admirable ftate of mankind, and that which they have not had wit enough to find out till this latter age. For, however Sir Robert Filmer feems to condemn the novelty of the contrary opinion, Patr. p. 3. yet I believe it will be hard for him to find any other age, or country of the world, but this, which has afferted monarchy to be jure divino. And he confeffes, Patr. p. 4. That Heyward, Blackwood, Barclay, and others, that have bravely vindicated the right of kings in mojl points, never thought of this, but with one confent admitted the natural liberty and equality of mankind. §. 5. By whom this doctrine came at firfc tobe broached, and brought in fafhion amongft us, and what fad effects it gave rife to, I leave to hiftorians to relate, or to the memory of thofe, who were contemporaries with Sib- thorp and Manwering, to recoiled:. My bufinefs at prefent is only to confider what Sir Robert Filmer, who is allowed to have carried this argument farthefl, and is fuppofed to have brought it to perfection, has faid in it; for Of Government. 5 for from him every one, who would be as fafhionable as French was at court, has learned, and runs away with this moit fyftem of politics, viz. Men are not born free, a?id therefore could never have the liberty to choofe either governors, or forms of government. Princes have their power abfolute, and by divine right -, for flaves could never have a right to compact or confent. Adam was an abfolute monarch, and fo are all princes ever lince. CHAP. IX. Of Paternal and Regal Power. §. 6. QIR Robert Filmers great pofition is, O that men are not naturally free. This is the foundation on which his abfolute mo- narchy {lands, and from which it erects itfelf to an height, that its power is above every power, caput inter nubila, fo high above all earthly and human things, that thought can fcarce reach it; that promifes and oaths, which tye the infinite Deity, cannot confine it. But if this foundation fails, all his fabric falls with it, and governments muft be left again to the old way of being made by con- trivance, and the confent of men ^Avz-pwirlvn xriais) making ufe of their reafon to unite together into fociety. To prove this grand pofition of his, he tells us, p. 12. Men B 3 are c Or Government. are born in fubjeBion to ikeir parents, and therefore cannot be free. And this autho- rity of parents, he calls royal authority, p. 12, 14. Fatherly authority, right of father- hood, p. 12, 20. One would have thought he would, in the beginning of fuch a work as this, on which was to depend the autho- rity of princes, and the obedience of fub- jedts, have told us exprefly, what that fa- therly authority is, have defined it, though not limited it, becaufe in fome other treatiles of his he tells us, it is unlimited, and * un- limitable ; he mould at leaft have given us fuch an account of it, that we might have had an entire notion of this fatherhood, or fatherly authority, whenever it came in our way in his writings : this I expected to have found in the firft chapter of his Patriarcha. But inflead thereof, having, 1. en paffant, made his obeyfance to the arcana imperii, p. 5. 2. made his compliment to the rights and liberties of this, or any other nation, p. 6. which he is going prefently to null and deftroy ; and, 3. made his leg to thofe learned men, who did not fee fo far into the matter as himfelf, p. 7. he comes to fall on Bel- larmine, * In grants and gifts that have their original from God or nature, as the power of the father hath, no inferior power of man can limit, nor make any law of prefcription againft :hem. Qbferwaticns, 158. The fcripture teaches, that fupreme power was originally the father, without any limitation, Ohftr^atiin:^ 215 Of Government. 7 larmine, p. 8. and, by a victory over him, eftablifhes his fatherly authority beyond any queftion. Bellarmine being routed by his own confeffion, p. 1 1 . the day is clear got, and there is no more need of any forces : for having done that, I obferve not that he Hates the queftion, or rallies up any arguments to make good his opinion, but rather tells us the ftory, as he thinks fit, of this ftrange kind of domineering phantom, called the fatherhood^ which whoever could catch, prefently got empire, and unlimited abfolute power. He allures us how this fatherhood began in Adam, continued its courfe, and kept the world in order all the time of the patriarchs till the flood, got out of the ark with Noah and his fons, made and fupported all the kings of the earth till the captivity of the Ifraelites in Egypt, and then the poor fatherhood was under hatches, till God, by giving the Ifraelites kings, re-efiablifloed the ancient and prime right of the lineal fuccejjion in pate?'nal government. This is his bulinefs from p. 12. to 19. And then obviating an objection, and clearing a difficulty or two with one half reafon, p. 23. to confirm the natural right of regal power, he ends the firfr. chapter. I hope it is no injury to call an half quotation an half reafon ; for God fays, Honour thy father and mother ; but our author contents himfelf with half, leaves out thy B 4 mother 8 Of Government. mother quite, as little ferviceable to his pur- pofe. But of that more in another place. §. 7. I do not think our author fo little fkilled in the way of writing difcourfes of this nature, nor fo carelefs of the point in hand, that he by over-light commits the fault, that he himfelf, in his Anarchy of a mixed Mo- narchy, p. 239. objects to Mr. Hunt on in thefe words : Where firjl 1 charge the author, that he hath not given us any definition, or defcription of monarchy in general ; for by the rules of me- thod he fiould have firfl defined. And by the like rule of method Sir Robert mould have told us, what his fatherhood or fatherly authority is, before he had told us, in whom it was to be found, and talked fo much of it. But per- haps Sir Robert found, that this fatherly au- thority, this power of fathers, and of kings, for he makes them both the fame, p. 24. would make a very odd and frightful figure, and very difagreeing with what either children imagine of their parents, or fubjects of their kings, if he fhould have given us the whole draught together in that gigantic form, he had painted it in his own fancy; and there- fore, like a wary phyiician, when he would have his patient fwallow fome harm or cor- rcfive liquor, he mingles it with a large quan- tity of that which may dilute it; that the fcattered parts may go down with lefs feeling, ?.nd caufe lefs averfion. §•8. Of Government. 9 §. 8, Let us then endeavour to find what account he gives us of this fatherly autho- rity, as it lies fcattered in the feveral parts of his writings. And firft, as it was vefted in Adam, he lays, Not only Adam, but the fuc- . ceeding patriarchs, had, by right of father- hood, royal authority over their children, p. 12. 'This lordflnp which Adam by command had over the iv hole world, and by right defending from kirn the patriarchs did enjoy, was as large and ample as the abfolute dominion of any monarch, which hath been fince the creation , p. 13. Do- minion of life and death, making war, and con- cluding peace, p. 13. Adam and the patriarchs had abfolute power of life and death, p. 35. Kings, in the right of parents, fucceed to the exercife of fupreme jurifdiclion, p. 19. As kingly power is by the law of God, fo it hath 7io inferior law to limit it ; Adam was lord of all, p. 40. The father of a family governs by no other law, than by his own will, p. 78. The fuperiority of princes is above laws, p. 79. The unlimited jurifdicTion of kings is fo amply defer i bed by Samuel, p. 80. Kings are above the laws, p. 93. And to this purpofe fee a great deal more which. our author delivers in Bo dins, words : // is certain, that all laws, privileges, and grants of princes, have no force, but during their life ; if they be not ratified by the expref confent, or by fufferance of the prince following, efpecially privileges, Obser- vations, p, 279. The reafon why laws have 4 been io Of Government. been alfo made by kings, was this ; when ki?igs were either bujied with wars, or diflraclcd with fublic cares, fo that every private man could not have accefs to their pcrfons, to learn their wills and pleafure, then were laws tf necejfity invented, that Jo every particular fubjeel might find his prince s pleafure decyphered unto him in the tables of his laws, p. 92. In a monarchy, the king mujl by necejfity be above the laws, p. 100. A perfeel kingdom is that, wherein the king rides all things according to his own will, p. 100. Neither common nor flat ute laws are, or can be, any diminution of that general power, which kings have over their people by right of fatherhood, p. 115. Adam whs the father, king, and lord over his family j a fon, a fubjeel, and a fervant or Jlave, were one and the fame thing at firfl.' The father had power to difpofe or fell his children or fervants -, whence we find, that the firfl reckoning up of goods in fcripture, the man fervant and the maid-fervant, are numbred among the pojfefi /ions and fubflance of the owner, as other goods were, Obfervations, Pref. God alfo hath given to the father a right or liberty, to alien his power over his children to any other-, whence we find the fale and gift of children to have much bee?i in ufe in the beginning of the world, when men had their fervants for a pofefjion and an inheritance, as well as other goods; whereupon we find the power of cajlrating and making eunuchs much in ufe in old times, Obn fervations, Of Government. ii fervations, p. 155. Law is nothing elfe but the will of him that hath the power of the fupreme father, Obfervations, p. 223. It was God's ordinance that the fupremacy fhould be unlimited in Adam, and as large as all the ac~ls of his will; and as in him fo in all others that have fupreme power , Obfervations, p. 245. §.9.1 have been fain to trouble my reader with thefe feveral quotations in our author's own words, that in them might be feen his own defcription of his fatherly authority, as it lies fcattered up and down in his writings, which he fuppofes was firft vefted in Adam, and by right belongs to all princes ever fince. This fatherly authority then, or right of fatherhood, in our author's fenfe, is a divine unalterable right of fovereignty, whereby a father or a prince hath an abfolute, arbitrary, unlimited, and unlimi^able power over the Jives, liberties, and eftates of his children and fubjecls; fo that he may take or alienate their eftates, fell, caftrate, or ufe their perfons as he pleafes, they being all his Haves, and he lord or proprietor of every thing, and his unbounded will their law. §. io. Our author having placed fuch a mighty power in Adamy and upon that fup- pofition founded all government, and all power of princes, it is reaibnable to expect, that he fhould have proved this with arguments clear and evident, fuitable to the weightinefs of 1 the # 12 Of Government. the caufe -, that fince men had nothing cKe left them, they might in flavery have fuch undeniable proofs of its neceffity, that their confciences might be convinced, and oblige them to iubmit peaceably to that abfolute dominion, which their governors had a right to exercife over them. Without this, what good could our author do, or pretend to do, by creeling fuch an unlimited power, but flatter the natural vanity and ambition of men, too ?.pt of itfelf to grow and encreafe with the porTerlion of any power ? and by perfuading thofe, who, bv the confent of their fellow- men, are advanced to great, but limited, degrees of it, that by that part which is given them, they have a right to all, that was not fo ; and therefore may do what they pleafe, becaufe they have authority to do more than others, and fo tempt them to do what is neither for their own, nor the good of thofe under their care ; whereby great mifchiefs cannot but follow. §. 1 1. The fovereigntv of j$ifam, being that on which, as a fure baric-, olir author builds his mighty abfolute monarchy, I expecled, that in his Patriarcha^ this his main fuppo- iition would have been Droved, and eflablifhed with all that evidence of arguments, that fuch a fundamental tenet required ; and that this, on which the great itrefs of the bufinefs depends, would have been made out with rcaibns lufmient to juftify the confidence with Of Government. 13 with which it was affumed. Bat in all that treatife, I could find very little tending that way ; the thing is there fo taken for granted, without proof, that I could fcarce believe my- felf, when, upon attentive reading that trea- tife, I found there fo' mighty a ftructure raifed upon the bare fuppofition of this foundation : for it is fcarce credible, that in a difcouife, where he pretends to confute the erroneous principle of man's natural freedom, he mould do it by a bare fuppo- fition of Adams authority, without offering any proof for that authority. Indeed he confidently fays, that Adam had royal au- thority, p. 12, and 13. Abfolute lordfiip and dominion of life and death, p. 13. An uni- verfal monarchy, p. 33. Abfolute power of life and death, p. 35. He is very frequent- in fuch affertions 5 but, what is flrange, in all his whole Patriarcha I find not one pre- tence of a reafon to eflablifh this his great foundation of government; not any thing that looks like an argument, but thefe words: To cojifirm this natural right of regal power, we find in the Decalogue, that the law which enjoyns obedience to kings, is delivered in the terms, Honour thy father, as if all power were originally in the father. And why may I not add as well, that in the Decalogue, the law that enjoyns obedience to queens, is delivered in the terms of Honour thy mother, as if all power were originally in the mother ? The argument, 14 © 1 Government. argument, as Sir Robert puts it, will hold as well for one as the other : but of this, more in its due place. §. 12. All that I take notice of here, is, that this is all our author fays in this firft, or any of the following chapters, to prove the abfolute power of Adam, which is his great principle : and yet, as if he had there fettled it upon fure demonftration, he begins his fecond chapter with thefe words, By con- f erring thefe proofs and reafons, drawn from the authority of the fcripture. Where thofe proofs and reafons for Adams fovereignty are, bating that of Honour thy father, above men- tioned, I confefs, I cannot find -, unlefs what he fays, p. 1 1 . In thefe words we have an evident confejjton, viz. o/Bellarmine, that crea- tion made man prince of his pojlerity, muft be taken for proofs and reafons drawn from fcripture, or for any fort of proof at all : though from thence by a new way of in- ference, in the words immediately following, he concludes, the royal authority of Adam fufficiently fettled in him. §. 13. If he has in that chapter, or any where in the whole treatife, given any other proofs of Adam's royal authority, other than by often repeating it, which, among fome men, goes for argument, I defire any body for him to fhew me the place and page, that I may be convinced of my miftake, and ac- knowledge my overfight. If no fuch argu- ments Of Government. 15 ments are to be found, I befeech thofe men, who have fo much cried up this book, to confider, whether they do not give the world caufe to fufpect, that it is not the force of reafon and argument, that makes them for abfolute monarchy, but fome other by in- tereft, and therefore are refoived to applaud any author, that writes in favour of this doc- trine, whether he fupport it with reafon or no. But I hope they do not expect, that rational and indifferent men fhouid be brought over to o their opinion, becaufe this their great doctor of it, in a difcourfe made on purpofe, to fet up the abfolute monarchical power of Adam, in oppofition to the natural freedom of man- kind, has faid fo little to prove it, from whence it is rather naturally to be concluded, that there is little to be faid. §. 14. But that I might omit no care to inform myfelf in our author's full {&n{e, I confulted his Obfervations on Arijiotle, Hobbes, &c. to fee whether in difputing with others he made ufe of any arguments for this his darling tenet of Adam's fovcreignty ; fince in his treatife of the Natural Power of Kings, he hath been fo fparing of them. In his Obfer- vations on Mr. Hobbes 's Leviathan, 1 think he has put, in fhort, all thofe arguments for it together, which in his writings I find him any where to make ufe of: his words are thefe : If God created only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman, and if by gene-t ration 1 6 Of Govern ;,i e n t. ration from them two, as parts of them, all mankind be propagated : if alfo God gave to Adam not only the dominion over the woman and the children that Jhoidd ifue from them, but alfo over all the earth to fubdue it, and over all the creatures on it, Jo that as long as Adam lived, no man could claim or enjoy any thing but by donation, afjignation or per- inijjion from him, I wonder, 6cc. Obfervations, 165. Here we have the fum of all his arguments, for Adam s fiver cignty* and againft natural freedom, which I find up and down in his other treatifes : and they are thefe fol- lowing ; 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 fhall particularly confider. C H A P. III. Of Adam'* Title to Sovereignty by Creation. §• I5- Q * R Robert, in his preface to his O Obfervations on Arijlotles politics, tells us, A natural freedom of mankind cannot be fuppofed without the denial of the creation of Adam: but how Adams being created, which v/as nothing but his receiving a being im- mediately from omnipotence and the hand of God, gave A.dam a fovereignty over any thing, I cannot fee, nor confequently under- fland, how a fuppofition of natural freedom is Of Government. 17 a denial of Adam\f creation, and would be glad any body elfe (fince our author did not vouchfafe us the favour) would make it out for him : for I find no difficulty to fuppofe the freedom of mankind, though I have always believed the creation of Adam. He was created, or began to exift, by God's imme- diate power, without the intervention of parents or the pre-exiitence of any of the fame fpecies to beget him, when it pleafed God he mould ; and fo did the lion, the king of hearts, before him, by the fame 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, fays our author in another place. Then bare creation gave him not dominion, and one might have fuppofed mankind free without the denying the creation of Adam, fince it was God's appointment made him monarch. §. 16. But let us fee, how he puts his creation and this appointment together. By the appointment of God, fays Sir Robert, as foon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world, though he had, ?to fubjecls -, for though there could not be actual government till there were fubjeBs, yet by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his poflerity: C though i8 Of Government. though not in aB, yet at leajl in habit, Adam was a king from bis creation. I wilh he had told us here, what he meant by God's ap- f ointment : for whatfoever providence orders, or the law of nature directs, or pofitive re- velation declares, may be faid to be by God's appointment : but Ifuppofe it cannot be meant here in the firfl fenfe, /. e. by providence ; becaufe that would be to fay no more, but that as foon as Adam was created he was de faclo monarch, becaufe by right of nature it was due to Adam, to be governor of his po- Jlerity. But he could not de facia be by providence conftituted the governor of the world, at a time when there was actually no government, no fubjects to be governed, which our author here confefTes. Monarch of the world is alfo differently ufed by our author ; for fometimes he means by it a proprietor of all the world exclufive of the reft of mankind, and thus he does in the fame page of his preface before cited : Adam, fays he, being commanded to multiply and people the earth, a?id to fubdue it, and having dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole world-, none of his pojlerity had any right to pojjefs any thing but by his grant or permijjion, or by fuccejfion from him. 2. Let us underftand then by monarch pro- prietor of the world, and by appointment God's actual donation, and revealed poiitive grant made to Adam, i. Gen. 28. as we fee Sir Robert Of Government. 19 Robert himfelf does in this parallel place, and then his argument will ftand thus, by the pofitive grant of God: as foon as Adam was created, he was proprietor of the world* becaufe by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his poflerity. In which way of arguing there are two manifefl falfe- hoods. Firft, It is falfe, that God made that grant to Adam, as foon as he was created, fince, tho' it flands in the text immediately after his creation, yet it is plain it could not be fpoken to Adam, till after Eve was made and brought to him : and how then could he be monarch by appointment as foon as created, efpecially fince he calls, if I miftake not, that which God fays to Eve, iii. Gen. 16, the original grant of government, which not being till after the fall, when Adam was fomewhat, at leaft in time, and very much diftant in condition, from his creation, I cannot fee, how our author can fay in this fenfe, that by Gods appointment, as foon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world. Se- condly, were it true that God's actual do- nation appointed Adam monarch of the world as foon as he was created, yet the reafon here given for it would not prove it; but it would always be a falfe inference, that God, by a pofitive donation, appointed Adam monarch of the world, becaufe by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his pojlerity : for having given him the right of government by nature, there was no need of a pofitive C % docation ; 2o Of Government. donation j at lead it will never be a proof of fuch a donation. §.17. On the other fide the matter will not be much mended, if we underftand by God's appointment the law of nature, (though it be a pretty harfh expreffion for it in this place) and by monarch of the world, fovereign ruler of mankind : for then the fentence under confederation muft run thus : By the law of nature, as foon as Adam was created he was governor of mankind, for by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his po/ierity ; which amounts to this, he was governor by right of nature, becaufe he was governor by right of nature : but fuppofing we mould grant, that a man is by nature governor of his children, Adam could not hereby be monarch as foon as created: for this right of nature being founded in his being their father, how Adam could have a natural right to be governor, before he was a father, when by being a father only he had that right, is, methinks, hard to conceive, unlefs he will have him to be a father before he was a fa- ther, and to have a title before he had it. §. 18. To this forefeen objection, our author anfwers very logically, he was governor in habit, and not in ab~i: a very pretty way of being a governor without government, a father without children, and a king without fubjefts. And thu^s Sir Robert was an author before he writ his book ; not in acl it is true, but in habit ; for when be had once published it, Of Government. 21 it, it was due to him by the right of nature, to be an author, as much as it was to Adam to be governor of his children, when he had begot them : and if to be fuch a monarch of the world, an abfolute monarch in habit, but not in ac~i, will ferve the turn, I mould not much envy it to any of Sir Robert's friends, that he thought fit gracioufly to beflow it upon, though even this of ac~l and habit, if it iignified any thing but our author's fkill in diftinctions, be not to his purpofe in this place. For the queftion is not here about Adams actual exercife of government, but actually having a title to be governor. Go- vernment, fays our author, was due to Adam by the right of nature : what is this right of nature ? A right fathers have over their chil- dren by begetting them; generatione jus acqui- ritur parentibus in liberos, fays our author out oiGrotius, Obfervations, 223. The right then follows the begetting as arifing from it ; fo that, according to this way of reafoning or diftinguiming of our author, Adam, as foon as he was created, had a title only in habit, a?id not in act, which in plain Englijh is, he had actually no title at all. §.19. To fpeak lefs learnedly, and more intelligibly, one may fay of Adam, he was in a poffibility of being governor, fince it was poffible he might beget children, and thereby acquire that right of nature, be it what it will, to govern them, that accrues from C 3 thence ; 22 Of Government. thence : but what connection has this with Adams creation, to make him fay, that as foon as he was created, he was monarch of the world? for it may be as well faid of Noah, that as foon as he was born, he was monarch of the world, fince he was in pofhbility (which in our author's fenfe is enough to make a monarch, a monarch in habityJ to out- live all mankind, but his own pofterity. What fuch neceffary connection there is be- twixt Adams creation and his right to govern- ment, fo that a natural freedom of mankind cannot be fuppofed without the denial of the creation of Adam, I confefs for my part I do not fee; nor how thofe words, by" the appointment, &c. Obfervations, 254. how ever explained, can be put together, to make any tolerable fenfe, at leaft to eftabliih this po- rtion, with which they end, viz. Adam was a king from his creation > a king, fays our author, not in atf, but in habit, i. e. actually no king at all, §. 20. 1 fear I have tired my reader's pa- tience, by dwelling longer on this paffage, than the weightinefs of any argument in it feems to require : but I have unavoidably been engaged in it by our author's way of writing, who, hudling feveral fuppofitions together, and that in doubtful and general terms, makes fuch a rnedly and confufion, that it is impoflible to fhew his miftakes, without examining the feveral fenfes wherein his Of Government. 23 his words may be taken, and without feein how, in any of thefe various meanings, they will confifl together, and have any truth in them : for in this prefent parTage before us, how can any one argue againfl this pofition of his, that Adam was a king from his crea- tion, unlefs one examine, whether the words, from his creation, be to be taken, as th^ may, for the time of the commencement of his government, as the foregoing words im- port, asfoon as be was created he wai monarch ; or, for the caufe of it, as he fays, p. 11. creation made man prince of his pojlerity ? how farther can one judge of the truth of his being thus king, till one has examined whether king be to be taken, as the words in the beginning of this parTage would per- fuade, on fuppofition of his private domi- nion, which was, by God's politive grant, monarch of the world by appointment ; or king on fuppofition of his fatherly power over his ofF-fpring, which was by nature, due by the right of nature-, whether, I fay, king be to be taken in both, or one only of thefe two fenfes, or in neither of them, but only this, that creation made him prince, in a way different from both the other ? For though this arTertion, that Ada?n was king from lm creation, be true in no fenfe, yet it flands here as an evident conclufion drawn from the preceding words, though in truth it be but a bare affertion joined to other affertions of the fame kind, which confidently put to- C 4 gether 24 Of Government. gether in words of undetermined and du- bious meaning, look like a fort of arguing, when there is indeed neither proof nor con- nection : a way very familiar with our author: of which having given the reader a tafte here, I fhall, as much as the argument will permit me, avoid touching on hereafter ; and mould not have dnne it here, were it not to let the world fee, how incoherences in matter, and fuppofitions without proofs put handfomely together in good words and a plaufible ftile, are apt to pafs for ftrong reafon and good fenfe, till they come to be looked into with attention. CHAP. IV. Of Adams Title to Sovereignty by Donation^ Gen. i. 28. §. 21.T TAV1NG at lail got frhrougk the foregoing paiTage, where we have been lb long detained, not by the force of arguments and oppofition, but the in- tricacy of the words, and the doubtfulnefs of the meaning ; let us go on to his next argument, for Adams fovereignty. Our au- thor tells us in the words of Mr. Selden, that Adam by donation from God, Gen. i. 28. was made the general lord of all things, not without fuch a private dominion to himjelf as without .his grant did exclude his children. This deter- mination of Mr. Selden, fays our author, is 3 confonant Of Government. g j confonant to the hijiory of the Bible, and na~ tural reafon, Obfervations, 2 it). And in his Pref. to his Obfervations on Arijktle, he fays thus, The jirfi government in the world was monarchical in the father ofallfejh, Adam being commanded to multiply and people the earth, and to fubdue it, and having dominion given him over all creatures, was' thereby the monarch of the whole world ': none of his pojlerity had dny right to poffefs any thing, but by his grant or permijjion, or by fuccefjion from him : The earth, faith the Pfalmift, hath he given to the children of men, which jhew the title comes from fatherhood. §. 22. Before I examine this argument, and the text oh which it is founded, it is necef- fary to defire the reader to obferve, that our author, according to his ufual method, begins in one fenfe, and concludes in another ; he begins here with Adam's propriety, or private dominion, by donation ; and his conclusion is, which Jhew the title comes from fatherhood. §.23. But let us fee the argument. The words of the text are thefe ; and God blejfed them, and God faid unto them, be fruitful and multiply, and replenijh the earth and fubdue it, and have dominion over the fifo of the fea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth, i. Gen. 28. from whence our author concludes, that Adam, having here dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole s6 Of Government. 'whole world: whereby mutt be meant, that either this grant of God gave Adam property, or as our author calls it, private dominion over the earth, and all inferior or irrational crea- tures, and fo confequently that he was thereby monarchy or 2dly, that it gave him rule and dominion over all earthly creatures whatlb-. ever, and thereby over his children ; and fo he was monarch : for, as Mr. Selden has pro- perly worded it, Adam was made general lord of all things, one may very clearly underftand him, that he means nothing to be granted to Adam here but property, and therefore he fays not one word of Adam's monarchy. But our author fays, Adam was hereby monarch of the world, which, properly fpeaking, lignifies fovereign ruler of all the men in the world $ and fo Adam, by this grant, mufl be con- ftitutod fuch a ruler. If our author means otherwife, he might with much clearnefs have faid, that Adam was hereby proprietor of the whole world. But he begs your pardon in that point : clear diftincl: fpeaking not ierving every where to his purpofe, you muH: not expect it in him, as in Mr. Selden, or ether fuch writers. §. 24. In oppofition therefore to our au- thor's doctrine, that Adam was monarch of the k world, founded on this place, I mall iliew, I. That bv this grant, i. Gen. 28. God gave no immediate power to Adam over men, • over Of Government. 27 over his children, over thofe of his own ipecies ; and fo he was not made ruler, or monarchy by this charter. 2. That by this grant God gave him not private dominion over the inferior creatures, but right in common with all mankind ; fo neither was he monarchy upon the account of the property here given him. §. 25. 1. That this donation, i. Gen. 28. gave Adam no power over men, will appear if we confider the words of it : for fince all pofitive grants convey no more than the exprefs words they are made in will carry, let us fee which of them here will comprehend mankind, or Ada??is pofterity j and thofe, I imagine, if any, mufh be thefe, every living thing that maveth : the words in Hebrew are, W2"IH rtfl i. e. Beftiam Reptantem, of which words the icripture itfelf is the befl inter- preter : God having created the fifhes and fowls the t;th day, the beginning of the 6th, he creates the irrational inhabitants of the dry land, which, v. 24. are defcribed in thefe words, let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind; cattle and creeping things, and beajls of the earth, after his kind, and, v. 2. and God made the beafls of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thi?ig that creepeth on the earth after his kind : here, in the creation of the brute in- habitants of the earth, he firfl fpeaks of them all under one general name, of living crea- tures, ' 2$ Of Government. iures, and then afterwards divides them into three ranks, I . Cattle, or fuch creatures as were or might be tame, and fo be the private pofleffion of particular men ; 2. iW which, ver. 24, and 25. in our Bible, is tranflated beaits, and by the Septuagint (bw«, wild beafts, and is the fame word, that here in our text, Ver. 28. where we have this great charter to Adam, is tranflated living things and is alfo the fame word ufed, Gen. ix. 2. where this <rrant is renewed to Noah, and there like wife tranflated beaji. 3. The third rank were the creeping animals, which ver. 24, and 25. are comprised under the word, rTOTtn, the fame that is ufed here, ver. 28. and is tranf- lated moving, but in the former verfes creep- ing, and by the Septuagint in all thefe places, zpTrerd, or reptils ; from whence it appears, that the words which we tranllate here in God's donation, ver. 28. living creatures moving, are the fame, which in the hiflory of the creation, ver. 24, 25. lignify two ranks of terreflrial creatures, viz. wild beajls and rep- tils, and are fo underftood by the Septuagint. §. 26. When God had made the irrational animals of the world, divided into three kinds, from the places of their habitation, viz. fifes of the fea, fowls of the air, and living creatures of the earth, and thefe again into cattle, wild beafis, and reptils, he confiders of making man, and the dominion he fhould feavt over the terreflrial worlds ver. 26. and then Of Government. 29 then he reckons up the inhabitants of thefe three kingdoms, but in the terreftrial leaves out the fecond rank jrn or wild hearts: but here, ver. 28. where he actually exercifes this defign, and gives him this dominion, the text mentions the ftjhes of the fea, and fowls of the air, and the terreftrial creatures in the words that fignify the wild beafts and reptils, though tr an Hated living thing that movetb, leaving out cattle. In both which places, though the word that fignifies wild beajh be omitted in one, and that which fignifies cattle in the other, yet, fince God certainly exe- cuted in one place, what he declares he de- ligned in the other, we cannot but under- stand the fame in both places, and have here only an account, how the terreftrial irrational animals, which were alreadv created and reckoned up at their creation, in three di- stinct ranks of cattle, wild beafts, and reptils, were here, ver. 28. actually put under the dominion of man, as they were defigned, *oer. 26. nor do thefe words contain in them the leaft appearance of any thing that can be wrefted to fignify God's giving to one man dominion over another, to Adam over his pofterity. §. 27. And this further appears from Gen. ix. 2. where God renewing this charter to Noah and his fons, he gives them dominion over the fowls of the air, and the ft/ljes of the fea, and the terrcftrial creatures, exprefTed by 30 Of Government. PITT and tt*DTT wild hearts and reptils, the fame words that in the text before us, i. Gen. 28. are tranflated every moving thing, that vioveth on the earthy which bv no means can comprehend man, the grant being made to Noah and his fons, all the men then living, and not to one part of men over another : which is yet more evident from the very next words, vcr. 3. where God gives every 1PtT\ every moving thing, the very words ufed, ch. i. 28. to them for food. By all which it is plain that God's donation to Adam, ch. i. 28. and his defignation, ver. 26. and his grant again to Noah and his fons, refer to and contain in them neither more nor lefs than the works of the creation the 5th day, and the beginning of the 6th, as they are fet down from the 20th to 26th ver. in- clufively of the id; ch. and fo comprehend all the fpecies of irrational animals of the terraqueous globe, tho* all the words, whereby they are exprelTed in the hiftory of their Creation, are no where ufed in any of the following grants, but fome of them omitted in one, and fome in another. From whence I think it is pad: all doubt, that man cannot be comprehended in this grant, nor any do- minion over thofe of his own fpecies be conveyed to Adam. All the terreflrial ir- rational creatures are enumerated at their creation, ver. 25. under the names beafts of the earth, cattle and creeping things j but man, beiag Of Government. 31 being not then created, was not contained under any of thofe names j and therefore, whether we underftand the Hebrew words right or no, they cannot be fuppofed to comprehend man, in the very fame hiftory, and the very next verfes following, efpecially iince that Hebrew word DOT which, if any in this donation to Adam, ch. i. 28. muft comprehend man, is fo plainly ufed in con- tradi fUnction to him, as Gen. vi. 20. vii. 14, 21,23. Gen. viii. 17, 19. And if God made all mankind Haves to Adcun and his heirs by giving Adam dominion over every living thing that moveth on the earth, ch. i. 28. as our author would have it, methinks Sir Robert mould have carried his monarchical power one ftep higher, and fatisfied the world, that princes might eat their fubje&s too, fince God gave as full power to Noah and his heirs, ch. ix. 2. to eat every living thing that moveth, as he did to Adam to have » do- minion over them, the Hebrew' words in both places being the fame. §.28. David, who might be fuppofed to underftand the donation of God in this text, and the right of kings too, as well as our author in his comment on this place, as the learned and judicious Ainfworth calls it, in the 8th Pfalm, rinds here nofuch charter of mo- narchical power, his words are, Thou haft ??iade him, i. e. man, the Son of man, a little lower than the angels ; thou madcjl him to have dominion ever the works of thy hands -, thou haft put all things 32 Of Government. things under his feet, all Jheep and oxen, and the beajis of the field, and the fowls of the air, and fifh of the fea, and whatfover paffeth thro* the paths of the fea. In which words, if any one can find out, that there is meant any monarchical power of one man over another, but only the dominion of the whole fpecies of mankind, over the inferior fpecies of crea- tures, he may, for aught I know, deferve to be one of Sir Robert's monarchs in habit, for the rarenefs of the difcovery. And by this time, I hope it is evident, that he that gave dominion over every living thing that moveth on^ the earth, gave Ada?n no monarchical power over thofe of his own fpecies, which will yet appear more fully in the next thing I am to mew. §. 29. 2. Whatever God gave by the words of this grant, i. Gen. 28. it was not to Adam in particular, exclufive of all other men : whatever dominion he had thereby, it was not a private dominion, but a dominion in common with the reft of mankind. That this do- nation was not made in particular to Adam, appears evidently from the words of the text, it being made to more than one; for it was fpoken in the plural number, God bleiTed them, and faid unto them, Have dominion. God fays unto Adam and Eve, Have domi- nion ; thereby, fays our author, Adam was monarch of the world : but the grant being to them, i. e. fpoke to Eve alfo, as many interpreters Of Government. 33 interpreters think with reafon, that thefe words were not fpoken till Adam had his wife, mutt not me thereby be lady, as well as he lord of the world ? If it be faid, that Eve was fubjecled to Adam, it feems fhe was not fo fubjecled to him, as to hinder her do- minion over the creatures, or property in them : for fliall we fay that God ever made a joint grant to two, and one only was to have the benefit of it ? §. 30. But perhaps it will be faid, Eve was not made till afterward : grant it fo, what advantage will our author get by it ? The text will be only the more directly againft him, and fhew that God, in this donation, gave the world to mankind in common, and not to Adam in particular. The word them in the text muft include the fpecies of man, for it is certain them can by no means fignify Adam alone. In the 26th Verfe, where God declares his intention to give this dominion, it is plain he meant, that he would make a fpecies of creatures, that fhould have dominion over the other fpecies of this terreftrial globe : the words are, And God faid. Let us make man in our image, after our likenefs, and let them have dominion over thejifi, &c. 'They then were to have do- minion. Who ? even thofe who were to have the image of God, the individuals of that fpecies of ?nan, that he was going to make -, for that them mould fignify Adam. D fingly, 34 Of Government. fingly, exclufive of the reft that fhould be in the world with him, is againft both fcrip- ture and all reafon : and it cannot poffibly be made fenfe, if man in the former part of the vcrfe do not fignify the lame with them in the latter •> only man there, as is ufual, is taken for the fpecies, and them the individuals of that fpecies : and we have a reafon in the very text. God makes him in his own image, after his own like?iefs; makes him an intel- lectual creature, and fo capable of dominion: for wherein foever elfe the image of God con- firmed, the intellectual nature was certainly a part of it, and belonged to the whole fpecies, and enabled them to have dominion over the inferior creatures ; and therefore David fays in the 8 th Pfalm above cited, Thou hafi ??iade him little lower than the angels, thou haft made him to have dominion. It is not of Adam king David fpeaks here, for verfe 4. it is plain, it is of man, and the fon of man, of the fpecies of mankind. §.31. And that this grant fpoken to Adam was made to him, and the whole fpecies of man, is clear from our author's own proof out of the Pfalmijl. The earth, faith the Pfalmift, hath he given to the children of men -, which feews the title comes from fatherhood. Thefe are Sir Robert's words in the preface before cited, and a ftrange inference it is he makes; God hath given the earth to the children of men, ergo the title comes from fatherhood. It is pity Of Government. 35 pity the propriety of the Hebrew tongue had not ufed fathers of men, inflead of children of men y to exprefs mankind : then indeed our author might have had the countenance of the found of the words, to have placed the title in the fatherhood. But to conclude, that the father- hood had the right to the earth, becaufe God gave it to the children of men, is a way of arguing peculiar to our author : and a man mufl have a great mind to go contrary to the found as well as fenfe of the words, before he could light on it. But the fenfe is yet harder, and more remote from our author's purpofe : for as it ftands in his preface, it is to prove Adams being monarch, and his reafoning is thus, God gave the earth to the children of men, ergo Adam was monarch of the world. I defy any man to make a more pleafant conclufion than this, which cannot be excufed from the mod obvious abfurdity, till it can be fhewn, that by children of 7neny he who had no father, Adam alone is iig- nified ; but whatever our author does, the fcripture fpeaks not nonfenfe. §. 32. To maintain tins property and private dominion of Adam, our author labours in the following page to deftroy the community granted to Noah and his fons, in that parallel place, ix. Gen. 1, 2, 3. and he endeavours to do it two ways. I. Sir Robert would perfuade us againfc the exprefs words of the fcripture, that what D 2 was 36 Of Government. was here granted to Noah, was not granted to his fons in common with him. His words are, As for the general community between Noah and his fons, which Mr. Selden will have to be granted to them, ix. Gen. 2. the text doth not warrant it. What warrant our author would have, when the plain exprefs words of fcrip- ture, not capable of another meaning, will not fatisfy him, who pretends to build wholly on fcripture, is not eafy to imagine. The text fays, God blejfed Noah and his Jons, and faid unto them, i. e. as our author would have it, unto him : for, faith he, although the fons are there mentioned with Noah in the blefjing, yet it may beft be underfood, with a fubordination cr benediction in fuccefjion, Obfervations, 211. That indeed is beft, for our author to be un- dei flood, which bed ferves to his purpofe -, but that truly may beft be underfood by any body elfe, which beft agrees with the plain conftruction of the words, and arifes from the obvious meaning of the place; and then with fubordination and in fucceffon, will not be bef underfood, in a grant of God, where he himfelf put them not, nor mentions any fuch limitation. But yet, cur author has reafons, why it may bef be underfood fo. The bleffng, fays he in the following words, might truly be fulfilled, if the fons, either under or - after their father, enjoyed a private dominion, Obfervations, 211. which is to fay, that a grant, whofe exprefs words give a joint title i* Of Government. 37 in prcfent (for the text fays, into your hands they are deliyered) may befi be underjlood with a fub ordination or in fiiccejjion ; becaufe it is poffible, that \wfub ordination, or infuccejjion, it may be enjoyed. Which is all one as to fay, that a grant of any thing in prefent poffeffion may bejl be underjlood of reveriion ; becaufe it is poffible one may live to enjoy it in rever- iion. If the grant be indeed to a father and to his fons after him, who is fo kind as to let his children enjoy it prefently in common with him, one may truly fay, as to the event one will be as good as the other; but it can never be true, that what the exprefs words grant in poffeffion, and in common, may befl be underjlood, to be in reverfion. The fum of all his reafoning amounts to this : God did not give to the fons of Noah the world in common with their father, becaufe it was poffible they might enjoy it under, or after him. A very good fort of argument again (I an exprefs text of fcripture : but God mull: not be believed, though he fpeaks ithimfelf, when he fays he does any thing, which will not confift with Sir Robert's hypothecs. §. 33. For it is plain, however he would ex- clude them, that part of this benediction, as he would have it mfuccejjion, muft: needs be meant to the fons, and not to Noah himfelf at all : Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenijh the earth, fays God, in this bleffing. This part of the benediction, as appears by the fequel, con- D 3 ccrned 38 Of Government. cerned not Noah himfelf at all ; for we read not of any children he had after the flood'; and in the following chapter, where his pof- terity is reckoned up, there is no mention of any; and fo this benediction in fuccejjion was not to take place till 350 years after : and to fave our author's imaginary monarchy* the peopling of the world mud be deferred 350 years ; for this part of the benediction cannot be underffood with fubordination, un- lefs our author will fay, that they mufl afk leave of their father Noah to lie with their wives. But in this one point our author is conftant to himfelf in all his difcourfes, he takes great care there mould be monarchs in the world, but very little that there mould be people ; and indeed his way of government is riot the way to people the world : for how much abfolute monarchy helps to fulfil this great and primary bleffing of God Almighty, Be fruit" July and multiply, and repknijh the earth, which contains in it the improvement too of arts and fciences, and the conveniences of life, may be feen in thofe large and rich coun- tries which are happy under the Turkiffj go- vernment, where are not now to be found one third, nay in many, if not moft. parts of them one thirtieth, perhaps I might fay not one hundredth of the people, that were for- merly, as will eafijy appear to any one, who will compare the accounts we have of it at this Of Government. 39 this time, with antient hiftory. But this by the by. §.34. The other parts of this benediction, or grant, are fo expreffed, that they muft needs be underftood to belong equally to them all ; as much to Noah's fons as to Noah himfelf, and not to his fons with a fubordination, or infuccejjion. The fear of you-, and the dread of you, fays God, fhall be upon every beafl, &c. Will any body but our au- thor fay, that the creatures feared and flood in awe of Noah only, and not of his fons without his leave, or till after his death? And the following words, into your hands they are delivered, are they to be underftood as our author fays, if your father pleafe, or they fhall be delivered into your hands hereafter ? If this be to argue from fcripture, I know not what may not be proved by it ; and I can fcarce fee how much this differs from that ficlion and fanfe, or how much a fu- rer foundation it will prove, than the opi- nions of philofophers and poets, which our au- thor fo much condemns in his preface. §. 35. But our author goes on to prove, that it may bejl be underftood with a fubordina- tion, or a benediBion in fuccefjion ;for, favs he, it is not probable that the private do?ninio7i which God gave to Adam, and by his donation, qjjig- nation, or ceffton to his children, was abroga- ted, and a community of all things injlituted be- tween Noah and his fons Noah was left thefole heir of the world; why fiould it be thought D 4 that 40 Of Government. that God would difmherit him of his birth-right* end make him of all men in the world the only tenant in common with his children? Obfervations, 21 I. §.36. The prejudices of our own ill-ground- ed opinions, however by us called probable, can- not authorife us to underftand fcripture con- trary to the direct and plain meaning of the words. I grant, it is not probable, that Adams private dominion was here abrogated : becaufe it is more than improbable, (for it will never be proved) that ever Ada?n had any fuch pri- vate dominion ; and fince parallel places of fcripture are moil probable to make us know how they may be bejl under food, there needs but the comparing this bleffing here to Noah and his fons after the flood, with that to Adam after the creation, i. Gen. 28. to allure any one that God gave Adam no fuch private do- minion. It is probable, I confefs, that Noah mould have the fame title, the fame property and dominion after the flood, that Adam had before it : but fince private dominion cannot confift with the bleffing and grant God gave to him and his fons in common, it is a fuffi- cient reafon to conclude, that Adam had none, efpecially fince in the donation made to him, there are no words that exprefs it, or do in the lead favour it ; and then let my reader judge whether it may bejl be underjiood, when in the one place there is not one word for it, not to fay what has been above proved, that the Of Government. 41 the text itfelf proves the contrary ; and in the other, the words and fenfe are directly againfl it. §. 37. But our author fays, Noah was the file heir of the world 5 why jloould it be thought that God would difinherit' him of his birth-right? Heir, indeed, in England, fignifies the elded fon,whois by the law of England to have all his father's land j but where God ever appointed any fuch heir of the world, our author would have done well to have (hewed us ; and how God dijinherited him of his birth-i'ight, or what harm was done him if God gave his fons a right to make ufe of a part of the earth for the fupport of themfelves and families, when the whole was not only more than Noah him- felf, but infinitely more than they all could make ufe of, and the poffeffions of one could not at all prejudice, or, as to any ufe, (heigh- ten that of the other. §.38. Our author probably forefeeing he might not be very fuccefsful in perfuading people out of their fenfes, and, fay what he could, men would be apt to believe the plain words of fcripture, and think, as they faw, that the grant was fpoken to Noah and his fons jointly ; he endeavours to infinuate, as if this grant to Noah con- veyed no property, no dominion ; becaufe, fubdumg the earth and dommion over the crea- tures are therein omitted, nor the earth once na- med. And therefore, fays he, there is a con- fiderablt 4.2 ^ F Government. fiderable difference between thefe two texts ; the Jirfi bleffing gave Adam a dominion over the earth and all creatures ; the latter allows Noah liberty to ufe the living creatures for food : here is no alteration or diminijlmig of his title to a property of all things, but an enlargement only of his commons, Gbfervations, 21 1. So that in our author's fenfe, all that was faid here to Noah and his fons, gave them no dominion, no pro- perty, but only enlarged the commons -, their commons, I mould fay, fince God fays, to you are they given, though our author fays his -3 for as for Noah's fons, they, it feems, by Sir Robert's appointment, during their father's life-time, were to keep farting days. §. 39. Any one but our author would be mightily fufpe&ed to be blinded with pre- judice, that in all this bleffing to Noah and his fons, could fee nothing but only an en- largement of commons : for as to dominion-, which our author thinks omitted, the fear of you, and the dread of you, fays God, flail be up- on every beaft, which I fuppofe expreffes the dominion, or fuperiority was deligned man over the living creatures, as fully as may be ; for in that fear and dread feems chiefly to confift what was given to Adam over the in- ferior animals ; who, as abfolute a monarch as he was, could not make bold with a lark or rabb,et to fatisfy his hunger, and had the herbs but in common with the beafts, as is plain from i Gen. 2, 9, and 30. In the next Of Government. 43 next place, it is manifefl: that in this bleff- ing to Noah and his fons, property is not only given in clear words, but in a larger ex- tent than it was to Adam. Into your bands they are given, fays God to Noah and his fonsj vh'ch words, if they give not property, nay, property in poffeflion, it will be hard to find words that can ; fince there is not a way to exprefs a man's being porTefTed of any thing more natural, nor more certain, than to fay, it is delivered into his hands. And ver. 3. to fhew, that they had then given them the utmoft property man is capable of, which is to have a right to deftroy any thing by ufing it j Every moving thing that liveth, faith God, Jhall be meat for you -, which was not al- lowed to Adam in his charter. This our au- thor calls, a liberty of ufing them for food, and only an enlargement of commons, but no altera- tion of property, Obfervations, 211. What other property man can have in the creatures, but the liberty of ufing them, is hard to be under- flood : fo that if the firft bleffing, as our au- thor fays, gave Adam dominion over the crea- tures, and the bleffing to Noah and his fons, gave them fuch a liberty to life them, as Adam had not ; it muft needs give them fomething that Adam with all his fovereignty wanted, fomething that one would be apt to take for a greater property ; for certainly he has no abfolute dominion over even the brutal part of the creatures ; and the property he has in, 3 them 44 O f Government. them is very narrow and fcanty, who can- not make that ufe of them, which is permit- ted to another. Should any one who if, abfo- lute lord of a country, have bidden our au- thov fubdue the earth, and given him domi- nion over the creatures in it, but not have permitted him to have taken a kid or a lamb out of the flock, to fatisfy his hunger, I guefs, he would fcarce have thought him- telf lord or proprietor of that land, or the cattle on it ; but would have found the dif- ference between having dominion, which a fhepherd may have, and having full property as an owner. So that, had it been his own cafe, Sir Robert, I believe, would have thought here was an alteration, nay, an enlarging of property ; and that Noah and his children had by this grant, not only property given them, but fuch a property given them in the crea- tures, as Adam had not : For however, in refpect of one another, men may be allowed to have propriety in their diftincl: portions of the creatures ; yet in refpect of God the maker of heaven and earth, who is fole lord and proprietor of the whole world, man's propriety in the creatures is nothing but that liberty to ufe them, which God has permitted ; and fo man's property may be altered and enlarged, as we fee it was here, after the flood, when other ufes of them are allowed, which before were not. From all which I fuppofe it is clear, that neither Adam, nor 2 Noah, Of Government. 4$ Noah, had any private dominion, any property in the creatures, exclufive of his pofterity, as they mould fucceffively grow up into need of them, and come to be able to make ufe of them. §.40. Thus we have.examined our author's argument for Adam's monarchy, founded on the bleffing pronounced, i.Gen. 28. Where- in I think it is impomble for any fober rea- der, to find any other but the fetting of mankind above the other kinds of creatures, in this habitable earth of ours. It is nothing but the giving to man, the whole fpecies of man, as the chief inhabitant, who is the image of his Maker, the dominion over the other creatures. This lies fo obvious in the plain words, that any one, but our author, would have thought it neceffary to have fhewn, how thefe words, that feemed to fay the quite contrary, gave Adam monarchical abfolute power over other men, or the file property in all the creatures ; and methinks in a bulinefs of this moment, and that where- on he builds all that follows, he mould have done fomething more than barely cite words, which apparently make againft him ; for I confefs, I cannot fee any thing in them, tend- ing to Adams monarchy, or private dominion, but quite the contrary. And I the lefs de- plore the dulnefs of my apprehenfi©n herein, fince I find the apoftle feems to have as little notion of any fuch private dominion of Adam -as 46 Or Government. as I, when he fays, God gives us all things richly to enjoy, which he could not do, if it were all given away already, to Monarch Adam, and the monarchs his heirs and fuc- ceffors. To conclude, this text is fo far from proving Adam fole proprietor, that, on the contrary, it is a confirmation of the ori- ginal community of all things amongft the Ions of men, which appearing from this do- nation of God, as well as other places of fcripture, the fovereignty of Adam, built up- on his private dominion, muft fall, not having any foundation to fupport it. §. 41. But yet, if after all, any one will needs have it fo, that by this donation of God, Adam was made fole proprietor of the whole earth, what will this be to his fove- reignty ? and how will it appear, that pro- priety in land gives a man power over the life of another ? or how will the porTeffion even of the whole earth, give any one a fovereign arbitrary authority over the perfons of men ? The moil fpecious thing to be faid, is, that he that is proprietor of the whole world, may deny all the reft of mankind food, and fo at his pleafure ftarve them, if they will not acknowledge his fovereignty, and obey his will. If this were true, it would be a good argument to prove, that there never was any fuch property, that God never gave any fuch private dominion ; iince it is more reafonable to think, that God, who bid man- kind Of Government. 47 kind increafe and multiply, mould rather himfelf give them all a right to make ufe of the food and raiment, and other conveniences of life, the materials whereof he had fo plen- tifully provided for them ; than to make them depend upon the will of a man for their fub- fiftence, who mould have power to deftroy them all when he pleafed, and who, being no better than other men, was in fucceffion likelier, by want and the dependence of a fcanty fortune, to tie them to hard fervice, than by- liberal allowance of the conveniences of life to promote the great defign of God, increafe and multiply : he that doubts this, let him look into theabfolute monarchies of the world, and fee what becomes of the conveniences of life, and the multitudes of people. §. 42. But we know God hath not left one man fo to the mercy of another, that he may ftarve, him if he pleafe : God the Lord and Father of all has given no one of his chil- dren luch a property in his peculiar portion of the things of this world, but that he has given his needy brother a right to the fur- plulage of his goods ; fo that it cannot juflly be denied him, when his preffing wants call for it : and therefore no man could ever have a juft power over the life of another by right of property in land or poiTeffions ; fince it would always be a lin, in any man of eftate, to let his brother perim for want of affording him relief out of his plenty. As juflict 48 Of Government. juftice gives every man a title to the product of his honeft induftry, and the fair acquis- itions of his ancellors defcended to him -y fo charity gives every man a title to fo much out of another's plenty, as will keep him from extreme want, where he has no means to fubfift otherwife : and a man can no more j ti illy make ufe of another's neceffity, to force him to become his vaffal, by with-holding that relief, God requires him to afford to the wants of his brother, than he that has more ftrength can feize upon a weaker, matter him to his obedience, and with a dagger at his throat offer him death or flavery. §. 43. Should any one make fo perverfe an ufe of God's bleffings poured on him with a liberal hand ; mould any one be cruel and uncharitable to that extremity, yet all this would not prove that propriety in land, even in this cafe, gave any authority over the per- fons of men, but only that compact might j fince the authority of the rich proprietor, and the fubjecTtion of the needy beggar, began not from the poffeffion of the Lord, but the con- fent of the poor man, who preferred being his fubject. to ftarving. And the man he thus fubmits to, can pretend to no more power over him, than he has confented to, upon corn- pad:. Upon this ground a man's having his flores filled in a time of fcarcity, having mo- ney in his pocket, being in a velTel at fea, being able to fwim, &c. may as well be the Of Government. 49 the foundation of rale and dominion, as being poifefTor of all the land in the world ; any of thefe being fufficient to enable me to fave a man's life, who would perifh if fuch affi fiance were denied himj and any thing, by this rule, that may be an occafion of working upon another's neceffity, to fave his life, or any thing dear to him, at the rate of his freedom, may be made a foundation of fove- reignty, as well as property. From all which it is clear, that though God fhould have given Adam private dominion, yet that private domi- nion could give him no fovereignty ; but we have already fufficiently proved, that God gave him no private dominion . CHAP. V. Of Adam's Title to Sovereignty by the Subjection of Eve. §. 44. t 1 ^HE next place of fcriptnre we £_ rind our author builds his mo- narchy of Adam on, is iii. Gen. 26. And thy dejire Jhall be to thy hnjband, and he foall rule over thee. Here ive have (fays he) the origi- nal grant of government, from whence he con- cludes, in the following part of the page, Ob/trvations, 244. That the fupreme power is fettled in the fatherhood, and limited to one kind cf government, that is, to monarchy. For let his premifes be what they will, this is al- ways the conclusion ; let rule, in any text, be but once named, and prefently abfolute mo- E natqhy 50 Of Government. narcby is by divine right eftablifhed. If any one will but carefully read our author's own reafoning from thefe words, Ohfervations, 244. and conlider, among other things the line and pojkrity of Adam, as he there brings them in, he will find fome difficulty to make fenfe of what he fays ; but we will allow this at pre- fent to his peculiar way of writing, and con- lider the force of the text in hand. The words are the curfe of God upon the wo- man, for having been the firft and forwardeft in the difobedience ; and if we will confider the occafion of what God fays here to our firfl parents, that he was denouncing judg- ment, and declaring his wrath againft them both, for their difobedience, we cannot fup- pofe that this was the time, wherein Gcd was granting Adam prerogatives and privileges, in- verting him with dignity and authority, eleva- ting him to dominion and monarchy : for though, as a helper in the temptation, Eve was laid below him, and fo he had accidentally a fuperiority over her, for her greater punifh- . ment j yet he too had his (hare in the fail, as . well as the fin, and was laid lower, as may be feen in the following verfes ; and it would be hard to imagine, that God, in the fame breath, mould make him univerfal monarch over all mankind, and a day-labourer for his life ; turn him cut o$para£fe to till the ground, vcr. i\. and at the fame time advance him to a throne, and all the privileges and eafe of abielute power. §■ 45- Of Government. 51 §.45. This was not a time, when Adam could expect any favours, any grant of pri- vileges, from his offended Maker. If thi; be the original grant of government , as our au- thor tells us, and Adam was now made mo- narch, whatever Sir Robert would have him* it is plain, God made him but a very poor mo- narch, fuch an one, as our author himfelf ■would have counted it no great privilege to be. God fets him to work for his living, and feems rather to give him a fpade into his hand, to fubdue the earth, than a fceptre to rule over its inhabitants. In the fweat of thy face thou fl: alt eat thy bread, fays God to him, *ver. 19. This was unavoidable, may it per- haps be anfwered, becaufe he was yet with- out fubjects, and had nobody to work for him 3 but afterwards, living as he did above 900 years, he might have people enough* whom he might command, to work for him -, no, fays God, not only whilft thou art with^ out other help, fave thy wife, but .as long as thou liveft, (halt thou live by thy labour, In the fweat of thy face, Jhalt thou eat thy bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out cf it ivaf thou taken, for dujl thou art, and unto dujl Jhalt thou return, v. 19. It will perhaps be anfwered again in favour of our author, that thefe words are not fpoken perfonally to Adam, but in him, as their reprefentative, to all- mankind, this being a curfe upon man- kind, becaufe cf the fall. §. 46. God, I believe, fpeaks differently from men, becaufe he fpeaks with more truth, E 2 . more 52 Of Government. more certaintv : but when he vouchfafes to ipeak. to men, I do not think he fpeaks dif- ferently from them, in crorTing the rules of language in ule amongil them : this would not be to condelcend to their capacities, when he humbles himlelf to fpeak to them, but to loie his defign in fpeaking what, thus fpoken, they could not underfland. And yet thus mull we think of God, if the interpretations of fcripture, neceiTarv to maintain our au- thor's doctrine, mull be received for good : for by the ordinary rules of language, it will be verv hard to underftand what God favs, if what he fpeaks here, in the lingular number, to Adam, muft be underflood to be fpoken to all mankind, and what he fin in the plural number, i. Gen. 26, and 28. mufl be underflood of Adam alone, exclufive of all others, and what he lavs to Noab and his ion; jointly, mufl be underflood to be meant to Noah alone, Gen. EX. ^7. Farther it is to be noted, that thefe words here of iii. Gen. 16. which our author calls tb lal grant of government , in net fpoken to Adam, neither indeed was there any grant in them made to Adam, but a punifhment laid upon Eve: and if we will take them as they were directed in particular to her, or in her, as their reprefentative, to all other women, thev will at mcll conce the female fex only, and import no more, but that fubjection they lhould ordinarily be in _• C_ i. :■.-•.:- -. . '.:-.: :>-! :r.e:r :: ':. tzt : ~ '« ..:■; :: ::Li?t :: the :::;_~ ::i~:t or contract with her ;.e: ::;r~. .!. :..:". : '-rir.z f:r*J- he; :iL: if there could he : v h:;h i: ill": = :ir: her: for the who! /;-*■;-_. ;:' :.r-< :: '.:'.:: I :':-•:. ~i-t :;t- i :.i:: r.i::t: :";: 2-;, : i" . :_::_" : : .". i - 1 : : _ ~. z : _: 2 rnr.: :: n:is-:z 1:-'. rr.i". -■:'■ '■■ As..--. :j rr.e.'r ■;-::::;. "-.:>. ■.-. = :: . : . nor of him: neither will any one, I foppoiic, :y :'/.-. ~z 7r::i-. ::.:.-: ::.-. .*tis.t: :n~. i; : a law, to iobje&ed to the enrte ennrainnri in thetB, that it is their duty sot to cadnwr to avoid it . And wffl any one lay, that Ewe, or any other woman, finned, it £he were r:::::: :: :-ei •"■:;-_: _: zr.::t i.::'.::z'..ti ::.-.- G:-j ::.:::::::• r.t: r.t:t -.-.:'- : :: zzi: i.zr.t: .:' :_:: ::rt; :. _V_: . :- £ .: .:. ■ •: . :.:: :;. :. r i:;. -::-;;' :~t.: :'_ r; t . : ? . :.ii :rtr. ':. this text pot into a political fhhjnftino to him ?• or that he thereby lboald hare had - : •;---•.•.::.•.-." -;'..■: :•;: :. ;: '' !-:•: .: ;;.: ::V ::•:; :::. :~i: I :::. ;-.t £j:'~::!ry :: .:' . :-: 1 ;r to men orcr their w; 54 Of Government. only foretels what mould be the woman's lot. how by his providence he would order it fo, that (he mould be fubjec"t. to her huf- band, as we fee that generally the laws of mankind and cuftoms of nations have ordered it fo -, and there is, I grant, a foundation in nature for it. §. 48. Thus when God fays of Jacob and Efau, that the elder fhould ferve the younger, xxv. Gen. 23. no body fuppofes that God hereby made Jacob Efaus fovereign, but foretold what fhould de facto come to pafs. But if thefe words here fpoke to Bye muft needs be underftood as a law to bind her and all other women to fubjection, it can be no other fubjection than what every wife owes her hufband ; and then if this be the original grant of government and the foundation of mo- narchical power, there will be as many mo- narchy as there are hufbands : if therefore thefe words give any power to Adam, it can be only a conjugal power, not political ; the power that every hufband hath to order the things of private concernment in his family, as proprietor of the goods and land there, and to have his will take place before that of his wife in all things of their common concernment ; but not a political power of life and death over her, much lefs over any body elfe. §. 49. This I am fure : if our author will have this text to be a grant, the original grant Of Government. $$ of govermnent , political government, he ought to have proved it by fome better arguments than by barely faying, that thy dejire jhall be unto thy hujband, was a law whereby Eve, and all that JJjould come of her, were fub jedted to the abfolute monarchical power of Ada?n and his heirs. 'Thy defire jhall be to thy hujband, is too doubtful an expreffion, of whofe figni- fication interpreters are not agreed, to build fo confidently on, and in a matter of fuch moment, and fo great and general concern- ment : but our author, according to his way of writing, having once named the text, concludes prefently without any more ado, that the meaning is as he would have it. Let the words rule and fubjecl be but found in the text or margent, and it immediately fignifies the duty of a fubjecl: to his prince ; the relation is changed, and though God fays hujband, Sir Robert will have it king ; Adam has prefently abfolute monarchical power over Eve, and not only over Eve, but all that ftould come of her, though the fcripturc fays not a word of it, nor our author a word to prove it. But Adam mud for all that be an abfolute monarch, and fo down to the end of the chapter. And here I leave- my reader to confider, whether my bare faying, without offering any reafons to evince it, that this text 9;ave not Adam that abfolute monarchical power, our author fuppofes, be not as fuf- ficient to deftroy that power, as his bare af-> ■ E 4 fertion 56 Of Government. fcrtion is to eftablifh it, fince the text men- tions neither prince nor people, fpeaks nothing of abfolute or monarchical power, but the fubje&ion of Eve to Adam, a wife to her hufband. And he that would trace our au- thor fo all through, would make a fhort and fufficient anfwer to the greater!; part of the grounds he proceeds on, and abundantly confute them by barely denying ; it being a fufficient anfwer to affertions without proof, to deny them without giving a reafon. And therefore mould I have faid nothing but barely denied, that by this text the fupreme power was fettled and founded by God hbifelf, in the fatherhood, limited to monarchy, and that to Adam'j- perfon and heirs, all which our author notably concludes from thefe words, as may be feen in the fame page, Obfrvaiions, 244. it had been a fufficient anfwer : mould I have derired any fober man only to have read the text, and confidered to whom, and on what occafion it was fpoken, he would no doubt have wondered how our author found out monarchical abfolute power in it, had he not had an exceeding good faculty to find it himfelf, where he could not fhew It others. And thus we have examined the two places of fcripture, all that I remember our author brings to prove Adam's fovereignty, that fupremacy, which he fays, it was God's ordinance Jhould be unlimited in Adam, and as large as all the acis of his will, Observations, 254, Of Government. 5. 254. viz. i. Gen. 28. and iii. Gen. 16. one whereof fignifies only the fubjection of the inferior ranks of creatures to mankind, and the other the fubjection that is due from a wife to her hulband, both far enough from that which fubjects owe the governors of political focieties. CHAP. VI. Of Adam\r Title to Sovereignty by Fatherhood. §. 50. ' a ^HERE is one thing more, and J[ then I think I have given you all that our author brings for proof of Adam's fovereignty, and that is a fuppofition of a natural right of dominion over his children, by being their father : and this title of fa- therhood he is fo pkaicd with, that you will find it brought in alrnoft in every page, par- ticularly he fays, not only Adam, but the fucceeding patriarchs had by right of fatherhood royal authority over their children, p. j2. And in the fame page, this fubjeclion of children being the fountain of all regal authority, &c„ This being, as one would think by his fo frequent mentioning it, the main bafis of all his frame, we may well expect clear and evident reafon for it, fince he lays it down as a poiition neceffary to his purpofe, that every man that is bom is fo far from being free, that by his very birth he becomes a fubjeel of him that begets. 5S Of Government. begets him, Obfervations, 156. fo that Adam being the only man created, and all ever fmcc being begotten, no body has been born free. If we afk how Adam comes by this power over his children, he tells us here it is "by begetting them : and fo again, Obfer- vations, 223. this natural dominion of Adam, fays he, may be proved out of Grotius himjclf, hvho teacheth, that generatione jus acquiritur parentikus in liberos. And indeed the acl of begetting being that which makes a man a father, his right of a father over his children can naturally arife from nothing elic. §.51. Grotius tells us not here how far this jus in liberos, this power of parents over their children extends -, but our author, al- ways very clear in the point, allures us, it is fupreme power, and like that of abfolute monarchs over their Haves, abfolute power of life and death. He that fhould demand of him, how, or for what reafon it is, that begetting a child gives the father fuch an abfolute power over him, will find him an- fwer nothing : we are to take his word for this, as well as feveral other things; and by that the laws of nature and the conftitutions of government mull: Hand or fall. Had he been an abfolute monarch, this way of talk- ing might have fuited well enough ; pro ratione voluntas might have been of force in his mouth -, but in the way of proof or ar- gument is very unbecoming, and will little advantage Of Government. 59 advantage his plea for abfolute monarchy. Sir Robert has too much lefTened a fubjecYs authority to leave himfelf the hopes of eila- bliihing any thing by his bare faying it ; one flave's opinion without proof is not of weight enough to difpofe of the liberty and for- tunes of all mankind. If all men are not, as I think they are, naturally equal, I am fure all flaves are; and then I may without prefumption oppofe my {ingle opinion to his ; and be confident that my faying, that begetting of children makes them not jlaves to their fa- thers, as certainly fets all mankind free, as his affirming the contrary makes them all flaves. But that this poiition, which is the, foundation of all their doctrine, who would have monarchy to be jure divino, may have all fair play, let us hear what reafons others give for it, fince our author offers none. §. 52. The argument, I have heard others make ufe of, to prove that fathers, by be- getting them, come by an abfolute power over their children, is this; that fathers have a power over the lives of their children, becaufc they give them life and being, which is the only proof it is capable of: lince there can be no reafon, why naturally one man mould have any claim or pretence of right over that in another, which was never his, which he be- flowed not, but was received from the bounty of another. 1. I anfwer, that every one who gives another any thing, has not always thereby 6o Of Cover n m ft n r. thereby a right to take it away again. But* 2. They who fay the father gives life to his children, are fo dazzled with the thoughts of monarchy, that they do not, as they ought, remember God, who is the author and giver of life : it is in him alone we live, move, unci have our being. Plow can he be thought to give life to another, that knows not wherein his own life confifls ? Philofophers are at a lofs about it after their moil: diligent en- quiries ; and anatomifts, after their whole lives and fludies fpent in directions, and diligent examining the bodies of men, con- fefs their ignorance in the ftructure and ufe of many parts of man's body, and in that operation wherein life confifts in the whole. And doth the rude plough-man, or the more ignorant voluptuary, frame or fafhion fuch an admirable engine as this is, and then put life and fenfe into it ? Can any man fay, he formed the parts that are neceffary to the life of his child ? or can he fuppoie himfelf to give the life, and yet not know what fubjedfc is fit to receive it, nor what actions or organs are neceffary for its reception or prefervation ? §.53. To give life to that which has yet no being, is to frame and make a living creature, fafhion the parts, and mould and iuit them to their ufes, and having propor- tioned and fitted them together, to put into them a living foul. He that could do this, 1 might Of Government. 6i might indeed have fome pretence to deftroy his own workmanfhip. But is there any one fo bold, that dares thus far arrogate to him- felf the incomprehensible works of the al- mighty ? Who alone did at firfl, and con- tinues ftill to make a living foul, he alone can breathe in the breath of life. If any one thinks himfelf an artift at this, let him num- ber up the parts of his child's body which he hath made, tell me their ufes and opera- tions, and when the living and rational foul began to inhabit this curious ftructure, when leniQ began, and how this engine, which he has framed, thinks and reafons : if he made it, let him, when it is out of order, mend it, at leaft tell wherein the defects lie. Shall kt that made the eye not fee ? fays the Pfalmiil, Pfalm xciv. 9. See thefe men's vanities! the flruclure of that one part is fumcient to convince us of an all-wife contriver, and he has fo vifible a claim to us as his workman- fhip, that one of the ordinary appellations of God in fcripture is, God our Maker, and the Lord our Maker. And therefore though our author, for the magnifying his fatherhood, be pleafed to fay, Obfervations, 159. That even the power which God himfelf exercifeth over mankind Is by right of fatherhood* yet this iatherhood is fuch an one as utterly excludes all pretence of title in earthly parents ; for he is king, becaufe he is indeed maker of us all, 62 Of Government. all, which no parents can pretend to be of their children. §. 54. But had men (kill and power to make their children, it is not Co (light a piece of workmanfhip, that it can be imagined, they could make them without deiigning it. What father of a thoufand, when he begets a child, thinks farther than the fatisfying his prefent appetite? God in his infinite wifdom has put flrong defires of copulation into the con- stitution of men, thereby to continue the race of mankind, which he doth moil commonly without the intention, and often againff. the confent and will of the begetter. And in- deed thole who defire and defign children, are but the occafions of their being, and when they defign and wiih to beget them, do little more towards their making, than Deucalion and his wife in the fable did to- wards the making of mankind, by throwing pebbles over their heads. §. $5. But grant that the parents made their children, £ave them life and beins;, and that hence there followed an abiblute power. This would give xht father but a joint do- minion with the mother over them : for no bodv can denv but that the woman hath an equal fhare, if net the greater, as nounm- ing the child a long time in her own body out of her own fubiiance : there it is fa- mioned, and from her it receives the ma- terials and principles of its eosft&ution : and it Of Government. 63 it is fo hard to imagine the rational foul mould prefently inhabit the yet unformed embrio, as foon as the father has done his part in the act of generation, that if it muft be fuppofed to derive any thing from the parents, it muft certainly owe moft to the mother. But be that as it will, the mother cannot be denied an equal fhare in begetting of the child, and fo the abfolute authority of the father will not arife from hence. Our author indeed is of another mind ; for he fays, We know that God at the creation gave the fovereignty to the man over the woman, as being the nobler and principal agent in gene- ration, Obfervations, 172. I remember not this in my Bible; and when the place is brought where God at the creation gave the fovereignty to man over the woman, and that for this reafon, becaufe he is the ?iobler .and principal agent in generation, it will be time enough to confider, and anfwer it. But it is no new thing for our author to tell us his own fancies for certain and divine truths, tho* there be often a great deal of difference be- tween his and divine revelations ; for God in the fcripture fays, his father and his mother that begot him. §, 56. They who alledge the practice of mankind, for expofmg or felling their children, . as a proof of their power over them, are with Sir Robert happy arguers ; and cannot but recommend their opinion, by founding , it 64 Of Government. it on the moft fhameful a&ion, and moft unnatural murder, human nature is capable of. The dens of lions and nurferies of wolves know no fuch cruelty as this : thefe favage inhabitants of the defert obey God and nature in being tender and careful of their orT-ipring: they will hunt, watch, fight, and almoft ftarve for the prefervation of their young; never part with them -, never forfake them, till they are able to fhift for them- felves. And is it the privilege of man alone to act more contrary to nature than the wild and moft untamed part of the creation ? doth God forbid us under the feverefl pe- nalty, that of death, to take away the life of any man, a ftranger, and upon provo- cation ? and does he permit us to deftroy thofe, he has given us the charge and care of; and by the dictates of nature and rea- fon, as well as his revealed command, re- quires us to preferve? He has in all the parts of the creation taken a peculiar care to pro- pagate and continue the feveral fpecies of creatures, and makes the individuals act fo flrongly to this end, that they fometimes neglect their own private good for it, and feem to forget that general rule, which na- ture teaches all things, of felf-prefervation ; « and the prefervation of their young, as the ftrongeft principle in them, over-rules the conftitution of their particular natures. Thus we fee, when their young ftand in need of it, the timorous become valiant, tW Of Government. 6$ the fierce and favage kind, and the ravenous tender and liberal. §. $j. But if the example of what hath been done, be the rule of what ought to be, hiftory would have furnifhed our author with inftances of this abfolute fatherly power in its height and perfection, and he might have fhewed us in Peru, people that begot children on purpofe to fatten and eat them. The ftory is fo remarkable, that I cannot but fet it down in the author's words. " In fome " provinces, fays he, they were fo liquori(h " after man's flefh, that they would not have " the patience to flay till the breath was " out of the body, but would fuck the blood " as it ran from the wounds of the dying " man ; they had public fhambles of man's " flefh, and their madnefs herein was to u that degree, that they fpared not their " own children, which they had begot on " Grangers taken in war : for they made M their captives their miftrefTes, and choicely " nourifhed the children they had by them, " till about thirteen years old they butchered '* and eat them \ and they ferved the mo- " thers after the fame faihion, when they <f grew pail child bearing, and ceafed- to <f bring them any more roarers," Garcilaffb de la Vega hijl. des Yncas de Peru, 1. i. c. 12. §. 58. Thus far can the bufy mind of man carry him to a brutality below the level of hearts, when he quits his reaibn, which F places 66 Of Government. places him almoft equal to angels. Nor can it be otherwife in a creature, whofe thoughts are more than the fands, and wider than the ocean, whe?e fancy and pafTion muft needs run him into ftrange courfes, if reafon, which is his only ftar and compafs, be not that he fleers by. The imagination is always reft- lefs, and fuggefts variety of thoughts, and the will, reafon being laid afide, is ready for every extravagant project ; and in this ftate, he that goes fartheft out of the way, is thought fitteft to lead, and is fure of moft followers : and when fafhion hath once eftablifhed what folly or craft began, cuftom makes it facred, and it will be thought impudence, or mad- nefs, to contradict or queftion it. He that will impartially furvey the nations of the world, will find fo much of their religions, governments and manners, brought in and continued amongft them by thefe means, that he will have but little reverence for the prac- tices which are in ufe and credit amongft men ; and will have reafon to think, that the woods and forefts, where the irrational untaught inhabitants keep right by following nature, are fitter to give us rules, than cities and palaces, where thofe that call themfelves civil and rational, go out of their way, by the authority of example. If precedents are fufficient to eftabliih a rule in this cafe, our author might have found in holy writ chil- dren facrinced by their parents, and this amongft Of Government. 67 amongft the people of God themielves : the Pfalmijl tells us, Pfal. cvi. 38. They fed in- nocent bloody even the blood of their fins and of their daughters, whom they facrificed unto the idols of Canaan. But God judged not of this by our author's rule, nor allowed of the autho- rity of practice againft his righteous law; but as it follows there, the land was polluted with blood ; therefore was the wrath of the Lord kindled againjl his people, infomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance. The killing of their children, though it were fafhionable, was charged on them as innocent blood, and fo had in the account of God the guilt of murder, as the offering them to idols had the guilt of idolatry. §.59. Be it then, as Sir Robert fays, that anciently it was ufual for men to fell a?id cafirate their children, Obfervations, 155. Let it be, that they expofed them; add to it, if you pleale, for this is ftill greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them : if this proves a right to do fo, we may, by the fame argument, juftify adul- tery, inceft and fodomy, for there are ex- amples of thefe too, both ancient and mo- dern ; fins, which I fuppofe have their prin- cipal aggravation from this, that they crofs the main intention of nature, which willeth the increafe of mankind, and the conti- nuation of the fpecies in the higheft per- fection, and the diftinclion of families, with F 2 the 68 Of Government. the fecurity of the marriage bed, as neceflfary thereunto. §. 60. In confirmation of this natural au- thority of the father, our author brings a lame proof from the politive command of God in fcripture : his words are, To confirm the natural right of regal power, we find in the Decalogue, that the law which enjoins obe- dience to kings, is delivered in the terms, Honour thy father, p. 23. Whereas ?nany confefs, that government only in the abflracl, is the ordinance of God, they are not able to prove any fuch ordinance hi the fcripture, but only in the fa- therly power ; and therefore we find the com- mandment, that enjoins obedience to fuperiors, given in the terms, Honour thy father ; Jo that not only the power and right of government, but the form of the power governing, and the perfon having the power, are all the ordinances of God. The firjl father had not only fimply power, but power monarchical, as he was father immediately from God, Obfervations, 254. To the fame purpofe, the fame law is cited by our author in fevera] other places, and juft after the fame fafhion ; that is, and mother, as apochryphal words, are always left out ; a great argument of our author's ingenuity, and the goodnefs of his caufe, which required in its defender zeal to a degree of warmth, able to warp the facred rule of the word of God, to make it comply with his prefent occalion , a way of proceeding not unufual to Of Government. 69 to thofe, who embrace not truths becaufe reafon and revelation offer them, but efpoufe tenets and parties for ends different from truth, and then refolve at any rate to defend them ; and fo do with the words and fenfe of authors, they would fit to their purpofe, juft as Procrufles did with his guefts, lop or ftretch them, as may beffc fit them to the fize of their notions : and they always prove like thofe fo ferved, deformed, lame, and ufelefs. §. 61. For had our author fet down this command without garbling, as God gave it, and joined mother to father, every reader would have feen, that it had made directly againft him ; and that it was fo far from eftablifhing the monarchical power of the fa- ther, that it fet up the ?nother equal with him, and enjoined nothing but what was due in common, to both father and mother : for that is the conftant tenor of the fcripture, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. He that fmiteth his father or mother, fall furely be put to death, xxi. 15. He that curfeth his father or mother, fiall furely be put to death, ver. ij. Repeated Lev. xx. 9. and by our Saviour, Matth. xv. 4. Te Jljall fear every man his mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3. If a man have a rebellious fon, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother -, then fall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and fay, This our fon is ftubr- F 3 born jo Of Government. bom and rebellious, he will not obey our voice, Deut. xxi. 1 8, 19, 20, 21. Curfed be be that fettcth light by his father or his mother, xxviii. 16. My fon, hear the injlruciions of thy father, and forfake not the law of thy mother, are the words of Solomon, a king who was not ig- norant of what belonged to him as a father or a king ; and yet he joins father and mo~ ther together, in all the inftructions he gives children quite thro' his book of Proverbs. Woe unto him, that fay eth unto his father, What begettefl thou, or to the woman, What hajl thou brought forth? Ifa. xi. ver. 10. In thee have they Jet light by father or mother, Ezek. xxviii. 2. And it Jhall come topafs, that when anyJJ:all yet prophefy, then his father and his mother that begat him, jhall fay unto him, Thou fhalt not live, and his father and his mother that begat him, floall thrufl him through when he prophe/ieth, Zech. xiii. 3. Here not the father only, but the father and mother jointly, had power in this cafe of life and death. Thus ran the law of the Old Teftament, and in the New they are likewife joined, in the obedience of their children, Eph. vi. 1. The rule is, Children, obey your parents ; and I do not remember, that I any where read, Chil- dren, obey your father, and no more : the fcrip- ture joins mother too in that homage, which is due from children; and had there been tny text, where the honour or obedience of children had been directed to the father alone, it Of Government. ji it is not likely that our author, who pretends to build all upon fcripture, would have omit- ted it : nay, the fcripture makes the autho- rity of father and mother, in refpect of thofe they have begot, fo equal, that in fome places it neglects even the priority of order, which is thought due to the father, and the mother is put firfl, as Lev. xix. 3. from which fo conftantly joining father and mother to- gether, as is found quite through the fcrip- ture, we may conclude that the honour they have a title to from their children, is one common right belonging fo equally to them both, that neither can claim it wholly, nei- ther can be excluded. §. 62. One would wonder then how our author infers from the 5th commandment, that all power was originally in the father ; how he finds monarchical power of govern- ment fettled and fixed by the commandment. Honour thy father and thy mother. If all the honour due by the commandment, be it what it will, be the only right of the father, be- caufe he, as our author fays, has thefovereignty over the woman, as being the nobler and priii- cipler agent in generation, why did God after- wards all along join the mother with him, to fhare in his honour ? can the father, by this fovereignty of his, difcharge the child from paying this honour to his mother I The fcrip- ture gave no fuch licence to the Jews, and yet there were often breaches wide enough , F 4 betwixt yz Of Government. betwixt hufoand and wife, even to divorce and feparation : and, I think, no body will fay a child may with-hold honour from his mother, or, as the fcripture terms it, fet light by her, though his father mould command him to do fo ; no more than the mother could difpenfe with him for neglecting to honour his father : whereby it is plain, that this command of God gives the father no fovereignty, no fupremacy. §.63. I agree with our author that the title to this honour is veiled in the parents by nature, and is a right which accrues to them by their having begotten their chil- dren, and God by many pofitive declarations has confirmed it to them : I alio allow our author's rule, that in grants and gifts, that have their original from God a?id nature, as the power of the father, (let me add and mother, for whom God hath joined together, let no man put afunder) no inferior power of men can limit, nor make any law of prefcription againjl them, Obfervations, 158. fo that the mother having, by this law of God, a right to honour from her children, which is not fubject to the will of her hufband, we fee this abfolute monarchical power of the jather can neither be founded on it, nor confift with it ; and he has a power very far from monarchical, very far from that abfolutenefs our author contends for, when another has over his fub- jecfcs the fame power he hath, and by the fame Of Government. 73 fame title : and therefore he cannot forbear faying himfelf that he cannot fee how any mans children can be free from fubjeBion to their parent s^ p. 12. which, in common fpeech, I think, figniftes mother as well as father, or if parents here lignifies only father, it is the firft time I ever yet knew it to do fo, and by fuch an ufe of words one may fay any thing. §. 64. By our author's doctrine, the fa- ther having abfolute jurifdiction over his children, has alfo the fame over their ilfue ; and the confequence is good, were it true, that the father had fuch a power : and yet I afk our author whether the grandfather, by his fovereignty, could difcharge the grand- child from paying to his father the honour due to him by the 5th commandment. If the grandfather hath, by right of fatherhood, fole fovereign power in him, and that obe- dience which is due to the fupreme magi- strate, be commanded in thefe words, Honour thy father, it is certain the grandfather might difpenfe with the grandfon's honouring his father, which fince it is evident in common fenfe he cannot, it follows from hence, that Honour thy father and mother, cannot mean an abfolute fubjeclion to a fovereign power, but fomething elfe. The right therefore which parents have by nature, and which is con- firmed to them by the 5th commandment, cannot be that political dominion, which our' author 74 ^ F CjOVERNME N T. author would derive from it: for that being in every civil fociety Supreme fomewhere, can difcharge any Subject from any political obe- dience to any one of his fellow Subjects. But what law of the magistrate can give a child liberty, not to honour his father and mother? It is an eternal law, annexed purely to the relation of parents and children, and fo con- tains nothing of the magistrate's power in it, nor is Subjected to it. §.65. Our author fays, God hath given to a father a right or liberty to alien his pozver over his children to any other, Obfervations, 155. I doubt whether he can alien wholly the right of honour that is due from them : but be that as it will, this I am fure, he cannot alien, and retain the fame power. If therefore the magistrate's fovereignty be, as our author would have it, nothing hut the authority of a fupr erne father, p. 23. it is unavoidable, that if the magistrate hath all this paternal right, as he muSt have it father- hood be the fountain of all authority ; then the fubjects, though fathers, can have no power over their children, no right to ho- nour from them : for it cannot be all in another's hands, and a part remain with the parents. So that, according to our author's own doctrine, Honour thy J at her and mother cannot poffibly be understood of political fub- jection and obedience; Since the laws both in the Old and New TeStament, that com- manded Of Government. 75 mancled children to honour and obey their parents ; were given to fuch, whofe fathers were under civil government, and fellow fubjecls with them in political focieties ; and to have bid them honour and obey their . pa- rents, in our author's fenfe, had been to bid them be fubjecls to thofe who had no title to it; the right to obedience from fubjects, being all veiled in another; and inftead of teaching obedience, this had been to foment fedition, by fetting up powers that were not. If therefore this command, Honour thy fa~ ther and mother, concern political dominion, it directly overthrows our author's monarchy; iince it being to be paid by every child to his father, even in fociety, every father muffc neceifarily have political dominion, and there will be as many fovereigns as there are fa- thers : befides that the mother too hath her title, which deftroys the fovereignty of one fupreme monarch. But \£ Honour thy father and mother mean fomething diftinct from political power, as neceffarily it muft, it is befides our author's buiinefs, and ferves nothing to his purpofe. §.66. The law that enjoins obedience to kings is delivered, fays our author, in the terms, Honour thy father, as if all power were ori- ginally in the father, Obfervations, 254 : and that law is alio delivered, fay I, in the terms, Honour thy mother, as if all power were ori- ginally in the mother. I appeal whether the y6 Of Government. the argument be not as good on one fide as the other, father and mother being joined all along in the Old and New Teftament where-ever honour or obedience is injoined children. Again our author tells us, Obferr vations, 254. that this command, Honour thy father, gives the right to govern, and makes the form, of government monarchical. To which I aniwer, that if by Honour thy father be meant obedience to the political power of the ma- giftrate, it concerns not any duty we owe to our natural fathers, who are fubjects ; be- caufe they, by our author's doctrine, are diverted of all that power, it being placed wholly in the prince, and fo being equally fubjedts and flaves with their children, can have no right, by that title, to any fuch honour or obedience, as contains in it political fub- jeclion : if Honour thy father and mother iignifies the duty we owe our natural parents, as by our Saviour's interpretation, Matth. xv. 4. and all the other mentioned places, it is plain it does, then it cannot concern poli- tical obedience, but a duty that is owing to peribns, who have no title to fovereignty, nor any political authority as magiftrates over fubjects. For the perfon of a private father, and a title to obedience, due to the iupreme magiftrate, are things inconfiftent -, and therefore this command, which muft neceffarily comprehend the peribns of our natural fathers, muft. mean a duty we owe 1 them Of Government. 77 them diilincT: from our obedience to the magiftrate, and from which the moft abfolute power of princes cannot abfolve us. What this duty is, we (hall in its due place examine. §. 67. And thus we have at laft got thro* all, that in our author looks like an argument for that abfolute unlimited /over eignty defcribed, feci:. 8. which he fuppofes in Adam; fo that mankind ever fince have been all born Jlaves, without any title to freedom. But if crea- tion, which gave nothing but a being, made not Adam prince of his pojlerity : if Adam, Gen. i. 28. was not conftituted lord of man- kind, nor had a private dominion given him exclufive of his children, but only a right and power over the earth, and inferiour crea- tures in common with the children of men ; if alfo Gen. iii. 16. God gave not any poli* tical power to Adam over his wife and chil- dren, but only fubjected Eve to Adam, as a punimment, or foretold the fubjection of the weaker fex, in the ordering the common concernments of their families, but gave not thereby to Adam% as to the hufband, power of life and death, which neceilarily belongs to the magiftrate : if fathers by begetting their children acquire no fuch power ove them ; and if the command, Honour thy fa? ther and mother^ give it not, but only en- joins a duty owing to parents equally, whe- ther fubjecls or not, and to the mother as well as the father -, if all this be 10, as I , think, j% Of Government. think, by what has been faid, is very evi- dent j then man has a natural freedom, not- withftanding all our author confidently fays to the contrary ; fince all that ihare in the fame common nature, faculties and powers, are in nature equal, and ought to partake in the fame common rights and privileges, till the manifefl appointment of God, who is Lord over all, bleffed for ever, can be pro- duced to fhew any particular perfon's fu- premacy ; or a man's own confent fubjects him to a fuperiour. This is fo plain, that our author confeffes, that Sir John Hayward, Blackwood and Barclay, the great vindicators of the right of kings, could not deny it, but admit ivith one confent the natural liberty and equality of mankind, for a truth unquestionable. And our author hath been fo far from producing any thing, that may make good his great poiition, that Adam was abfolute monarch, and fo men are not naturally free, that even his own proofs make againft him ; fo that, to ufe his own way of arguing, the firji erroneous -principle failing, the whole fabric of this vajl engine of abfolute power and tyranny drops down of it f If and there needs no more to be faid in anfwer to all that he builds upon fo falfe and frail a foundation. §. 68. But to fave others the pains, were there any need, he is not fparing himfelf to fhew, by his own contradictions, the weak- nefs of his own do&rine. Adams abfolute and Of Government. 79 and fole dominion is that, which he is every where full of, and all along builds on, and yet he tells us, p. 12. that as Adam was lord of his children, fo his children under him had a command and power over .their own children. The unlimited and undivided fovereignty of Adams fatherhood, by our author's computa- tion, flood but a little while, only during the firft generation, but as foon as he had grand-children, Sir Robert could give but a very ill account of it. Adam, as father of his children, faith he, hath an abfolute, un- limited royal power over them, and by virtue thereof over thofe that they begot, and fo to all generations ; and yet his children, viz. Cain and Seth, have a paternal power over their children at the fame time ; fo that they are at the fame time abfolute lords, and yet vaffhls and /laves ; Adam has all the authority, as grand-father of the people, and they have a part of it as fathers of a part of them : he is abfolute over them and their pofteriry, by having begotten them, and yet they are ab- folute over their children bv the fame title. No, fays our author, Adams children under him had power over their own children, but ft ill with fubordination to the jirft parent. A good diftinclion that founds well, and it is pity it iigniries nothing, nor can be reconciled with our author's words. I readily grant, that fuppofing Adams abfolute power over his pofterity, any of his children might have 1 frona 8o Op Government. from him a delegated, and fo a fubordinate power over a part, or all the reft : but that cannot be the power our author fpeaks of here j it is not a power by grant and com- miflion, but the natural paternal power he fuppofes a father to have over his children. For 1 . he fays, As Adam was lord of his children, fo his children under him had a power over their own children : they were then lords over their own children after the fame man- ner, and by the fame title, that Adam was, i. e. by right of generation, by right of fa- therhood. 2. It is plain he means the natural power of fathers, becaufe he limits it to be only over their own children ; a delegated power has no fuch limitation, as only over their own children, it might be over others, as well as their own children. 3. If it were a delegated power, it muff appear in fcrip- ture ; but there is no ground in fcripture to affirm, that Adam's children had any other power over theirs, than what they naturally had as fathers. §. 69. But that he means here paternal power, and no other, is paft doubt, from the inference he makes in thefe words imme- diately following, I fee not then how the chil- dren of Adam, or of any man elfey can be free from fubjeclion to their parents. Whereby it appears that the power on one fide, and the fubjeclion on the other, our author here fpeaks of, is that natural power and fubjeclion be- tween Of Government. Si tween parents and children : for that which every man's children owed, could be no other; and that our author always affirms to be abfolute and unlimited. This natural power of parents over their children, Adam had over his pofteritv, fays our author ; and this power of parents over their children, his chil- dren had over theirs in his life-time, fays our author alfo ; fo that Adam, by a natural right of father, had an abfolute unlimited power over all his pofterity, and at the fame time his children had by the fame right abfolute unlimited power over theirs. Here then are two abfolute unlimited powers exifting to- gether, which I would have any body re- concile one to another, or to common fenfe. For the faho he has put in of fubordination, makes it more abfurd : to have one abfolute, unlimited, nay unlimitable power in fubordi- nation to another, is fo manifeft a contra- diction, that nothing can be more. Adam is abfolute prince with the ufilimited authority of fatherhood over all his pofterity-, all his pofterity are then abfolutely his fubje&s ; and, as our author fays, his (laves, children, and grand-children, are equally in this ftate of fubjection and flavery; and yet, fays our author, the children of Adam have paternal, i. e. abfolute unlimited power over their own children: Which in plain Engliflo is, they are (laves and abfolute princes at the fame time, and in the fame government ; and one G part 82 Of Government. part of the fubje&s have an abfolute unlimited power over the other by the natural right of parentage. §. jo. If any one will fuppofe, in favour of our author, that he here meant, that parents, who are in fubjeclion themfelves to the abfolute authority of their father, have yet fome power over their children ; I confefs he is fomething nearer the truth : but he will not at all hereby help our author : for he no where fpeaking of the paternal power, but as an abfolute unlimited authority, can- not be fuppofed to underftand any thing elfe here, unlefs he himfelf had limited it, and mewed how far it reached. And that he means here paternal authority in that large extent, is plain from the immediate follow- ing words ; This fubjeclion of children being, fays he, the foundation of all regal authority, p. 12. the fubjeclion then that in the former line, he fays, every mail is in to his parents, and confequently what Adams grand-children were in to their parents, was that which was the fountain of all regal authority, i. e. ac- cording to our author, abfolute unlimitable authority. And thus Adams children had regal authority over their children, whilft they themfelves were fubjetts to their father, and fell ow-fubj eels with their children. But let him mean as he pleafes, it is plain he allows Adam's children to have paternal power, p. 12. as alfo all other fathers to have paternal 'power over Of Government. 8$ over their childre?i, Obfervations, 156. From whence one of thefe two things will neceffarily follow, that either Adam's children.- sven in his life-time, had, and fo all other fathers have, as he phrafes it, p. 12. by right of fatherhood, royal authority over their children, or elfe, that Adam, by right of fatherhood, had not royal authority. For it cannot be but that paternal power does, or does not, give royal authority to them that have it : if it does not, then Adam could not be fovereign by this title, nor any body elfe ; and then there is an end of all our author's politics at Once : if it does give royal authority, then every one that has paternal power has royal authority, and then, by our author's patriarchal government, there will be as many kings as there are fathers. §.71. And thus what a monarchy he hath fet up, let him and his difciples confider. Princes certainly will have great reafon to thank him for thefe new politics, which fet up as many abfolute kings in every country as there are fathers of children. And yet who can blame our author for it, it lying unavoidably in the way of one difcourfing upon our author's principles ? For having placed an abfolute power in fathers by right of begetting, he could not eafily refolve how much of this power belonged to a fon over the children he had begotten ; and fo it fell out ■ to be a very hard matter to give all the power, G 2 as 84 Of Government. as he does, to Adatn, and yet allow a part in his life-time to his children, when they were parents, and which he knew not well how to deny them. This makes him fo doubtful in his expreffions, and fb uncertain where to place this abfolute natural power, which he calls fatherhood* Sometimes Ada??; alone has it all, as p. 13. Obfervations, 244, 245. & Pref. Sometimes parents have it, which word fcarce fignifies the father alone, p. i2, 19. • Sometimes children during their fathers life-time, as p. 12. Sometimes fathers of fa?7?ilicsi as p. 78, and 79. Sometimes fathers indefinitely, Obferva- tions, 155. Sometimes the heir to Adam, Obfervations, Sometimes the pofierity of Adam, 244, 246. Sometimes pri?ne fathers, all fins or grand- children of Noah, Obfervations, 244. Sometimes the e/de/i parents, p. 12. Sometimes all kings, p. 19. Sometimes ail that have fupreme power, Obfervations, 245. Sometimes heirs to thofe firjl progenitors, who were at frjl the natural pare??ts of the whole people, p. 19. Sometimes an elective king, p. 23. Sometimes thofe, whether a few or a mul- titude, that govern the com?no?i- wealth, p. 23. Sometimes Of Government. 8$ Sometimes he that can catch it, an ufurp- er, p. 23. Obfervations, 155. §.72. Thus-this new nothing, that is to carry with it all power, authority, and government; this fatherhood, which is to defign the perfon, and eftablifh the throne of monarchs, whom the people are to obey, may, according to Sir Robert, come into any hands, any how, and fo by his politics give to democracy royal authority, and make an ufurper a lawful prince. And if it will do all thefe fine feats, much good do our author and all his follow- ers with their omnipotent fatherhood, which can ferve for nothing but to unfettle and de- ftroy all the lawful governments in the world, and to eftabliih in their room diforder, tyran-r ny, and ufurpation. CHAP. VII. Of Fatherhood and Property conjidered together as Fountains of Sovereignty. %. y^. TN the foregoing chapters we have X feen what Jdam's monarchy was, in our author's opinion, and upon what titles he founded it. The foundations which he lays the chief ftrefs on, as thofefrom which he thinks he may beft derive monarchical power to future princes, are two, viz. Father- G 3 hood 86 Of Government. hood and property : and therefore the way he propofes to remove the abfurdities and incon- veniencies of the doclrine of natural freedom, is, to maintain the natural and private dominion of Adam, Obfervations, 222. Conformable here- unto, he tells us, the grounds and principles of government necefjarily depend upon the original of property, Obfervations, 108. 'The fubjeflion of children to their parents is the fountain of all regal. authority ', p. 12. And all power on earth is ei- ther derived or ufurpedjrom the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whaffocver, Obfervations, 158. I will not fland here to examine how it can be faid without a contradiction, that the firf grounds and principles of gbverftmeni necefjarily dcpendiipon the original of property ', and yet, that there is no other original of any power whatfocver, but that of the father : it being hard to under- stand how there can be no other original but fatherhood, and yet that the grounds and prin- ciples 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 fee how they will ei- ther of them agree with what our author iays, Obfervations, 244.. of God's fentence againfl Eve, Gen. iii. 16. That it is the original grant cf government : fo that if that were the original, government had not its original, by our author's iv.vn confeiTion, either from property or fa- therhood '3 Of Government. Sy therhood ; and this text, which he brings as a proof of Adam's power over Eve, neceflarily contradicts what he fays of the fatherhood, that it is the file fountain of all power : for if Adam had any fuch regal power over Eve, as our author contends for, it muft 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 5 and mall come now to confider, how thefe two originals of government, Adam's natural and private dominion, will con lift, and ferve to make out and eftablim the titles of fucceeding monarchs, who, as oar author obliges them, muft all derive their power from thefe foun- tains. Let us then fuppofe Adam made, by Gods donation, lord and fole proprietor of the whole earth, in as large and ample a manner, as Sir Robert could wifli ; let us fuppofe 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 I doubt not it will be anfwered, that they de- fcended to his next heir, as our author tells us in fevr.ral places. But this way, it is plain, cannot poffibly convey both his natural and private dominion to the fame perfon : for mould we allow, that all the property, all the eftate of the father, ought to defcend to G 4 the 88 Of Government. the eldcft fori, (which will need fome proof to eftabliih it) and To 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-r minion over any one he does not beget ; un- 3efs 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 na- tural dominion over his children, he that does not beget them cannot have this natural dominion over them ; and therefore be it true or falfe, that our author fays, Obfervations, 1 56. That every man that is born, by his very birth becomes afubjefl to him that begets him, this ne- cefTariiy follows, viz. That a man by his birth cannot become a fubjed: to his brother, who did not beget him ; unlefs 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 na- tural dominion of his father, only becaufe he begat him, and a man by birth alio is under the natural dominion of his eldeft brother, though he did not beget him. §. j 5. If then the private dominion of Adam, i. e. his property in the creatures, defcend- ed at his death all entirely to his eldeft fon, his Of Government. 89 his heir ; (for, if it did not, there is prefently 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 deceafe, equally to all his fons who had children, by the fame title their father had it, the fove- reignty founded upon property, and the fo- vereignty founded upon fatherhood, come to be divided ; fince Cain, as heir, had that of property alone ; Setb, and the other fons, that o£ fatherhood equally with him. This is the beft 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 {ignify nothing ; or, if they both mull ftand, 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 Adams children had their dijiincl territories by right of private dominion, Ob- fervations, 2 10. p. 40.) he makes it perpetually a doubt upon his principles where the Sove- reignty is, or to whom we owe our obe- dience, {met fatherhood and property are di- stinct titles, and began prefently 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 himfelf gives it us. He tells us out otGrotius, That 90 Of Government. That Adams children by donation) ajjignation, erjbme kind of cefjicn before he was dead, had their dijiincT: territories by right of private domi- nion-, Abel had his flocks and paf hires for them ; Oain had his fields for com, and the land of Nod, -where he built him a city, Obfervations, 210. Here it is obvious to demand, which ofthefe two after Adams death was fovereign ? Cain, fays our author, p. 19. By what title ? As heir ; for heirs to progefiitors, who were natural parents of their people, are not only lords of their own children, but alfo of their brethren, fays our author, p. 19. What was Cain heir to ? Not the entire porTeffion?, not all that which Adam had private dominion in ; for our author allows that Abel, by a title derived from his father, had bis dijlinfl territory for pafture by right of private dominion. What then Abel had by private dominion, was exempt from Cains dominion : for he could not have private dominion over that which was under the private dominion of another ; and there- fore his fovereignty over his brother is gone wTith 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 elfe, if Cain retain his fovereignty over Abel, notwithftand- in<r his private dominion, it will follow, that the firfl grounds and principles of gov eminent have nothing to do with property, whatever 1 our Of Government. 91 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 againft Sir Robert in Abel's iffue, or in Seth, or any of the poflerity of Adam, not defcended from Cain. §. 77. The fame inconvenience he runs in- to about the three fons of Noah, who, as he fays, p. 13. bad the whole world divided among ft them by their father. I aik then, in which of the three mail we find the eflablijhment 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 Co there is an end of paternal power as the foun- tain of regal authority, and the fo-much-mag- hihed fatherhood quite vani(hes. If the regal power defcended to Sbem as eldeft, and heir to his father, then Noah's divifwn of the world, by lot to his fom, or his ten years jailing 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 purpofe : for his grant to Cham and Japbet was little worth, if Sbem, notwithflanding this grant, as foon 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 diftind forts of power, not fubordi- nate 92 Of G o v e r n m e n t. nate one to the other, with all thofe inconve- niences which he mutters up again It the power of the people, Obfervations, 158. which I mall let down in his own words, only changing property for people. All power on earth is either derived or ufurpedfrom the fatherly power, there being no other original to be found of any power whatfoever : for if there JJjould be granted two forts of power, without any fubordination of one to the other, they would be in perpetual firifc which fiould be fupreme, for two fupremes can- not agree : if the fatherly power be fupreme, then the power grounded on private dominion mufi be fubordinate, and depeiid on it ; and if the power grounded on property be fupreme, then the fatherly power muftfubinit to it, and camiot be exercifed without the licence of the proprietors, which muf quite dcflroy the frame and courfe of nature. This is his own arguing againfr. two diftinct independent powers, which I have fet down in his own words., only putting power rifing from property, for power of the people ; and when he has anfwered what he himfelf has urged here againfl two difrinct powers, we (hall be better able to fee how, with any tolerable fenfe, he can derive all re- gal authority^/re/tf the natural and private do- minion of Adam, from fatherhood and property top-ether, which are diftinct titles, that do not always meet in the fame perfon ; and it is plain, by his own confefiion, prefently fer parated Of Government. 93 parated as Toon both as Adams and Noah's death made way for fucceffion : though our author frequently in his writings jumbles them together, and omits not to make ufe of either, where he thinks ijt will found bell: to his purpofe. But the abfurdities of this will more fully appear in the next chapter, where we fhall examine the ways of conveyance of the fovereignty of Adam, to princes that were to reign after him. CHAP. VIII. Of the Conveyance of Adam'j fovereign Mo- narchical Power. §. 78. O I R Robert, having not been very O happy in any proof he brings for the fovereignty 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 firft monarch. The ways he has affigned, as they lie fcattered up and down in his writings, 1 will fet down in his own words : in his preface he tells us> That Adam being monarch of the whole worlds none of his pojlerity had any right to poffefs any thing, but by his grant or pennijjion, or by fucceffion from him. Here he makes two ways of conveyance of any thing Adam ftood pof- feffed of; and thofe are grants or fucceffion. Again he fays, All kings either are, or are to be 94 Of Govern men t. be reputed, the next heirs to thofejirji progenitors, who were at Jirji the natural parents of the whole people, p. 19. There cannot be any mul- titude of men whatsoever, but that in it, con- fdered by it/elf, there is one man amongjl them, that in nature hath a right to be the king of all the rejl, as being the next heir to Adam, Obfervations, 253. Here in thefe places inheritance is the only way he allows of conveying monarchical power to princes. In other places he tells us, Obfervations, 255. All power on earth is either derived or nfurped from the fatherly power, Obfervations, 158. AH kings that now are, or ever were, are or were either fathers of their people, or heirs of fuch fathers, or nfurpers of the right of fuch fathers, Obfervations, 253. And here he makes inheritance or ufurpation the only ways whereby kings come by this original power : but yet he tells us, This fatherly empire, as it was of itfelf hereditary, fo it was alienable by patent, and feizable by an ufurper, Obfer- vations, 190. So then here inheritance, grant, or ufurpation, will convey it. And lad of all, which is moft admirable, he tells us, p. ioo. It fills not which way kings come by their power, whether by eleclion, donation, fuccejjicn, or ly any other ?neans ; for it is fill the manner of the governmerit byfupreme power, that makes them properly kings, and not the means of obtaining their crowns. Which I think is a full aniwer to all his whole hypo- thecs Of Government. 95 thefis and difcourfe about Adams royal au- thority, as the fountain from which all princes were to derive theirs : and he might have fpared the trouble of fpeaking fo much as he does, up and down, of heirs and inheri- tance, if to make any one properly a king, needs no more but governing by fnpreme power, and it matters not by what means he came by it. §.79. By this notable way, our author may make Oliver as properly king, as any one elfe he could think of: and had he had the happinefs to live under Majfanellos govern- ment, he could not by this his own rule have forborn to have done homage to him, with O king live for ever, fince the manner of his government by fupreme power, made him properly king, who was but the day before properly a fifherman. And if Don Quixote had taught his fquire to govern with fupreme authority, our author no doubt could have made a moft loyal fubject in Sancho Panchds ijland ; and he muft needs have defer ved fome preferment in fuch governments, fince I think* he is the firfl: politician, who, pretending to fettle government upon its true baiis, and to eftablim the thrones of lawful princes, ever told the world, That he was properly a king, whofe t?ia?i?ier of government was by fupreme power, by what means foever he obtained it ; which in plain Englijh is to fay, that regal and fupreme power is properly and truly his, who ' 96 Of Government. who can by any means feize upon it ; and if this be to be properly a king, I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an u fur per. §. 80. This is fo ftrange a doctrine, that the furprife of it hath made me pafs by, without their due reflection, the contra- dictions he runs into, by making fometimes inheritance alone, fometimes only grant or inheritance, fometimes only inheritance or •ufurpation, fometimes all thefe three, and at laft election, or any other means, added to them, the ways whereby Adam's royal authority, that is, his right to fupreme rule, could be con- veyed down to future kings and governors, fo as to give them a title to the obedience and fubjection of the people. But thefe con- tradictions lie fo open, that the very reading of our author's own words will difcover them to any ordinary understanding ; and though what I have quoted out of him (with abundance more of the fame Strain and coherence, which might be found in him) might well excufe me from any farther trouble in this argument, yet having pro- pofed to mvfelf, to examine the main parts of his doctrine, I (hall a little more parti- cularly conilder how inheritance, grant, ufur- pation or election, can any way make out government in the world upon his principles; or derive to any one a right of empire, from this regal authority of Ada?::, had it been never Of Government. ay never fo well proved, that he had been ab- folute monarch, and lord of the whole world. C II A P. IX. Of 'Monarchy \ by Inheritance from Adam* §. 8 1. HP Hough it be never fo plain, that there ought to be government in the world, nay, mould all men be of our author's mind, that divine appointment had ordained it to be monarchical ; yet, fince men cannot obey any thing, that cannot com- mand ; and ideas of government in the fancy, though never fo perfect, though never fo right, cannot give laws, nor prefcribe rules to the actions of men ; it would be of no behoof for the fettling of order, and eftablimment of government in its exercife and ufe amongft men, unlefs there were a way alfo taught how to know the perfcn, to whom it belonged to have this power, and exercife this dominion over others. It is in vain then to talk of fubjeclion and obedience without telling us whom we are to obey: for were I never fo fully perfuaded that there ought to be magistracy and rule in the world ; yet I am never the lefs at liberty Hill, till it appears who is the perfon that hath right to my obedience ; fince, if there be no marks to know him by, and diftin- guifTi him that hath right to rule from H other 98 Of Government.' other men, it may be myfelf, as well as any other. And therefore, though fubmiffion to government be every one's duty, yet fince Chat fignifies nothing but fubmitting to the direction and laws of fuch men as have authority to command, it is not enough to make a man a fubject, to convince him that there is regal power in the world ; but there mud. be ways of defigning, and knowing the perfon to whom this regal power of right belongs : and a man can never be obliged in confcience to fubmit to any power, unlefs he can be fatisfied who is the perfon who has a right to exercife that power over him. If this were not fo, there would be no di- stinction between pirates and lawful princes; he that has force is without any more ado to be obeyed, and crowns and fcepters would become the inheritance only of violence and rapine. Men too might as often and as in- nocently change their governors, as they do their phyiicians, if the perfon cannot be known who has a right to direct me, and whofe prefcriptions I am bound to follow. To fettle therefore men's confciences, under an obligation to obedience, it is neceffary that they know not only, that there is a power fomewhere in the world, but the perfon who by right is veiled with this power over them. §. 82. How fuccefsful our author has been in his attempts, to fet up a monarchical cbfohte power in Adam, the reader may judge by Of Government. 99 by what has been already faid; but were that abfolute monarchy as clear as our author would deiire it, as I prefume it is the contrary, yet it could be of no ufe to the government of mankind now in the world, unlefs he alfo make out thefe two things. Fir ft, That this power of Adam was not to end with him, but was upon his deceafe con- veyed intire to fome other perfon, and fo on to pofterity. Secondlyy That the princes and rulers now on earth are poffefled of this power of Adam, by a right way of conveyance derived to them. §. 83. If the firf! of thefe fail, the power of Adam, were it never fo great, never fo certain, will lignify nothing to the prefent government and focieties in the world ; but we muft feek out fome other original of power for the government of politys than this of Adam, or elfe there will be none at all in the world. If the latter fail, it will deftroy the authority of the prefent gover- nors, and abfolve the people from fubjeclion to them, fince they, having no better a claim than others to that power, which is alone the fountain of all authority, can have no title to rule over them. §. 84. Our author, having fancied an ab- folute fovereignty in Adam, mentions feveral ways of its conveyance to princes, that were to be his fuccefTors ; but that which he chiefly H 2 infifts ioo Of Government. infifts on, is that of inheritance, which occurs fo often in his feveral difcourfes; and I having in the foregoing chapter quoted feveral of thefe paffages, I mall not need here again to repeat them. This fovereignty he erects, as has been faid, upon a double foundation, 'viz. that of property ', and that of fatherhood. One was the right he was fuppofed to have in all creatures, a right to poffefs the earth with the beafts, and other inferior ranks of things in it, for his private ufe, exclufive of all other men. The other was the right he was fuppofed to have, to rule and govern men, all the reft of mankind. §.85. In both thefe rights, there being fuppofed an exclufion of all other men, it mull be upon fome reafon peculiar to Adam, that they muft both be founded. That of his property our author fuppofes to arife from God's immediate donation, Gen. i. 28. and that of fatherhood from the act of begetting : now in all inheritance, if the heir fucceed not to the reafon upon which his father's right was founded, he cannot fucceed to the right which followeth from it. For example, Adam had a right of property in the creatures upon the donation and grant of God almighty, who was lord and proprietor of them all; let this be fo as our author tells us, yet upon his death his heir can have no title to them, no fuch right of property in them, unlefs the fame reafon, viz. God's donation, Of Government. ioi donation, vetted a right in the heir too : for if Adam could have had no property in, nor ufe of the creatures, without this pofitive donation from God, and this donation were only perfonally to Ada?n, his heir could have no right by it ; but upon his death it muft revert to God, the lord and owner again ; for pofitive grants give no title farther than the exprefs words convey it, and by which only it is held. And thus, if as our author him- felf contends, that donation. Gen. i. 28. were made only to Adam perfonally, his heir could not fucceed to his property in the creatures ; and if it were a donation to any but Adam, let it be fhewn, that it was to his heir in our author's fenfe, /. e. to one of his children, exclufive of all the reft. §. 86. But not to follow our author too far out of the way, the plain of the cafe is this. God having made man, and planted in him, as in all other animals, a ltxong delire of felf-prefervation ; and furnHhed the world with things fit for food and raiment, and other neceffaries of life, fubfervient to his defign, that man mould live and abide for fome time upon the face of the earth, and not that fo curious and* wonderful a piece of workmanfhip, by his own negligence, or want of neceffaries, mould periih again, pre- fently after a few moments continuance ; God, 1 fay, having made man and the world thus, fpoke to him, (that is) directed him H 3 b7 102 Of Government. by his fenfes and reafon, as he did the in- ferior animals by their fenfe and inftinct, which were ferviceable for his fubfiftence, and given him as the means of his prefer- nation. And therefore I doubt not, but be- fore thefe words were pronounced, i. Gen. 28, 29. (if they mud be understood literally to have been fpoken) and without any fuch verbal donation, man had a right to an ufe of the creatures, by the will and grant of God : for the delire, ftrong defire of preferving his life and being, having been planted in him as a principle of adtion by God himfelf, rea- fon, which was the voice of God in him, could not but teach him and aflure him, that pur- suing that natural inclination he had to preferve his being, he followed the will of his maker, and therefore had a right to make ufe of thofe creatures, which by his reafon or fenfes he could difcover would be fer- viceable thereunto. And thus man's property in the creatures was founded upon the right he had to make ufe of thofe things that were neceffary or ufeful to his being. §. 87. This being the reafon and founda- tion of Adam's property, gave the* fame title, on the fame ground, to all his children, not only after his death, but in his life-time : fo that here was no privilege of his heir above his other children, which could exclude them from an equal right to the ufe of the inferior creatures, for the comfortable prefervation of Of Government. 103 of their beings, which is all the property man hath in them -, and fo Adam's, fovereignty built on property, or, as our author calls it, private dominion, comes to nothing. Every man had a right to the creatures, by the fame title Adam had, viz. by the right every one had to take care of, and provide for their fubfiftence : and thus men had a right in common, Adam's children in common with him. But if any one had began, and made himfelf a property in any particular thing, (which how he, or any one elfe, could do, {hall be fhewn in another place) that thing, that pofleffion, if he difpofed not otherwife of it by his pofitive grant, defcended natu- rally to his children, and they had a right to fucceed to it, and poffefs it. §. 88. It might reafonably be afked here, how come children by this right of porTeffing, before any other, the properties of their pa- rents upon their deceafe ? for it being per- fonally the parents, when they die, without actually transferring their right to another, why does it not return again to the common flock of mankind ? It will perhaps be an- fwered, 'that common confent hath difpofed of it to their children. Common practice, we fee indeed, does fo difpoie of it ; but we cannot fay, that it is the common confent of mankind ; for that hath never been afked, nor actually given -, and if common tacit confent hath eflablifhed it, it would make ■ H 4 but j 04 Of Government. but a pofitive, and not a natural right of children to inherit the goods of their pa- rents : but where the pra&ice is univerfal, it is reafonable to think the caufe is natural. The ground then I think to be this. The firft and ilrongeft deiire God planted in men, and wrought into the very principles of their nature, being that of felf-prefervation, that is the foundation of a right to the creatures for the particular fupport and uie of each individual perfon himlelf. But, next to this, God planted in men a flrcng defire alfo of propagating their kind, and continuing them- felves in their polierity ; and this gives chil- dren a title to fhare in the property of their parents, and a right to inherit their pof- feilions. Men are not proprietors of what they have, meerly for themielves ; their chil- dren have a title to part of it, and have their kind of right joined with their parents, in the pofTefTion which comes to be wholly their's, when death, having put an end to their parents ufe of it, hath taken them from their pofTeffions , and this we call inheri- tance : men being by a like obligation bound to preferve what they have begotten, as to preferve themfelves, their hTue come to have a right in the goods they are pofTefTed of. That children have fuch a right, is plain from the laws of God ; and that men are convinced that children have fuch a right, is evident from the law of the land ; both which Of Government. 105 which laws require parents to provide for their children. §. 89. For children being by the courfe of nature, born weak, and unable to provide for themfelves, they have by the appointment of God himfelf, who hath thus ordered the courfe c.<n^hjre, a right to be nouriihed and main tain^Jw their parents; nay, a right not only to a bare fubfiftence, but to the conveniencies and comforts of life, as far as the conditions of their parents can afford it. Hence it domes, that when their parents leave the world, and fo the care due to their chil- dren ceafes, the effects of it are to extend as far as poffibly they can, and the pro- vifions they have made in their life-time, are underftood to be intended, as nature requires they mould, for their children, whom, after themfelves, they are bound to provide for : though the dying parents, by exprefs words, declare nothing about them, nature appoints the defcent of their property to their children, who thus come to have a title, and natural right of inheritance to their fathers goods, which the reft of mankind cannot pretend to. §. 90. Were it not for this right of being nouriihed and maintained by their parents, which God and nature has given to children, and obliged parents to as a duty, it would be reafonable, that the father mould inherit the eltate of his fon, and be preferred in the inheritance- 106 Of Government. inheritance before his grand-child : for to the grand-father there is due a long fcore of care and expences laid out upon the breeding and education of his fon, which one would think in juftice ought to be paid. But that having been done in obedience to the fame law, whereby he received nourishment and edu- cation from his own parents ; this fcore of education, received from a man's, father, is paid by taking care, and providing for his own children ; is paid, I fay, as much as is required of payment by alteration of pro- perty, unlefs prefent necefiity of the parents require a return of goods for their necefTary fupport and fubfiftence : for we are not now fpeaking of that reverence, acknowledgment, refpedx and honour, that is always due from children to their parents ; but of poiTeffions and commodities of life valuable by money. But though it be incumbent on parents to bring up and provide for their children, yet this debt to their children does not quite cancel the fcore due to their parents ; but only is made by nature preferable to it : for the debt a man owes his father takes place, and gives the father a right to inherit the fon's goods, where, for want of ifTue, the right of children doth not exclude that title. And therefore a man having a right to be maintained by his children, where he needs it; and to enjoy alfo the comforts of life from them, when the necefTary provifion due to Of Government. 107 to them and their children will afford it ; if his fon die without iflue, the father has a right in nature to poflefs his goods, and in- herit his eftate, (whatever the municipal laws of fome countries may abfurdly direct other- wife;) and fo again his children and their iiTue from him ; or, for want of fuch, his father and his ilTue. But where no fuch are to be found, i. e. no kindred, there we fee the poiTefiions of a private man revert to the community, and fo in politic focieties come into the hands of the public magistrate ; but in the ftate of nature become again perfectly com- mon, no body having a right to inherit them : nor can any one have a property in them, otherwife than in other things common by nature ; of which I mail fpeak in its due place. §.91. I have been the larger, in mewing upon what ground children have a right to fucceed to the poffeffion of their fathers properties, not only becaufe by it, it will appear, that if Adam had a property (a titular, inrigniflcant, ufelefs property ; for it could be no better, for he was bound to nourim and maintain his children and pofterity out of it) in the whole earth and its product, yet all his children coming to have, by the law of nature, and right of inheritance, a joint title* and right of property in it after his death, \t could convey no right of fovereignty to any one of his pofterity over the reft : , fincc 108 Of Government. fince every one having a right of inheritance to his portion, they might enjoy their inhe- ritance, or any part of it in common, or mare it, or fome parts of it, by divifion, as it heft liked them. But no one could pretend to the whole inheritance, or any fovereignty fuppofed to accompany it ; fince a right of inheritance gave every one of the reft, as well as any one, a title to fhare in the goods of his father. Not only upon this account, I fay, have I been fo particular in examining the reafon of children's inheriting the pro- perty of their fathers, but alio becaule it will give us farther light in the inheritance of rule and power, which in countries where their particular municipal laws give the whole poireflion of land entirely to the firii- born, and defcent of power has gone fo to men by this cuftom, fome have been apt to be deceived into an opinion, that there was a natural or divine right of primogeniture, to both ejlate and power ; and that the inheri- tance of both rule over men, and property in things, fprang from the fame original, and were to defcend by the fame rules. §.92. Property, whofe original is from the right a man has to ufe any of the inferior creatures, for the fubfiftence and comfort of his life, is for the benefit and fole advantage of the proprietor, fo that he may even deftroy the thing, that he has property in by his ufe of it, where need requires : but government 5 being Of Government. 109 being for the prefervation of every man's right and property, by preferving him from the violence or injury of others, is for the good of the governed : for the magistrate's iword being for a terror to -evil doers, and by that terror to inforce men to obferve the pofitive laws of the fociety, made confor- mable to the laws of nature, for the public good, i. e. the good of every particular member of that fociety, as far as by common rules it can be provided for -, the fword is not given the magistrate for his own good alone. §. 93. Children therefore, as has been fhewed, by the dependance they have on their parents for fubfiftence, have a right of inheritance to their fathers property, as that which belongs to them for their proper good and behoof, and therefore are fitly termed goods, wherein the firu>born has not a fols or peculiar right by any law of God and, nature, the younger children having an equal title with him, founded on that right they all have to maintenance, fupport, and comfort from their parents, and on nothing elfe. But government being for the benefit of the governed, and not the fole advantage of the governors, (but only for their's with the reft, as they make a part of that politic body, each of whofe parts and members are taken care of, and directed in its peculiar functions for the good of the whole, by the laws of fociety) no Of Government. fociety) cannot be inherited by the fame title, that children have to the goods of their father. The right a fon has to be maintained and provided with the necefiaries and con- veniences of life out of his father's flock, gives* him a right to fucceed to his father's pro- perty for his own good ; but this can give him no right to fucceed alfo to the rule, which his father had over other men. All that a child has right to claim from his fa- ther is nourifhment and education, and the things nature furnifhesfor the fupport of life: but he has no right to demand rule or domi- nion from him: he can fubfift and receive from him the portion of good things, and advantages of education naturally due to him, without e??ipire and dominion. That (if his father hath any) was veiled in him, for the good and behoof of others : and therefore the fon cannot claim or inherit it by a title, which is founded wholly on his own private good and advantage. §. 94. We muft know how the firft ruler, from whom any one claims, came by his authority, upon what ground any one has empire, what his title is to it, before we can know who has a right to fucceed him in it, and inherit it from him : if the agree- ment and confent of men firft gave a fcepter into any one's hand, or put a crown on his head, that alfo muft direct its defcent and conveyance; for the fame authority, that made Of Government. hi made the firft a lawful ruler, mud make the fecond too, and fo give right of fucceffion : in this cafe inheritance, or primogeniture, can in its felf have no right, no pretence to it, any farther than that confent, which efta- blifhed the form of the government, hath fo fettled the fucceffion. And thus we fee, the fucceffion of crowns, in feveral countries, places it on different heads, and he comes by right of fucceffion to be a prince in one place, who would be a fubject in another. §. 95. If God, by his politive grant and re- vealed declaration, firft. gave rule and dominion to any man, he that will claim by that title, muft have the fame pofitive grant of God for his fucceffion : for if that has not direct- ed the courfe of its defcent and conveyance down to others, no body can fucceed to this title of the firft ruler. Children have no right of inheritance to this; and primogeniture can lay no claim to it, unlefs God, the author of this conftitution, hath fo ordained it. Thus we fee, the pretentions of Saul's family, who received his crown from the immediate ap- pointment of God, ended with his reign ; and David, by the fame title that Saul reign- ed, viz. God's appointment, fucceeded in his throne, to theexclufion of Jonathan, and all pretentions of paternal inheritance : and if Solomon had a right to fucceed his father, it muft be by fome other title, than that of pri- mogeniture. A cadet, or lifter's fon, muft have H2 Of Government. have the preference in fucceffion, if he has the fame title the firft lawful prince had : and in dominion that has its foundation only in the pofitive appointment of God himfelf, Benjamin, the youngeft, muft have the inheri- tance of the crown, if God fo direct, as well as one of that tribe had the firft poffeffion. §.96. If paternal right, the ad: of begetting, eive a man rule and dominion, inheritance or primogeniture can give no title : for he that cannot fucceed to his father's title, which was begetting, cannot fucceed to that power over his brethren, which his father had by pater- nal right over them. But of this I {hall have occafion to fay more in another place. This is plain in the mean time, that any go- vernment, whether fuppofed to be at firft founded in paternal right, confent of the people, or the pofitive appoint7nent of God himfelf, which can fuperfede either of the other, and fo begin a new government upon a new foundation; I fay, any government began upon either of thefe, can by right of fucceffion come to thofe only, who have the title of him they fuc- ceed to : power founded on contracl can de- fcend only to him, who has right by that contract : power founded on begetting, he only can have that begets ; and power found- ed on the pofitive grant or donation of God, he only can have by right of fucceffion, to whom that grant directs it. §•97- Of Government* 113 • §. 97. From what I have faid, I think this is cleaa* that a right to the uie of the creatures, being founded originally in the right a man has to fubiift and enjoy the conveniencies of life ; and the natural right- children have to inherit the goods of their parents, being found- ed in the right they have to the fame fubfift- ence and commodities of life, out of the flock of their parents, who are therefore taught by- natural love and tendernefs to provide for them, as a part of themfelves ; and all this being only for the good of the proprietor, or heir ; it can be no reafon for children's inhe- riting of rule and dominion* which has ano- ther original and a different end. Nor can primogeniture have any pretence to a right of folely inheriting either property or power, as we mall, in its due place, fee more fully. It is enough to have mewed here, that Adams property, or private dominion, could not convey any fovereignty or rule to his heir, who not having a right to inherit all his father's pof- feffions, could not thereby come to have any fovereignty over his brethren : and therefore, if any fovereignty en account of his property had been veiled in Adam, which in truth there was not, yet it would have died with him. §.98. As Adam's fovereignty, if, by vir- tue of being proprietor of the world, he had any authority over men, could not have been inherited by any of his children over the reft, becaufe they had the fame title to divide the inheritance, and every one had a right to a I portion ii4 Of Government. portion of his father's pofleffions ; fo nei- ther could Adam's fovereignty by right of fa- therhood, if any fuch he had, defcend to any one of his children : for it being, in our au- thor's account, a right acquired by begetting to rule over thofe he had begotten, it was not a power pofiible to be inherited, becaufe the right being confequent to, and built on, an act perfectly perfonal, made that power fo too, and impoffible to be inherited : for paternal power, being a natural right rifing only from the relation of father and fon, is as impcflible to be inherited as the relation itfelf -, and a man may pretend as well to in- herit the conjugal power the hufband, whofe heir he is, had over his wife, as he can to inherit the paternal power of a father over his children : for the power of the hufband being founded on contract, and the power of the father on begetting, he may as well inherit the power obtained by the conjugal contract, which was only perfonal, as he may the power obtained by begetting, which could reach no farther than the perfonofthe begetter, unlefs begetting can be a title to power in him that does not beget. §. 99. Which makes it a reafonable queflion to afk, whether Adam, dying before Eve, his heir, (fuppofe Cain or SethJ fhould have by right of inheriting Adam's fatherhood, fovereign power over Eve his mother : for Adam's father- hood being nothing but a right he had to govern his children, becaufe he begot them, he that inherits Of Government. 115 inherits Adam's fatherhood, inherits nothing, even in our author's fenfe, but the right Adam had to govern his children, becaufe he begot them: fo that the monarchy of the heir would not have taken in Eve; or if it did, it being nothing but the. fatherhood of Adam defcended by inheritance, the heir muft have right to govern Eve, becaufe Adam begot her -, for fatherhood is nothing elfe. §. 100. Perhaps it will be faid with our author, that a man can alien his power over his child ; and what may be transferred by compact, may be porTefTed by inheritance. I anfwer, a father cannot alien the power he has over his child : he may perhaps to fome degrees forfeit it, but cannot transfer it ; and if any other man acquire it, it is not by the father's grant, but by fome act of his own. For example, a father, unnaturally carelefs of his child, fells or gives him to another man ; and he again expofes him ; a third man rinding him, breeds up, cherifhes, and provides for him as his own : I think in this cafe, no body will doubt, but that the great- efl part of filial duty and fubjection was here owing, and to be paid to this fofter-father ; and if any thing could be demanded from the child, by either of the other, it could be only due to his natural father, who perhaps might have forfeited his right to much of that duty comprehended in the command, , Honour your parents, but could transfer none of it to another. He that purchafed, and I 2 neglected u6 Of Government. neglected the child, got by his purchafe and grant of the father, no title to duty or ho- nour from the child ; but only he acquired it, who by his own authority, performing the office and care of a father, to the forlorn and periming infant, made himfelf, by paternal care, a title to proportionable degrees of pater- nal power. This will be more eafily admit- ted upon confideration of the nature of pater- nal power, for which I refer my reader to- the lecond book. §. 101. To return to the argument in hand j this is evident, That paternal power arifing only from begetting-, for in that our author places it alone, can neither be tranf- f erred nor inherited : and he that does not beget, can no more have paternal power, which arifes from thence, than he can have a right to any thing, who performs not the condition, to which only it is annexed. If one mould afk, by what law has a father power over his children ? it will be an- fwered, no doubt, by the law of nature, which gives fuch a power over them, to him that begets them. If one mould afk likewife, by what law does our author's heir come by a right to inherit ? I think it would be anfwered, by the law of nature too : for I find not that. our author brings one word of fcripture to prove the right of fuch an heir he fpeaks of. Why then the law of nature gives fathers paternal power over their children, becaufe they did beget them; and the Of Government. 117 the fame law of nature gives the fame paternal power to the heir over his brethren, who did not beget them : whence it follows, that either the father has not. his paternal power by begetting, or eKe that the heir has it not at all -, for it is hard to underftand how the law of nature, which is the law of reafon, can give the paternal power to the father over his children, for the only reafon of begetting ; and to the firfl-born over his brethren with- out this only reafon, i. e. for no reafon at all : and if the elded, by the law of nature, can inherit this paternal power, without the only reafon that gives a title to it, lb may the youngeft as well as he, and a ftranger as well as either ; for where there is no reafon for any one, as there is not, but for him that begets, all have an equal title. I am fure our author offers no reafon ; and when any body does, we {hall fee whether it will hold or no. §.102. In the mean time it is as good fenfe to fay, that by the law of nature a man has right to inherit the property of another, be- caufe he is of kin to him, and is known to be of his blood ; and therefore, by the fame law of nature, an utter ftranger to his blood has right to inherit his eftate ; as to fay that, by the law of nature, he that begets them has paternal power over his children, and therefore, by the law of nature, the heir that begets them not, has this paternal power over them -, or fuppofing the law of the land I 3 gave 1 1 8 Of Government. gave abfolute power over their children, to fuch only who nurfed them, and fed their children themfelves, could any body pretend, that this law gave any one, who did no fuch thing, abfolute power over thofe, who were not his children ? §. 103. When therefore it can be mewed, that conjugal power can belong to him that is not an hufband, it will alio I believe be ■proved, that our author's paternal power, ac- quired by begetting, may be inherited by a fon -, and that a brother, as heir to his fa- ther's power, may have paternal power over his brethren, and by the fame rule conjugal power too : but till then, I think we may reft fatisfied, that the paternal power of Adam, this fovereign authority of fatherhood, were there any fuch, could not defcend to, nor be inherited by, his next heir. Fatherly power, I eafily grant our author, if it will do him any good, can never be loft, becaufe it will be as long in the world as there are fathers : but none of them will have Adam's paternal power, or derive their's from him ; but every one will have his own, by the fame title Adam had his, viz. by begetting, but not by inheritance, or fucceffion, no more than hufbands have their conjugal power by inheritance from Adam. And thus we fee, as Ada?n had no fuch property, no fuch paternal power, as gave him fovereign jurifdiclion over mankind ; Co likewife his fovereignty built upon either of thefe titles, if he had any fuch, could not have Of Government. 119 have del ended to his heir, but muft have ended with him. Adam therefore, as has been proved, being neither monarch, nor his imaginary monarchy hereditable, the power which is now in the world, is not that wiiich was Adam's, fince all that Adam could have upon our author's grounds, either of property or fatherhood, neceffariiy died with him, and could not be conveyed to pofterity by inheritance. In the next place we will confider, whether Adam had any fuch heir, to inherit his power, as our au- thor talks of. CHAP. X. Of the Heir to Adam'i Monarchical Potter. §. 104. /^UR author tells us, Obfer- V^/ vations, 253. That it is a truth undeniable, that there cannot be any multitude of men whatfoever, either great or Jmall, tho gathered together from the fever al corners and r emote jl regions of the world, but that in the fame multitude, confidered by its felf, there is one man amongH them, that in nature hath a right to be king of all the reft, as being the next heir to Adam, and all the other fubje els to him .• every man by nature is a king or a fubje 51. And again, p. 20. i/'Adam him felf were fill living, and now ready to die, it is certain that there is one man, and but one in the world, who is next heir. Let this multitude of men be, if I 4 our 120 Of Government. our author pleafes, all the princes upon the earth, there will then be, by our author's rule, one amongjl them, that in nature hath a right to be king of all the reft, as being the right heir to Adam ; an excellent way to eflablifh the thrones of princes, and fettle the obedience of their fubjecls, by fetting up an hundred, or perhaps a thoufand titles (if there be fo many princes in the world) againfl any king now reigning, each as good, upon our author's grounds, as his who wears the crown. If this right of heir carry any wreight with it, if it be the ordinance of God, as our author feems to tells us, Obfcrvations, 244. mufl: not all be fubject to it, from the higheft to the loweft ? Can thofe who wear the name of princes, without having the right of being heirs to Adam, demand obedience from their fubjecls by this title, and not be bound to pay it by the fame lav/ ? Either governments in the world are not to be claimed, and held by this title of Adam's heir ; and then the ftarting of it is to no purpofe, the being or not being Adams heir fignilies nothing as to the title of dominion : or if it really be, as our author fays, the true title to government and fovereignty, the firfr. thing to be done, is to find out this true heir of Adam, feat him in his throne, and then all the kings and princes of the world ought to come and refign up their crowns and fcepters to him, as things that belong no more to them, than to any of their fubjecls. §• 105, Of Government. 121 §. 105. For either this right in nature, of Adams heir, to be king over all the race of men, (for all together they make one mul- titude) is a right not neceflary to the making of a lawful king, and fo there may be lawful kings without it, and then kings titles and power depend not on it -, or elfe all the kings in the world but one are not lawful kings, and fo have no ri^ht to obedience : either this title of heir to Adam is that whereby kings hold their crowns, and have a right to fubjedtion from their fubjecls, and then one only can have it, and the reft being fubjefts can require no obedience from other men, who are but their fellow fubjects ; or elfe it is not the title whereby kings rule, and have a right to obedience from their fubjects, and then kings are kings without it, and this dream of the natural fovereignty of Adanis heir is of no ufe to obedience and government : for if kings have a right to dominion, and the obedience of their fub- jects, who are not, nor can poffibly be, heirs to Adam, what ufe is there of fuch a title, when we are obliged to obey without it ? If kings, who are not heirs to Adam, have no right to fovereignty, we are all free, till our author, or any body for him, will mew us Adams right heir. If there be but one heir of Adam, there can be but one lawful king in the world, and no body in confcience can - be obliged to obedience till it be refolved who 122 Of Government. who that is ; for it may be any one, who is not known to be of a younger houfe, and all others have equal titles. If there be more than one heir of Adam, every one is his heir, and fo every one has regal power : for if two Ions can be heirs together, then all the fons are equally heirs, and fo all are heirs, being all fons, or fons fons of Adam. Betwixt thefe two the right of heir can- not ifand ; for by it either but one only man, or all men are kings. Take which you pleafe, it diffolves the bonds of govern- ment and obedience ; fince, if all men are heirs, they can owe obedience to no body ; if only one, no body can be obliged to pay obedience to him, till he be known, and his title made out. CHAP. XI. Who HEIR? §. 1 06. t a ^ HE great queftion which in all ages has diflurbed man- kind, and brought on them the greatefl part of thofe mifchiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and difordered the peace of the world, has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who mould have it. The fettling of this point being of no fmaller moment than the fecurity of princes, and the peace and Of Government. 123 and welfare of their eftates and kingdoms, a reformer of politics, one would think, fhould lay this fure, and be very clear in it : for if this remain difputable, all the reft will be to very little purpofe ; and the ikill ufed in dreffing up power with all the fplendor and temptation abfolutenefs can add to it, without mewing who has a right to have it, will ferve only to give a greater edge to man's natural ambition, which of its felf is but too keen. What can this do but fet men on the more eagerly to fcramble, and fo lay a fure and lafting foundation of endlefs con- tention and diforder, inftead of that peace and tranquillity, which is the bufinefs of go- vernment, and the end of human fociety ? §. 107. This deiignation of the perfon our author is more than ordinary obliged to take care of, becaufe he, affirming that the af- Jignment of civil power is by divine iftjiitution, hath made the conveyance as well as the power itfelf facred : fo that no coniideration, no act or art of man, can divert it from that perfon, to whom, by this divine right, it is affigned ; no neceflity or contrivance can fubftitute another perfon in his room : for if the ajjignment of civil power be by divine injlitution, and Adams heir be he to whom it is thus affigned, as in the foregoing chapter our author tells us, it would be as much fa- crilege for any one to be king, who was not Adam's heir, as it would have been amongfl 5 the 124 Of Government. the Jews, for any one to have been priejl, who had not been of Aaron 's pofterity : for not only the priefthood in general being by divine in- flitution, but the ajfignment of it to the fole line and pofterity of Aaron, made it impoflible to be enjoyed or exercifed by any one, but thofe perfons who were the ofF-fpring of Aaron : whofe fucceffion therefore was carefully ob- ferved, and by that the perfons who had a right to the priefthood certainly known. §. 1 08. Let us fee then what care our author has taken, to make us know who is this heir, who by divine injlitution has a right to be king over all men. The firft account of him we meet with is, p. 12. in thefe words : 'This fubjeclion of children, being the fountain of all regal authority, by the ordination of God bimfelf', it follows, that civil power, not only in general, is by divine injlitution, but even the alignment of it, fpecif catty to the eldejl parents. Matters of fuch coniequence as this is, mould be in plain words, as little liable, as might be, to doubt or equivocation ; and I think, if language be capable of expreffing any thing diftinctly and clearly, that of kindred, and the feveral degrees of nearnefs of blood, is one. It were therefore to be wifhed, that our author had ufed a little more intelligible expreflions here, that we might have better known, who it is, to whom the alignment of civil power is made by divine infiitution ; or at leaft would have told us what he meant by el def Of Government. 125 eldejl parents : for I believe, if land had been affigned or granted to him, and the eldejl parents of his family, he would have thought it had needed an interpreter ; and it would fcarce have been known to whom next it belonged. §. 109. In propriety of fpeech, (and cer- tainly propriety of fpeech is neceifary in a difcourfe of this nature) eldejl parents iignifies either the eldeft men and women that have had children, or thofe who have longed: had iffue ; and then our author's affertion will be, that thofe fathers and mothers, who have been longeft in the world, or longed: fruitful, have by divine injiitution a right to civil power. If there be any abfurdity in this, our author mud anfwer for it : and if his meaning be different from my explication, he is to be blamed, that he would not fpeak it plainly. This I am fure, parents cannot fignify heirs male, nor eldejl parents an infant child : who yet may fometimes be the true heir, if there can be but one. And we are hereby flili as much at a lofs, who civil power belongs to, notwithstanding this ajjignment by divine in- stitution, as if there had been no fuch ajjign- ment at all, or our author had faid nothing of it. This of eldejl parents leaving us more in the dark, who by divine injiitution has a right to civil power, than thofe who never heard any thing at all of heir, or defcent, of which our author is fo full. And though the chief 126 Of Government. chief matter of his writing be to teach obe- dience to thofe, who have a right to it, which he tells us is conveyed by defcent, yet who thofe are, to whom this right bj defcent belongs, he leaves, like the philofopners ftone in politics, out of the reach of any one ta difcover from his writings. §. 1 10. This obfcurity cannot be imputed to want of language in fo great a mailer of ftyle as Sir Robert is, when he is reiblved with himielf what he would fay : and there- fore, I fear, finding how hard it would be to fettle rules of defcent by divine inftitution, and how little it would be to his purpofe, or conduce to the clearing and eftablifhing the titles of princes, if fuch rules of defcent were fettled, he chofe rather to content himfelf with doubtful and general terms, which might make no ill found in mens ears, who Were willing to be pleafed with them, rather than offer any clear rules of defcent of this fatherhood of Adam, by which men's con- fciences might be fatisfied to whom it de- fcended, and know the perfons who had a right to regal power, and with it to their obedience. §. in. How elfe is it pofTible, that laying fo much ftrefs, as he does, upon defcent, and Adam's heir, next heir, true heir, he fhould never tell us what heir means, nor the way to know who the next or true heir is ? This, I do not remember, he does any where ex- preily Of Government. 127 prefly handle ; but, where it comes in his way, very warily and doubtfully touches ; though it be fo neceflary, that without it all difcourfes of government and obedience upon his principles would be to no purpofe, and fatherly power, never fo well made out, will be of no ufe to any body. Hence he tells us, Obfervations, 244. That not only the con- Jlitution of power in general, but the limitation of it to one kind, (i. e.) monarchy, and thi determination of it to the individual perfon and line of Adam, are all three ordinances of God ; neither Eve nor her children coidd either limit Adam's power, or join others with him ; and w was given unto Adam was given in his perfon to his pojierity. Here again our author informs us, that the divine ordinance hath limited the defcent of Adams monarchical power. To whom ? To Adam's line and pojierity, fays our author. A notable limitation, a limitation to all mankind : for if our author can find any one amongft mankind, that is not of the line and pojierity of Adam, he may perhaps tell him, who this next heir of Adam is : but for us, I defpair how this limitation of Adam's empire to his line and poflerity will help us to find out one heir. This limitation indeed of our author will fave thofe the labour, who would look for him amongft the race of brutes, if any fuch there were ; but will very little contribute to the difcovery of one next heir amongft men, though it make a mort and eafy determination of the queftion about 128 Of Government. about the defcent of Adams regal power, by telling us, that the line and pojlerity of Adam is to have it, that is, in plain Engli/h, any one may have it, fince there is no per- fon living that hath not the title of being of the line and pojlerity of Adam ; and while- it keeps there, it keeps within our author's limitation by God's ordinance. Indeed, p. 19. he tells us, that Juch heirs are ?iot only cords of their own children, but of their brethren ; whereby, and by the words following, which we mail coniider anon, he feems to infinuate, that the eldefl fon is heir ; but he no where, that I know, fays it in direct words, but by the inftances of Cain and Jacob, that there follow, we may allow this to be fo far his opinion concerning heirs, that where there are divers children, the eldefl fon has the right to be heir. That primogeniture cannot give any title to paternal power, we have already fhewed. That a father may have a natural right to fome kind of power over his chil- dren, is eafily granted 3 but that an elder brother has fo over his brethren, remains to be proved : God or nature has not any where, that I know, placed fuch jurifdiction in the firft-born ; nor can reafon find any fuch na- tural fuperiority amongft brethren. The law of Mofes gave a double portion of the goods and pofTerTions to the eldefl:; but we find not any where that naturally, or by God's injiitution, fuperiority or dominion be- longed to him, and the inftances there brought by Of Government. 129 by our author are but ilender proofs of a right to civil power and dominion in the firft-born, and do rather (hew the contrary. §. 112. His words are in the forecited place : And therefore we find God told Cain of his brother Abel ; his defire fhall be fubjecl unto thee, and thou Jhalt rule over him. To which I anfwer, 1 . Thefe words of God to Cain, are by many interpreters, with great reafon, under- stood in a quite different fenfe than what our author ufes them in. 2. Whatever was meant by them, it could not be, that Cain, as elder, had a natural dominion over Abel; for the words are con- ditional, If thou dojl well \ and fo perfonal to Cain : and whatever was fignified by them, did depend on his carriage, and not follow his birth-right ; and therefore could by no means be an eftabliihtnent of dominion in the firit-born in general : for before this Abel had his diflincl territories by right of private dominion, as our author him/elf con- ferTes, Objervations, 210. which he could not have had to the prejudice of the heirs title, if by divine injlituiion, Cain as heir were to inherit all his father's dominion. 3. If this were intended by God as the charter of primogeniture, and the grant of dominion to elder brothers in general as fuch, by right of inheritance, we might expect it - fhould have included all his brethren : for K we J30 Of Government.' we may well fuppofe, Adam, from whom the world was to be peopled, had by this time, that thefe were grown up to be men, more fons than thefe two : whereas Abel himfelf is not fo much as named -, and the words in the original can fcarce, with any good con- ftruction, be applied to him. 4. It is too much to build a doctrine of fo mighty confequence upon fo doubtful and obfcure a place of fcripture, which may be well, nay better, underftood in a quite dif- ferent fenfe, and fo can be but an ill proof, being as doubtful as the thing to be proved by it ; efpecially when there is nothing elfe in fcripture or reafon to be found, that fa- vours or fupports it. §. 113. It follows, p. 19. Accordingly when Jacob bought his brother s birth-right > Ifaac blefj'ed him thus -, Be lord over thy brethren, and let the fons of thy mother bow before thee. Another inftance, I take it, brought by our author to evince dominion due to birth-right, and an admirable one it is : for it muft be no ordinary way of reafoning in a man, that is pleading for the natural power of kings, and againfr. all compact, to bring for proof of it, an example, where his own account of it founds all the right upon compact, and fettles empire in the younger brother, unlefs buying and felling be no compact ; for he tells us, when Jacob height his brother s birth- right. But paging by that, let us confider the Of Government. 131 the hiftory itfelf, with what ufe our author makes of it, and we fhall find thefe following miftakes about it. 1 . That our author reports this, as if Ifaac had given 'Jacob this bleffing, immediately upon his purchafing the birth- right ; for he fays, when Jacob bought, lfaac blejfed him -, which is plainly otherwife in the fcripture : for it appears, there was a diflance of time be- tween, and if we will take the ftory in the order it lies, it muft be no fmall diflance $ all Ifaac s fojourning in Gerar, and tranf- a&ions with Abimelech, Gen. xxvi. coming between ; Rebecca being then beautiful, and confequently young ; but Ifaac, when he bleffed Jacob, was old and decrepit : and Efau alfo complains of Jacob, Gen. xxvii. 36. that two times he had fupplanted him ; He took away my birth-right, fays he, and be- hold now he hath taken away my blejjing -, words, that I think fignify diflance of time and dif- ference of action. 2. Another miflake of our author's is, that he fuppofes Ifaac gave Jacob the bleffing, and bid him be lord over his brethren, becaufe he had the birth-right-, for our author brings this example to prove, that he that has the birth-right, has thereby a right to be lord over his brethren. But it is alfo manifeft by the text, that Ifaac had no confideration of Jacob's having bought the birth-right ; for when he bleffed him, he confidered him not K 2 as 1^2 Of Government. as Jacob, but took him for Efau. Nor did Efau underftand any fuch conne&ion between birth-right and the blejjing -, for he fays, He hath fupplanted me thefe two times, he took away my birth-right, and behold now he hath taken away my bleffmg: whereas had the blejjing, which was to be lord over his brethren, be- longed to the birth-right, Efau could not have complained of this fecond, as a cheat, Jacob having got nothing but what Efau had fold him, when he fold him his birth-right ; fo that it is plain, dominion, if thefe words fignify it, was not underftood to belong to the birth-right. §. 114. And that in thofe days of the patriarchs, dominion was not underftood to be the right of the heir, but only a greater portion of goods, is plain from Gen. xxi. 10. for Sarah, taking Ifaac to be heir, fays, Caft out this bondwoman and her fon, for the fori of this bondwoman fball not be heir with my fon : whereby could be meant nothing, but that he lhould not have a pretence to an equal (hare of his father's eilate after his death, but fhould have his portion prefently, and be gone. Accordingly we read, Gen. xxv. 5,6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Ifaac, but unto the Jons of the concubines which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and put them away from Ifaac his fon, while he yet lived. That is, Abraham having given portions to all his other fons, and fent them away, Of Government. 133 away, that which he had referved, being the greateft part of his fubftance, Ifaac as heir pofTefTed after his death : but by being heir, he had no right to be lord, over his brethren ; for if he had, why fhould Sarah endeavour to rob him of one of his fubjecls, or leiTen the number of his JIaves, by deiiring to have IJhmael fent away ? §. 115. Thus, as under the law, the pri- vilege of birth-right was nothing but a double portion : fo we fee that before Mofes, in the patriarchs time, from whence our author pretends to take his model, there was no knowledge, no thought, that birth-right o-ave rule or empire, paternal or kingly authority, to any one over his brethren. If this be net plain enough in the ftory of Ifaac and Ijhnael, he that will look into 1 Chron. v. 12. may there read thefe words: Reuben was the fir ft- born ; but for a/much as he defied his father 's bed, his birth- right was given unto the fans of Jofepb, the fon of Ifrael: and the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birth-right ; for Judah prevailed above his brethren, a?id of him came the chief ruler ; but the birth -right was Jofepb's. What this birth-right was, Jacob blemng Jofepb, Gen. xlviii. 22. telleth us in thefe words, Moreover I have given thee one portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite, with my fword and with my bow. Whereby it is not only plain, that the birth-right was nothing but a double K 3 portion, 134 Of Government. portion j but the text in Chronicles is exprefs againft our author's doctrine, and mews that dominion was no part of the birth-right ; for it tells us, thaxjofipb had the birth-right, but Judah the dominion. One would think our author were very fond of the very name of birth-right, when he brings this inftance of Jacob and Efau, to prove that dominion belongs to the heir over his brethren. §. 116. i. Becaufe it will be but an ill example to prove, that dominion by God's ordination belonged to the eldeft fon, be- caufe Jacob the youngeft here had it, let bim come by it how he would : for if it prove any thing, it can only prove, againft our author, that the afjigtiment of dominion to the eldejl is not by divine infiitution, which would then be unalterable : for if by the law of God, or nature, abfolute power and empire belongs to the eldeft fon and his heirs, fo that they are fupreme monarchs, and all the reft of their brethren flaves, our author gives us reafon to doubt whether the eldeft fon has a power to part with it, to the prejudice of his pofterity, fince he tells us, Objervations, 158. That in grants and gifts that have their origi?ial from God or nature , no inferior power of man cati limit, or make any law of prescription againjl them. §. 117. 2. Becaufe this place, Gen. xxvii. 29. brought by our author, concerns not at all the dominion of one brother over the 5 ©ther. Of Government. 135 other, nor the fubjection of Efau to Jacob : for it is plain in the hiftory, that Efau was never fubjcct to Jacob, but lived apart in mount Seir, where he founded a diftinct people and government', and was himfelf prince over them, as much as Jacob was in his own family. This text, if confidered, can never be understood of Efau himfelf, or the perfonal dominion of Jacob over him : for the words brethren and fons of thy mother, could not be ufed literally by Ifaac, who knew Jacob had only one brother -, and thefe words are fo far from being true in a literal fenfe, or eftablifhing any dominion in Jacob over Efau, that in the /lory we find the quite contrary, for Gen, xxxii. Jacob feveral times calls Efau lord, and himfelf his fervant ; and Gen. xxxiii. he bowed himfelf f even times to the ground to Efau. Whether Efau then were a fubject, and vaffal (nay, as our author tells us, all fubjects are flaves) to Jacob, and Jacob his fovereign prince by birth-right, I leave the reader to judge; and to believe if he can, that thefe words of Ifaac, Be lord over thy brethren, and let thy mother s fons bow down to thee, confirmed Jacob in a fovereignty over Efau, upon the account of the birth-right he had got from him. §. 118. He that reads the flory of Jacob and Efau, will find there was never any jurif- diction or authority, that either of them had over the other after their father's death : they K 4 lived i:6 Of Government. lived with the friendfhip and equality of bre- thren, neither lord, neither Jlave to his bro- ther ; but independent each of other, were both heads of their diftincl families, where they received no laws from one another, but lived feparately, and were the roots out of which fprang two diftinc~t people under two diftincl governments. This bleMing then of Ifaac, whereon our author would build the dominion of the elder brother, fignirles no more, but what Rebecca had been told from God, Gen. xxv. 23. Two nations are in thy womb, and two mamier of people Jlja/l be fe- parated from thy bowels, and the one people Jhall be flronger than the other people, and the elder Jhall Jerve the younger ; and fo Jacob bleffed fndah, Gen, xlix. and gave him the fcepter and dominion, from wThence our author mi^ht nave argued as well, that jurifdiction and dominion belongs to the third fon over his brethren, as well as from this bleffing of Ifaac, that it belonged to facob : both thefe places contain only predictions of what mould long after happen to their pofterities, and not any declaration of the right of in- heritance to dominion in either. And thus we have our author's two great and only arguments to prove, that heirs are lords over their brethren. 1. Becaufe God tells Cain, Gen.iv. that however fin might fet upon him, he ought cr might be m after of it ; for the mod learned interpreters Of Government. 137 interpreters underftood the words of fin, and not of Abel, and give fo ftrong reafons for it, that nothing can convincingly be in- ferred, from fo doubtful a text, to our au- thor's purpofe. 2. Becaufe in this of Gen. xxvii. Ifaac foretels that the Ifraelites, the pofterity of 'Jacob, mould have dominion over the Edc/n- ites, the pofterity of Efau -, therefore fays our author, heirs are lords of their brethren : I leave any one to judge of the concluiion. §. 119. And now we fee how our author has provided for the defcending, and con- veyance down of Adams monarchical power, or paternal dominion to pofterity, by the inheritance of his heir, fucceeding to all his father's authority, and becoming upon his death as much lord as his father was, not only over his own children, but over his brethren, and all defcended from his father, and fo in infinitum. But yet who this heir is, he does not once tell us ; and all the light we have from him in this fo fundamental a point, is only, that in his inftance of Jacob, by ufing the word birth-right, as that which pafled from Efau to Jacob, he leaves us to guefs, that by heir, he means the eldeft fon ; though I do not remember he any where mentions exprefiy the title of the firft-born, but all along keeps himfelf under the fhelter of the indefinite term heir. But taking it to be his meaning, that the eldeft fon is heir, (for 138 Of Government. (for if the eldeft be not, there will be no pretence why the fons (hould not be all heirs alike) and fo by right of primogeniture has dominion over his brethren j this is but one ftep towards the fettlement of fuccelTion, and the difficulties remain frill as much as ever, till he can (hew us who is meant by right heir, in all thofe cafes which may happen where the prefent poiTeiTor hath no fon. This he iilently paries over, and perhaps wifely too : for what can be wifer, aftqr one has affirmed, that the perfon having that power, as well as the power and form of government, is the ordinance of God, and by divine injlitu- tion, vid. Cbfervations, 254. p. 12. than to be careful, not to itart any queflion con- cerning the perfon, the refolution whereof will certainly lead him into a confefllon, that God and nature hath determined nothing about him ? And if our author cannot fhew who by right of nature, or a clear pofitive law of God, has the next right to inherit the dominion of this natural monarch he has been at fuch pains about, when he died without a fon, he might have fpared his pains in all the reft, it being more neceflary for the fettling men's confciences, and deter- mining their fubjection and allegiance, to mew them who by original right, fuperior and antecedent to the will, or any act. of men, hath a title to this paternal jur if diBion, than it is to fhew that by nature there was fuck Of Government. 139 fuch a jurifdittion -, it being to no purpofe for me to know there is fuch a paternal power, which I ought, and am difpofed to obey, unlefs, where there are many pretenders, I alfo know the perfon that is rightfully invefled and endowed with it. §. 120. For the main matter in queftion being concerning the duty of my obedience, and the obligation of confcience I am un- der to pay it to him that is of right my lord and ruler, I muft know the perfon that this right of paternal power refides in, and fo impowers him to claim obedience from me : for let it be true what he fays, p. 12. That civil power not only in general is by divine infitution, but even the alignment of it fpe- daily to the eldejl parents ; and Observations, 254. 'That not only the power or right of go- vernment, but the form of the power of go- verning, and the perfon having that power, are all the ordinance of God-, yet unlefs he fhew us in all cafes who is this perfon, ordained by God, who is this eldejl parent ; all his ab- ftract notions of monarchical power will fig- nify juft nothing, when they are to be re- duced to practice, and men are confcientioufly to pay their obedience : for paternal jurif- dicfion being not the thing to be obeyed, be- caufe it cannot command, but is only that which gives one man a right which another hath not, and if it come by inheritance, another man cannot have, to command and be 140 Of Government. be obeyed ; it is ridiculous to fay, I pay obe- dience to the -paternal power, when I obey him, to whom paternal power gives no right to my obedience : for he can have no divine right to my obedience, who cannot mew his divine right to the power of ruling over me, as well as that by divine right there is fuch a power in the world. §. 121. And hence not being able to make out any prince's title to government, as heir to Adam, which therefore is* of no ufe, and had been better let alone, he is fain to refolve all into prefent porTeffion, and makes civil obedience as due to an nfurper, as to a lawful king ; and thereby the ufurpers title as good. His words are, Obfervations, 253. and they deferve to be remembered : If an ufurper dif- poffefs the true heir, the fubjcBs obedience to the fatherly power mufl go along, and wait upon God's providence. But I mall leave his title of ufurpers to be examined in its due place, and defire my fober reader to confider what thanks princes owe fuch politics as this, which can fuppofe paternal power (/. e.) a 'light to government in the hands of a Cade, or a Cromwell-, and fo all obedience being due to paternal power, the obedience of fubjects will be due to them, by the fame right, and upon as good grounds, as it is to lawful princes; and yet this, as dangerous a doctrine as it is, muH: neceffarily follow from making all political power to be nothing elfe, but Adam's Of Government. 141 Adam's paternal power by right and divine inflitution, defcending from him without be- ing able to (hew to whom it defcended, or who is heir to it. §. 122. To fettle government in the world, and to lay obligations to obedience on any man's conference, it is as neceffary (fuppoiing with our author that all power be nothing but the being poffefled of Adam's fatherhood) to fatisfy him, who has a right to this power, this fatherhood, when the poiTeflbr dies without fons to fucceed immediately to it, as it was to tell him, that upon the death of the father, the eldefl fon had a right to it : for it is ftill to be remembered, that the great queftion is, (and that which our author would be thought to contend for, if he did not fometimes forget it) what per- fons have a right to be obeyed, and not whether there be a power in the world, which is to be called paternal, without knowing in whom it refides : for fo it be a power, i. e. right to govern, it matters not, whether it be termed paternal or regal, natural or ac- quired-, whether you call it fupreme father- hood, or fupr -erne brotherhood, will be all one, provided we know who has it. §. 123. I go on then to a{k, whether in the inheriting of this paternal power, this fupreme fatherhood, the grandfon by a daughter hath a right before a nephew by a brother ? Whe- - ther the grandfon by the eldeft fon, being an infant, 142 Op Government. infant, before the younger fon, a man and able ? Whether the daughter before the uncle ? or any other man, defcended by a male line ? Whether a grandfon by a younger daughter, before a grand-daughter by an elder daughter ? Whether the elder fon by a concubine, before a younger fon by a wife ? From whence alfo will arife many queflions of legitimation, and what in nature is the difference betwixt a wife and a concubine ? for as to the municipal or pofitive laws of men, they can fignify nothing here. It may farther be afked, Whether the eldeft fon, being a fool, (hall inherit this paternal power, before the younger, a wife man ? and what degree of folly it muft be that fhall ex- clude him ? and who fhall be judge of it ? Whether the fon of a fool, excluded for his folly, before the fon of his wife brother who reigned ? Who has the paternal power whilfl the widow- queen is with child by the de- ceafed king, and no body knows whether it will be a fon or a daughter ? Which fhall be heir of the two male-twins, who by the diffection of the mother were laid open to the world ? Whether a fifter by the half blood, before a brother's daughter by the whcle blood ? §. 124. Thefe, and many more fuch doubts, might be propofed about the titles of fuc- ceflion, and the right of inheritance; and that not as idle fpeculatidns, but fuch as in hiitory Of Government. 143 hiftory we mall find have concerned the inheritance of crowns and kingdoms ; and if our's want them, we need not go farther for famous examples of . it, than the other kingdom in this very ifland, which having been fully related by the ingenious and learned author of Patriarcha non Monarcha, I need fay no more of. Till our author hath refolved all the doubts that may arife ajpout the next heir, and mewed that they are plainly deter- mined by the law of nature, or the revealed law of God, all his fuppoiitions of a mo- narchicaly abfoliite, fnpreme, paternal power in Adam, and the defcent of that power to his heirs, would not be of the leaf! ufe to efta- blifh the authority, or make out the title, of any one prince now on earth; but would rather unfettle and bring all into queflion : for let our author tell us as long as he pleafes, and let all men believe it too, that Adam had a paternal, and thereby a monarchical power; that this (the only power in the world) de- Jcended to his heirs ; and that there is no other power in the world but this : let this be all as clear demonftration, as it is manifeft error, yet if it be not paft doubt, to whom this paternal power defcends, and whofe now it is, no body can be under any obligation of obe- dience, unlefs any one will fay, that I am bound to pay obedience to paternal power in a man who has no more paternal power than- I myfelf -, which is all one as to fay, I obey a man, becaufe he has a right to govern ; and 144 O F Government. and if I be afked, how I know he has a right to govern, I mould anfwer, it cannot be known, that he has any at all : for that cannot be the reafon of my obedience, which I know not to be fo ; much lefs can that be a reafon of my obedience, which no body at all can know to be fo. §. 125. And therefore all this ado about Adam s fatherhood, the greatnefs of its power, and the necefiity of its fuppofal, helps no- thing to eftabliih the power of thofe that govern, or to determine the obedience of iubjects who are to obey, if they cannot tell whom they are to obey, or it cannot be known who are to govern, and who to obey. In the ftate the world is now, it is irre- coverably ignorant, who is Adams heir. This father 'hood, this monarchical power of Adam, defcending to his heirs, would be of no more life to the government of mankind, than it would be to the quieting of mens confciences, or fecuring their healths, if our author had allured them, that Adam had a power to for- give fins, or cure difeafes, which by divine inftitution defcended to his heir, whilft this heir is impoilible to be known. And (hould not he do as rationally, who upon this af- furance of our author went and confefTed his fins, and expected a good abfolution ; or took phylic with expectation of health, from any one who had taken on himfelf the name of prieft or phyfician, or thru ft himfelf into thofe employments, faying, I acquiefce in 1 the Of Government. 145 the abfolving power defcending from Adam, or I mall be cured by the medicinal power defcending from Adam j as he who fays, I fubmit to and obey the paternal power de- fcending from Adam, when it is confefTed all thefe powers defcend only to his iingle heir, and that heir is unknown ? §. 126. It is true, the civil lawyers have pretended to determine fome of thefe cafes concerning the fucceffion of princes; but by our author's principles, they have meddled in a matter that belongs not to them : for if all political power be derived only from Adam, and be to defcend only to his fucceffive heirs, by the ordinance of God and divine i72ft.it ut ion, this is a right antecedent and paramount to all government ; and therefore the poiitive laws of men cannot determine that, which is itfelf the foundation of all law and government, and is to receive its rule only from the law of God and nature. And that being filent in the cafe, I am apt to think there is no fuch right to be conveyed this way : I am fure it would be to no purpofe if there were, and men would be more at a lofs concerning government, and obedience to governors, than if there were no fuch right; lince by pofitive laws* and compact, which divine infitution (if there be any) (huts out, all thefe endlefs inextricable doubts can be fafely provided againil : but it can never be underftood, how a divine natu- ral right, and that of fuch moment as is all order and peace in the world, mould be con- L veyed 146 Of Government. veyed down to pofterity, without any plain natural or divine rule concerning it. And there would be an end of all civil govern- ment, if the alignment of civil power were by divine injiitution to the heir, and yet by that divine injiitution the perfon of the heir could not be known. This paternal regal power being by divine right only his, it leaves no room for human prudence, or confent, to place it any where elfe ; for if only one man hath a divine right to the obedience of man- kind, no body can claim that obedience, but he that can mew that right ; nor can men's confeiences by any other pretence be obliged to it. And thus this doctrine cuts up all go- vernment by the roots. §. 1 27. Thus we fee how our author, laying it for a fure foundation, that the very perfon that is to rule, is the ordinance of God, and by divine injiitution, tells us at large, only that this perfon is the heir, but who this heir is, he leaves us to guefs ; and fo this divine injii- tution, which afligns it to a perfon whom we have no rule to know, is jufr. as good as an affignment to no body at all. But whatever our author does, divine injiitution makes no fuch ridiculous alignments : nor can God be fup- pofed to make it a facred law, that one cer- tain perfon mould have a right to fomething, and yet not give rules to mark out, and know that perfon by, or give an heir a divine right to power, and yet not point out who that heir is. It is rather to be thought, that an heir OF Government. 147 heir had no fuch right by divine inftitution, than that God mould give fuch a right to the heir, but yet leave it doubtful and unde- terminable who fuch heir is. §. 128. If God had given the JandofCVz- 72aan to Abraham, and in general terms to fome body after him, without naming his feed, whereby it might be known who that fome- body was, it would have been as good and ufeful an alignment, to determine the right to the land of Canaan, as it would be the determining the right of crowns, to give empire to Adam and his fucceffive heirs after him, without telling who his heir is : for the word heir, without a rule to know who it is, fignifies no more than fome body, I know not whom. God making it a divine injiitution, that men mould not marry thofe who were near of kin, thinks it not enough to fay, None of you fiall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their naked- nefs ; but moreover, gives rules to know who are thofe near of kin, forbidden by divine in- jlitution -, or elfe that law would have been of no ufe, it being to no purpofe to lay re- ftraint, or give privileges to men, in fuch general terms, as the particular perfon con- cerned cannot be known by. But God not having any where laid, the next heir mall inherit all his father's eftate or dominion, we are not to wonder, that he hath no where' appointed who that heir mould be ; for never having intended any fuch thing, never de- L z ilgned 143 Of Government. figned any heir in that fenfe, we cannot ex- pect he fhould any where nominate, or ap- point any perfon to it, as we might, had it been other wife. And therefore in fcripture, though the word heir occur, yet there is no fuch thing as heir in our author's fenfe, one that was by right of nature to inherit all that his father had, exclufive of his brethren. Hence Sarah fuppofes, that if Iflmiael ftaid in the houfe, to mare in Abrahams eftate after his death, this fon of a bond-woman might be heir with Ifaac ; and therefore, fays fhe, caft out this band-woman and her fon, for the fon of this bond-woman jl:all not be heir with my fon : but this cannot excufe our author, who telling us there is, in every number of men, one who is right and next heir to Adam, ought to have told us what the laws of defcent are : but he having been io fparing to inftrucT: us by rules, how to know who is heir, let us fee in the next place, what his hiftory out of fcripture, on which he pretends wholly to build his government, ^ives us in this neceflarv and fundamental point. §. 129. Our author, to make good the title of his book, p. 1 ?. begins his hiftory of the defcent of Adams regal power, p. 13. in thefc words : This Icrdjhip which Adam by command had over the whole world, and by right defc ending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, was a large, &c. Flow does he prove that the patriarchs by defcent did enjoy it ? for Of Government. 149 for dominion of life and death, fays he, we find Judah the father pronounced fentence of death againjl Thamar his daughter in law for playing the harlot , p. 13. How does this prove that Judah had abfolute and fovereign authority ? be pronounced fentence of death. The pronoun- cing of fentence of death is not a certain mark of fovereignty, but ufually the office of inferior magiftrates. The power of making laws of life and death is indeed a mark of fovereignty, but pronouncing the fentence according to thofe laws may be done by others, and therefore this will but ill prove that he had fovereign authority: as if one mould fay, Judge Jeff'eries pronounced fen- tence of death in the late times, therefore Judge Jeff'eries had fovereign authority. But it will be faid, Judah did it not by com- miflion from another, and therefore did it in his own right. Who knows whether he had any right at all ? Heat of paflion might carry him to do that which he had no authority to do. Judah had dominion of life and death : how does that appear ? He exercifed it, he pronounced fentence of death againjl Thamar : our author thinks it is very good proof, that becaufe he did it, therefore he had a right to do it : he lay with her alfo : by the fame way of proof, he had a right to do that too. If the confequence be good from do- ing to a right of doing, Abfalom too may be reckoned amongft our author's fove- L 3 reigns, I co Of Govern m e n t. reigns, for he pronounced fuch a fentcnce of death againft his brother jimnon, and much upon a like occafion, and had it executed too, if that be Sufficient to prove a dominion of life and death. But allowing this all to be clear demon- stration of fovereign power, who was it that had this lordfhip by right defeending to him from Adam, as large and ample as the abfoluteft do~ minion of any monarch f judah, fays our au- thor, Judah a younger fon of Jacob, his father and elder brethren living ; fo that if our author's own proof be to be taken, a younger brother may, in the life of his father and elder brothers, by right of defcent, enjoy Adam'i monarchical power j and if one fo qualified may be monarch by defcent, why may not every man ? if Judah, his father and elder brother living, were one of Adam's heirs, I know not who can be excluded from this inheritance; all men by inheritance may be monarchs as well as judah. §. 130. Touching war, ^ce fee that Abraham commanded an army of 318 foldiers of his own family, and Efau met his brother Jacob with 400 men at arms : for matter of peace, Abra- ham made a league with Abimelech, &c. p. 13. Is it not poffible for a man to have 318 men in his- family, without being heir to Adam f A planter in the Weft Indies has more, and might, if he pleafed, (who doubts ?) mufter them up and lead them out againft Of Government. 151 againft the Indians, to feek reparation upon any injury received from them ; and all this without the abfolute dominion of a monarch, dcfe ending to him from Adam. Would it not be an admirable argument to prove, that all power by God's inftitution defcended from Adam by inheritance, and that the very per- fon and power of this planter were the ordi- nance of God, becaufe he had power in his family over fervants, born in his houfe, and bought with his money ? For this was juft Abrahams cafe; thofe who were rich in the patriarch's days, as in the Weft Indies now, bought men and maid fervants, and by their increafe, as well as purchafing of new, came to have large and numerous families, which though they made ufe of in war or peace, <:an it be thought the power they had over them was an inheritance defcended from Adam, when it was the purchafe of their money ? A man's riding in an expedition againft an enemy, his horfe bought in a fair would be as good a proof that the owner enjoyed the lordjhip which Adam by command bad over the whole world, by right dcfcending to him, as Abrahams leading out the fervants of his family is, that the patriarchs enjoyed this lordfhip by defcent from Adam : fince the title to the power, the mailer had in both cafes, whether over Haves or horfes, was only from his purchafe ; and the getting a dominion over any thing by bargain and L 4 money, 152 Of Government. money, is anew way of proving one had it by defcent and inheritance. §. 131. But making war and peace are marks of fivereignty. Let it be ib in politic fo- cities : may not therefore a man in the V/efi Indies, who hath with him fons of his own, friends, or companions, foldiers under pay, or flaves bought with money, or perhaps a band made up of all thefe, make war and peace, if there mould be occaiion, and ratify the articles too with an oath, without being a fovereign, an abfolute king over thofe who went with him r He that law-, he cannot, mull then allow many mailers of fhips, many private planters, to be abfolute monarchs, for as much as this they have done. War and peace cannot be made for politic focieties, but by the fupreme power of fuch focieties ; becaufe war and ceace, vivins: a different motion to the force of fuch a politic body, none can make war or peace, but that which has the direction of the force of the whole body, and that in politic focieties is only the fupreme power. In voluntary focieties for the time, he that has fuch a power by confent, may make war and peace, and ib may a iingle man for himfeif, the ilate of war not confifling in the number of parti- fans, but the enmity of the parties, where they have no fuperior to appeal to. §. 132. The actual making of war or peace is no proof of any other power, but only; 0? Of Government. 153 oF difpofing thofe to exercife or ceafe ads of enmity for whom he makes it; and this power in many cafes any one may have without any politic fupremacy : and therefore the making of war or peace will not prove that every one that does (0 is a politic ruler, much lefs a kino; ; for then common-wealths mud be kings too, for they do as certainly make war and peace as monarchical govern- ment. §. 133. But granting this a mark of five- relgnty in Abraham, is it a proof of the defcent to him of Adams fovereignty over the whole world ? If it be, it will furely be as good a proof of the defcent of Adam'j- lordjliip to others too. And then common-wealths, as well as Abraham, will be heirs of Adam, for they make 'war and peace, as well as he. If you fay, that the lordjhip of Adam doth not by right defcend to common-wealths, though they make war and peace, the fame fay I of Abraham, and then there is an end of your argument : if you iland to your argument, and fay thofe that do make war and peace, as common-wealths do without doubt, do inherit Adam'j- lordjhip, there is an end of your mo- narchy, unlefs you will fay, that common- wealths by defcent ev.jcying Adam'j /ord/hip are monarchies -, and that indeed would be a new way of making all the governments in the "world monarchical. 1 54 Of Government. §. 134. To give our author the honour of this new invention, for I confefs it is not I have firfi found it out by tracing his prin- ciples, and fo charged it on him, it is fit my readers know that (as abfurd as it may feem) he teaches it himfelf, p. 23. where he in- genuoufly fays, In all kingdoms and common* wealths in the world, whether the prince be the fupr erne father of the people, or but the true heir to fuch a father, or come to the crow?: by u fur- cation or eleciion, or whether feme few or a 7/iultitude govern the common-wealth ; yet fill the authority that is in any one, or in many, or in all thefe, is the only right, and natural au- thority of a fupreme father ; which right of fatherhood, he often tells us, is regal and royal authority-, as particularly, p. 12. the page immediately preceding this inftance of Abra- ham. This regal authority, he fays, thofe that govern common-wealths have ; and if it be true, that regal and royal authority be in thofe that govern common-wealths, it is as true that common-wealths are governed by kings; for if regal authority be in him that governs, he that governs muft needs be a king, and fo all common- wealths are no- thing but down-right monarchies; and then what need any more ado about the matter ? The governments of the world are as they mould be, there is nothing but monarchy in it. This, without doubt, was the fureft way our author could have found, to turn all other Of Government. 155 other governments, but monarchical, out of the world. §. 135. But all this fcarce proves Abra- ham to have been a king, as heir to Adam. If by inheritance he had been king, hot, who was of the fame family, mull needs have been his fubjecl, by that title, before the fervants in his family ; but we fee they lived as friends and equals, and when their herdfmen could not agree, there was no pretence of jurif- diction or fuperiority between them, but they parted by confent, Gen. xiii. hence he is called both by Abraham, and by the text, Abraham s brother, the name of friendship and equality, and not of jurifdiclion and authority, though he were really but his ne- phew. And if our author knows that Abra- ham was Adam'b heir, and a king, it was more, it feems, than Abraham himielf knew, or his fervant whom he fent a wooing for his fon -, for when he fets out the advantages* of the match, xxiv. Gen, 35. thereby to pre- vail with the young woman and her friends* he fays, / am Abraham's fervant, and the lord hath bkffed my majier greatly, and he is become great ; and he hath given hint flocks and herds, and filver and gold, and -men- fervants and maid- fervants, and camels and aJJ'es ; a?id Sarah, my majier s wife, bare a fon to my mafler when Jhe was old, and unto him hath he given all he hath. Can one think that a difcreet fervant, that was thus particular to fet out his mailer's greatnefs, 156 Of Government. greatnefs, would have omitted the crown Ifaac was to have, if he had known of any iiich ? Can it he imagined he fhould have neglected to have told them on fuch an 00 caiion as this, that Abraham was a king, a name well known at that time, for he had nine of them his neighbours, if he or his mailer had thought any fuch thing, the likelier! matter of all the reft, to make his errand fuccefsful ? §. 136. But this difcovery it feems v/as referved for our author to make 2 or 3000 years after, and let him enjoy the credit of it •, only he mould have taken care that fome of Adam's land mould have defcended to this his heir, as well as all Adams lordfhip : for though this lordfhip which Abraham, (if we may believe our author) as well as the other patriarchs, by right defcending to him, did enjoy, was as large and ample as the abfolnteji domi- nion of any monarch which hath been fmce the creation, yet his eftate, his territories, his dominions were very narrow and fcanty, for he had not the pofTeffion of a foot of land, till he bought a field and a cave of the fons of Heth to burv Sarah in. §. 137. The inftance of Efau joined with this of Abraham, to prove that the lordjhip which Adam had over the whole world, by right defcending from him, the patriarchs did enjoy, is yet more pleafant than the former. EJau met his brother Jacob with 400 men at arms ; he 1 therefore, Of Government. 157 therefore was a king by right of heir to Adam. Four hundred armed men then, however got together, are enough to prove him that leads them, to be a king and Adams heir. There have been tories in Ireland, (whatever there are in other countries) who would have thanked our author for fo honourable an opinion of them, efpecially if there had been no body near with a better title of 500 armed men, to question their royal authority of 400. It is a fhame for men to trifle fo, to fay no worfe of it, in fo ferious an argument. Here Efau is brought as a proof that Adam's lord- ihip, Adam's abfolute dominion, as large as thai of any monarch, defended by right to the pa- triarchs, and in this very chap. p. 19. Jacob is brought as an inftance of one, that by birth -right was lord over his brethren. So we have here two brothers abfolute monarchs by the fame title, and at the fame time heirs to Adam ; the eldeft, heir to Adam, becaufe he met his brother with 400 men ; and the youngeft, heir to Adam by birth-right : Efau enjoyed the lordfip which Adam bad over the whole world by right defcending to him, in as large and ample -manner, as the abjolutejl do- minion of any monarch; and at the fame time, "Jacob lord over him, by the right heirs have to be lords over their brethren. Rifum teneatis f I never, I confefs, met with any man of parts fo dexterous as Sir Robert at this way of arguing: but it was his misfortune to light 1 58 Of Govern m e n t. light upon an hypothecs, that could not bt accommodated to the nature of things, and human affairs ; his principles could not be made to agree with that conftitution and order, which God had fettled in the world, and therefore mull needs often clafh with common fenfe and experience. §. 138. In the next fection, he tells us, This patriarchal power continued not only till the food, but after it, as the name patriarch doth in part prove. The word patriarch doth more than in part prove, that patriarchal power continued in the world as long as there were patriarchs, for it is necefiary that pa- triarchal power mould be whilft there are patriarchs ; as it is necefiary there mould be paternal or conjpgdr power whilft there are fathers or hufbands ; but this is but playing with names. That which he would falla- cioufly in fin u ate is the thing in queftion to be proved, viz. that the lordfiip which Adam had ever the world, the luppofed abfolute univerfal dominion of Adam by right defend- ing from him, the patriarchs did enjoy. If he affirms fuch an abfolute monarchy continued to the flood, in the world, I would be glad to know what records he has it from ; for I confefs I cannot find a word of it in my Bible : if by patriarchal power he means any thing elfe, it is nothing to the matter in hand. And how the name patriarch in fome part proves, that thofe, who are called by that name, Of Government. 159 name, had abfolute monarchical power, I confefs, I do not fee, and therefore I think needs no anfwer till the argument from it be made out a little clearer. §. 139. The three fons of Noah had the world, Jays our author, divided amongjl them by their father, for of them was the whole world overfpread, p. 14. The world might be over- fpread by the offspring of Noah's fons, though he never divided the world amongft them -, for the earth might be replenished without being divided : fo that all our author's argument here proves no fuch diviiion. However, I allow it to him, and then afk, the world being di- vided amongft them, which of the three was Adams heir ? If Adam's lordfjip, Adam's mo- narchy, by right defcended only to the eldeft, then the other two could be but his fabjecis, his /laves : if by right it defcended to all three brothers, by the fame right, it will defcend to all mankind; and then it will be impoffible v/hat he fays, p. 19. that heirs are lords of their brethren, mould be true ; but all bro- thers, and confequently all men, will be equal and independent, all heirs to Adams mo- narchy, and confequently all monarchs too, one as much as another. But it will be faid, Noah their father divided the world amongft them ; fo that our author will allow more to Noah, than he will to God almighty, for Objervations, 211. he thought it hard, that God himfelf mould give the world to Noah' and his fons, to the prejudice of Noah's birth - Z right : 160 Of Government. right : his words are, Noah was left fole heir to the world : why fiould it be thought that God would difmherit him of his birth- right, and make him, of all ?nen in the world, the only tenant in common with his children f and yet here he thinks it fit that Noah mould disinherit Stem of his birth-right, and divide the world be- twixt him and his brethren ; fo that this birth- right, when our author pleafes, mud, and when he pleafes mufl not, be facred and in- violable. §. 140. If Noah did divide the world be- tween his fons, and his afiignment of domi- nions to them were good, there is an end of divine inflitution ; all our author's difcourfe of Adams heir, with whatfoever he builds on it, is quite out of doors; the natural power of kings falls to the ground; and then the form of the power governing, and the perfon having that power, will not be (as he fays they are, Obfervations, 254.) the ordinance of God, but they will be ordinances of man : for if the right of the heir be the ordinance of God, a divine right, no man, father or not father, can alter it : if it be not a divine right, it is only human, depending on the will of man : and fo where human inflitution gives it not, the firft-born has no right at all above his brethren ; and men may put go- vernment into what hands, and under what form, they pleafe. §. 141. He goes on, Mofi of the civile jl na- tions of the earth labour to fetch their original from Of Government. 161 from fome of the fins, or nephews of Noah, p. 14. How many do moft of the civileft nations amount to ? and who are they ? I fear the Chinefes, a very great and civil people, as well as feveral other people of the Eafi, IVeft, North and South, trouble not them- felves much about this matter. All that believe the Bible, which I believe are our author's mof of the civileji nation nuft ne- ceffarily derive themfelveo fro thi but for the reft of the world, the) ink little of his fons or nephews. But if the heralds and antiquaries of all nations, for it is thefe men generally that labour to find out the originals of nations, or all the nations them- felves, Jloould labour to fetch their original from fome of the fins- or nephews of Noah, what would this be to prove, that the lord/hip which Adam had over the whole world, by right de- fended to the patriarchs ? Whoever, nations, or races of men, labour to fetch their original from, may be concluded to be thought by them, men of renown, famous to pofterity, for the greatnefs of their virtues and actions; but beyond thefe they look not, nor confider who they were heirs to, but look on them as fuch as raifed themfclves, by their own virtue, to a degree that would give a luflre to thofe who in future ages could pretend to derive themfelves from them. But if it were Ogyges, Hercules, Brama, Tamberlain, Pharamond ; nay, if Jupiter and Saturn were the names, M from \6z Of Government. from whence divers races of men, both an- cient and modern, have laboured to derive their original ; will that prove, that thofe men enjoyed the lordfhip of Adam, by right defcending to them ? If not, this is but a flouri/h of our author's to miflead his reader, that in itfelf figniiies nothing. §. 142. To as much purpofe is what he tells us, p. 15. concerning this divifion of the world, That fane fay it was by Lot, and others that Noah failed round the Mediter- ranean in ten years, and divided the world into Afia, Afric and Europe, portions for his three fons. America then, it feems, was left to be his that could catch it. Why our au- thor takes fuch pains to prove the divifion of the world by Noah to his fons, and will not leave out an imagination, though no better than a dream, that he can find any where to favour it, is hard to guefs, fince fuch a di- vifion, if it prove any thing, mull necelfarily take away the title of Adams heir -, unlefs three brothers can all together be heirs of Adam ; and therefore the following words, Howfoever the manner of this divifion be un- certain, yet it is mojl certain the divifion itfelf was by families from Noah and his children, over which the parents were heads and princes, p. 15. if allowed him to be true, and of any force to prove, that all the power in the world is nothing but the lordfhip of Adam\f defcending by right, they will only prove, that the Of Government. 163 the fathers of the children are all heirs to this lordfhip of Adam : for if in thofe days Cham and Japbet, and other parents, befides the eldeft ion, were heads and princes over their families, and had a right to divide the earth by families, what hinders younger bro- thers, being fathers of families, from having the fame right ? If Cha?n and Japhet were princes by right defcending to them, not- withstanding any title of heir in their elder! brother, younger brothers by the fame right defcending to them are princes now ; and fo all our author's natural power of kings will reach no farther than their own children, and no kingdom, by this natural right, can be bigger than a family : for either this lord- Jhip of Adam over the whole world, by right defcends only to the eldeft fon, and then there can be but one heir, as our author fays, p. 19. or elfe, it by right defcends to all the fons equally, and then every father of a family will have it, as well as the three fons of Noah : take which you will, it deftroys the prefent governments and kingdoms, that are now in the world, fince whoever has this natural power of a king, by right defcending to him, muft have it, either as our author tells us Cam had it, and be lord over his brethren, and fo be alone king of the whole world -, or elfe, as he tells us here, Shem, Cham and Japbet had ity three brothers, and fo be only prince of his own family, and all M 2 families 164 Of Government. families independent one of another : all the world mud be only one empire by the right of the next heir, or elfe every family be a didincl: government of itfelf, by the lordjlrip of Adam'i defcending to parents of families. And to this only tend all the proofs he here ^ives us of the defcent of Adam's lordfhip : for continuing his ftory of this defcent, he fays, §. 143. In the difperfion of 'Babel, we mujl certainly find the efiablifoment of royal power, throughout the kingdoms of the world, p. 14. If you muft find it, pray do, and you will help us to a new piece of hiflory : but you mull mew it us before we mail be bound to believe, that regal power was eftablifhed in the world upon your principles : for, that regal power was eftablifhed in the kingdoms of the world, I think no body will difpute ; but that there mould be kingdoms in the world, whofe feveral kings enjoyed their crowns, by right defcending to them from Adam, that we think not only apocryphal, but alfo utterly impoffible. If our author has no better foundation for his monarchy than a fuppofition of what was done at the difperfion fA Babel, the monarchy he erects thereon, whofe top is to reach to heaven to unite mankind, will ferve only to divide and fcatter them as that tower did -, and, inftead of efta- blifning civil government and order in the world, will produce nothing but confufion. §. 144. Of Government. 16$ §. 144. For he tells us, the nations they were divided into, were diftinSt families, which had fathers for rulers over them ; whereby it appears, that even in the confufion, God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority, by dijlributing the diverfty of languages according to the diverfty of families, p. 14. It would have been a hard matter for any one but our author to have found out to plainly, in the text he here brings, that all the nations in that difperfion were governed by fathers, and that God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority. The words of the text are ; Thefe are the fons of Shem after their families, after their tongues in their lands, after their nations. % and the fame thing is faid of Cham and jfaphet, after an enumeration of their po- fterities ; in all which there is not one word faid of their governors, or forms of govern- ment; of fathers, or fatherly authority. But our author, who is very quick lighted to fpv out fatherhood, where no body elfe could fee any the leafl glimpfes of it, tells us pofitivelv their rulers were fathers, and God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority ; and why ? Becaufe thofe of the fame family {poke the fame language, and fo of necefiity in the divifion kept together. Juft as if one mould argue thus : Hanibal in his army, confining of divers nations, kept thofe of the fame language together ; therefore fathers were captains of each band, and Hanibal was careful M 3 of i66 Of Government. of the fatherly authority: or in peopling of Carolina* the Englifi, French, Scotch and Welch that are there, plant themfelves toge- ther, and by them the country is divided in their lands after their tongues, after their fa- milies, after their nations ; therefore care was taken of the fatherly authority : or becaufe, in many parts of America, every little tribe was a diftincl: people, with a different lan- guage, one mould infer, that therefore God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority y or that therefore their rulers enjoyed Adam'i lordfcip by right defending to them, though we know not who were their governors, nor what their form of government, but only that they were divided into little independent focieties, fpeaking different languages, §. 145. The fcripture fays not a word of their rulers or forms of government, but only gives an account, how mankind came to be divided into diffcindt languages and nations ; and therefore it is not to argue from the authority of fcripture, to tell us pofitively, fathers were their rulers, when the fcripture fays no fuch thing ; but to fet up fancies of one's own brain, when we confidently aver matter of fact, where records are utterly filent. Upon a like ground, /. e. none at all, he fays, That they were not confufed multitudes without heads and governors, and at liberty to choofe what governors or governments they f leafed, §. 146, Of Government. 167 §. 146. For I demand, when mankind were all yet of one language, all congregated in the plain of Shinar, were they then all under one monarch, who enjoyed the lord/hip of Adam by right defc ending to him ?• If they were not, there were then no thoughts, it is plain, of Adam's heir, no right to government known then upon that title ; no care taken, by God or man, of Adams fatherly authority* If when mankind were but one people, dwelt all together, and were of one language, and were upon building a city together ; and when it was plain, they could not but know the right heir, for Shem lived till Ifaac's time, a long while after the divifion at Babel-, if then, I fay, they were not under the mo- narchical government of Adam's fatherhood, by right defcending to the heir, it is plain there was no regard had to the fatherhood, no monarchy acknowledged due to Adam's heir, no empire of Shenis in Afa, and con-^ fequently no fuch divifion of the world by Noah, as our author has talked of. As far as we can conclude any thing from fcripture in this matter, it feems from this place, that if they had any government, it was rather a common-wealth than an abfolute monarchy : for the fcripture tells us, Gen. xi. 'They faid: it was not a prince commanded the building of this city and tower, it was not by the command of one monarch, but by the con- sultation of many, a free people ; let us build M 4 us 1 68 Of Government. us :fy : they builc it for themfelves as i not as Haves for their lord and mater: ib we be not feathered abroad; having a cil x "• and fixed habitations to fettle or." - families* This was the con- fu! . 3 and defign of a people, that were at li ivij to part afunder, but defired to keep in one body, and could not have been either neceflarv or likelv in men tied together under the government of one monarch, who if they had been, as our author tells us, all JIaves under the abfolute dominion of a monarch, needed not have taken fuch care to hinder themfelves from wandering out of the reach of his dominion. I demand whether this be not plainer in fcripture than any thing of Adam's heir or fatherly authority f §. 147. But if being, as God fays, Gen. xi. 6. one people, they had one ruler, one king by natural right, abfolute and fupreme over them, what care had God to preferve the paternal authority of the fupreme fatherhood, if on a fudden he fuffer 72 (for fo many our author talks of) difinfl nations to be erected out of it, under diftinct. governors, and at once to withdraw themfelves from the obedience of their fovereign ? This is to intitle God's care how, and to what we pleafe. Can it be fenfe to fay, that God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority in thofe who had it not ? for if thefe were fubjects under a fupreme prince, what authority had they ? Was it an inftance Of Government. 169 inftance of God's care to preferve the fa- therly authority, when he took away the true fupreme fatherhood of the natural monarch ? Can it be reafon to fay, that God, for the prefervation of fatherly authority, lets feveral new governments with their governors ftart up, ""who could not all have fatherly autho- rity ? And is it not as much reafon to fay, that God is careful to deflroy fatherly autho- rity, when he fuffers one, who is in porTcffion of it, to have his government torn in pieces, and fhared by feveral of his fubjecls ? Would it not be an argument juft like this, for mo- narchical government, to fay, when any mo- narchy was mattered to pieces, and divided amongft revolted fubjecls, that God was care- ful to preferve monarchical power, by rending a fettled empire into a multitude of little governments ? If any one will fay, that what happens in providence to be preferved, God is careful to preferve as a thing therefore to be efteemed by men as necefTary or ufefal, it is a peculiar propriety of fpeech, which every one will not think fit to imitate : but this I am fure is impoflible to be either proper, or true fpeaking, that Shem, for example, (for he was then alive,) mould have fatherly authority, or fovereignty by right of fatherhood, over that one people at Babel, and that the next mo- ment, Shem yet living, 72 others mould have fatherly authority, or fovereignty by right of fatherhood, over the fame people, divided into 170 Of Government. into fo many diftinct governments : either thefe 72 fathers actually were rulers, juft before the confufion, and then they were not one people, but that God himfelf fays they were ; or elfe they were a common-wealth, and then where was monarchy ? or elfe thefe 72 fathers had fatherly authority, but knew it not. Strange ! that fatherly authority mould be the only original of government amongft men, and yet all mankind not know it -, and ftranger yet, that the confufion of tongues fhould reveal it to them all of a fudden, that in an inftant thefe 72 fhould know that they had fatherly power, and all others know that they were to obey it in them, and every one know that particular jatherly authority to which he was a fubject. He that can think this arguing from fcripture, may from thence make out what model of an Eutopia will beft fuit with his fancy or intereft ; and this fatherhood, thus difpofed of, will juftify both a prince who claims an univerfal monarchy, and his fubjedts, who, being fathers of fa- milies, mall quit all fubje&ion to him, and canton his empire into lefs governments for themfelves ; for it will always remain a doubt in which of thefe the fatherly authority re- fided, till our author refolves us, whether Stem, who was then alive, or thefe 72 new princes, beginning fo many new empires in his dominions, and over his fubjects, had right to govern, fince our author tells us, that Of Government. 171 that both one and the other had fatherly, which is fupreme authority, and are brought in by him as inftances of thofe who did enjoy the lordfiips of Adam by right defending to them , which was as large and ample as the abfoluteft dominion of any monarch. This at leait is unavoidable, that if God was careful to preferve the fatherly authority, in the 72 new- er ebled nations, it necerTarily follows, that he was as careful to deflroy all pretences ot Adams heir ; fince he took care, and there- fore did preferve the fatherly authority in fo many, at leafl 71, that could not poffibly be Adams, heirs, when the right heir (if God had ever ordained any fuch inheritance) could not but be known, Shem then living, and they being all one people. §. 148. Nimrod is his next inftance of enjoying this patriarchal power, p. 16. but I know not for what reafon our author feems a little unkind to him, and fays, that he againjl right enlarged his empire, by feizing violently on the rights of other lords of families. Thefe lords of families here were called fa- thers of families, in his account of the dif- perlion at Babel : but it matters not how they were called, fo we know who they are ; for this fatherly authority muil be in them, either as heirs to Adam, and fo there could not be 72, nor above one at once; or elfe as natural parents over their children, and fo every father will have paternal authority over his 172 Of Government. his children by the fame right, and in as large extent as thofe 72 had, and fo be in- dependent princes over their own offspring. Taking his lords of families in this later fenfe, (as it is hard to give thofe words any other fenfe in this place) he gives us a very pretty account of the original of monarchy, in thefe following words, p. 16. And in this fenfe he may be faid to be the author andjoimder of monarchy, viz. As againft, right feizing violently on the rights of fathers over their children ; which paternal authority, if it be in them, by right of nature, (for elfe how could thofe 72 corne by it ?) no body can take from them without their own confents ; and then I defire our author and his friends to conlider, how far this will concern other princes, and whether it will not, according to his conclufion of that paragraph, refolve all regal power of thofe, whofe dominions extend beyond their families, either into tyranny and ufurpation, or election and con- fent of fathers of families, which will differ very little from confent of the people. §. 149. All his inftances, in the next fet~liony p. 17. of the 12 dukes of Edom, the nine kings in a little corner of Afia in Abra- hams days, the 3 1 kings in Canaan deftroyed by Jofjua, and the care he takes to prove that thefe were all fovereign princes, and that every town in thofe days had a king, are fo many direct proofs againft him, that it was 5 not Of Government. 173 not the lordflnp of Adam by right defc ending to them, that made kings : for if they had held their royalties by that title, either there muft have been but one fovereign over them all, or elfe every father of a family had been as good a prince, and had as good a claim to royalty, as thefe : for if all the fons of Efau had each of them, the younger as well as the elder!:, the right of fatherhood, and fo were fovereign princes after their fathers death, the fame right had their ,fons after them, and fo on to all pofterity ; which will limit all the natural power of fatherhood, only to be over the iffue of their own bodies, and their defcendents; which power of fatherhood dies with the head of each family, and makes way for the like power of fatherhood to take place in each of his fons over their refpective pofterities : whereby the power of fatherhood will be preferved indeed, and is intelligible, but will not be at all to our author's purpofe. None of the inftanees he brings are proofs of any power they had, as heirs of Adams paternal autho^ rity by the title of his fatherhood defcending to them ; no, nor of any power they had by virtue of their own : for Adam's fatherhood being over all mankind, it could defcend but to one at once, and from him to his right heir only, and fo there could by that title be but one king in the world at a time : and by right of fatherhood, not defcending' from Adam, it muft be only as they them- felves 1 74 O F Government felves were fathers, and fo could be over none but their own posterity. So that if thofe 12 dukes of Edom ; if Abraham and the nine kings his neighbours 5 if Jacob and E/2z#, and the 31 kings in Canaan, the 72 kings mutilated by Adonibefeck, the 32 kings that came to Benhadad, the 70 kings of Greece making war at Troy, were, as our author contends, all of them fovereign princes ; it is evident that kings derived their power from fome other original than fatherhood, fincc fome of thefe had power over mure than their own posterity ; and it is demonstration, they could not be all heirs to Adam : for I challenge any man to make any pretence to power by right of fatherhood, either intelligible or poflible in any one, other wife, than either as Adam's heir, or as progenitor over his own depend- ents, naturally fprung from him. And if our author could mew that any one of thefe princes, of which he gives us here fo large a catalogue, had his authority by either of thefe titles, I think I might yield him the caufe ; though it is manifeft they are all impertinent, and directly contrary to what he brings them to prove, viz. That the lordfiip which Adam had over the world by right defcended to the patriarchs. §. 150. Having told us, p. 16, That the patriarchal government continued in Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, until the Egyptian bondage, p. 17. he tells us, By maaifejl footfieps we may trace this paternal government unto the 3 Ifraelites Of Government. 17$ Ifraelites coming into Egypt, 'where the exercife of fupreme patriarchal government was inter- mitted, becaufe they were in JubjeSlion to a fironger prince. What thefe footfteps are of paternal government, in our author's fenfe, i. e. of abfolute monarchical power defcending from Adam, and exercifed by right of fa- therhood, we have feen, that is for 2290 years no footfteps at all ; fince in all that time he cannot produce any one example of any per- fon who claimed or exercifed regal authority by right of fatherhood; or mew any one who being a king was Adams heir : all that his proofs amount to, is only this, that there were fathers, patriarchs and kings, in that age of the world; but that the fathers and patriarchs had any abfolute arbitrary power, or by what titles thofe kings had their's, and of what extent it was, the fcripture is wholly filent; it is manifeft by right of fatherhood they neither did, nor could claim any title to dominion and empire. §. 151. To fay, that the exercife of fupreme patriarchal government was intermitted, becaufe they were in fubjeclion to a fironger prince, proves nothing but what I before fufpetted, viz. That patriarchal jurifdiclion or government is a fallacious expreftion, and does not in our au- thor fignify (what he would yet iniinuate by it) paternal and regal power, fuch an abfolute fovereignty as he fuppofes was in Adam. §. 152. 176 Of Government. §. 152. For how can he fay that patriarchal jurifdiclion was intermitted in Egypt, where there was a king, under whofe regal go- vernment the Ifraelites were, if patriarchal were abfolnte mo?2archical jurifdiclion ? And if it were not, but fomething elfe, why does he make fuch ado about a power not in quef- tion, and nothing to the purpofe ? The exer- cife of patriarchal jurifdiclion, if patriarchal be regal, was not intermitted whilft the Is- raelites were in Egypt. It is true, the exer- cife of regal power was not then in the hands of any of the promifed feed of Abraham, nor before neither that I know ; but what is that to the intermirlion of regal authority, as defcending from Adam, unlefs our author will have it, that this chofen line of Abraham had the right of inheritance to Adams lordmip ? and then to what purpofe are his inftances of the 72 rulers, in whom the fatherly authority waspreferved in the confufion ^.t Babel? Why does he bring the 12 princes fons of Ifmael-, and the dukes of Edom, and join them with Abraham, Ifaac, and Jacob, as examples of the exercife of true patriarchal government, if the exercife of patriarchal jurifdiclion were inter- mitted in the world, whenever the heirs of Jacob had not fupreme power ? I fear, fu- preme patriarchal jurifdiclion was not only in- termitted, but from the time of the Egyptian bondage quite loft in the world, fince it will be Of Government. 177 be hard to find, from that time downwards, any one who exercifed it as an inheritance descending to him from the patriarchs Abra- ham, Ifaac, and "Jacob. I imagined monar- chical government would have ferved his turn in the hands of Pharaoh, or any body. But one cannot eafily difcover in all places what his difcourfe tends to, as particularly in this place it is not obvious to guefs what he drives at, when he fays, the exercife of fu- preme patriarchal ' jurifdiBion in Egypt, or how this ferves to make out the defcent of Adam's lordfhip to the patriarchs, or any body elfe. §. 153. For I thought he had been giving us out of fcripture, proofs and examples of monarchical government, founded on pater- nal authority, defcending from Adam ; and not an hiftory of the Jews : amongft whom yet we find no kings, till many years after they were a people : and when kings were their rulers, there is not the leaft mention or room for a pretence that they were heirs to Adam, or kings by paternal authority. I ex- pected, talking fo much as he does of fcrip- ture, that he would have produced thence a feries of monarchs, whofe titles were clear to Adam s fathei'hood, and who, as heirs to him, owned and exercifed paternal juris- diction over their fubjects, and that this was the true patriarchical government; whereas he neither proves, that the patriarchs were kings j nor that either kings or patriarchs N were 178 Of Government. were heirs to Adam, or fo much as pretended to it : and one may as well prove, that the patriarchs were all abfolute monarchs j that the power both of patriarchs and kings was only paternal ; and that this power defcended to them from Adam : I fay all thefe proportions may be as well proved by a confufed account of a multitude of little kings in the Weft- Indies, out of Ferdinando Soto, or any of our late hiftories of the Northern America, or by our author's 70 kings of Greece, out of Ho- mer, as by any thing he brings out of fcrip- ture, in that multitude of kings he has reckoned up. §. 154. And methinks he fhould have let Homer and his wars of Troy alone, iince hi& great zeal to truth or monarchy carried him to fuch a pitch of tranfport againft philofo- phers and poets, that he tells us in his pre- face, that there are too many in thefe days, who fleaje themfehes in running after the opinions of.philofophers and poets, to find out fuch an original of government, as might pro??iife them fame title to liberty, to the great fcandal of Chri/lianity, and bringing in of at h elfin. And yet thefe heathens, philofopher Ariftotle, and poet Homer, are not rejected by our zealous Christian politician, whenever they offer any thing that feems to ferve his turn ; whether to the great fcandal ^Chriftianity and bringing in of atheifm, let him look. This I cannot but obferve, in authors who it is vifible write not Of Government. 179 not for truth, how ready zeal for interest and party is to entitle Chrijlianity to their de- iigns, and to charge atheifm on thofe who will not without examining fubmit to their doctrines, and blindly fwallow their non- fenfe. But to return to his fcripture hiftory, our author farther tells us, p. 18. that after the return of the Ifraelites out ^bondage, God, out of a fpecial care of them, chofe iVTofes and Jofhua fuccejjively to govern as princes in the place and Jiead of the fupreme fathers. If it be true, that they returned out of bondage, it mull be into a ftate of freedom, and mufl imply, that both before and after this bonclage they were free, unlefs our author will fay, that changing of mailers is returning out of bondage ; or that a ilave returns out of bondage, when he is removed from one gaily to ano- ther. If then they returned out of bondage, it is plain that in thofe days, whatever our author in his preface fays to the contrary, there were difference between 2.fon, zfubjecl, and a Jlave ; and that neither the patriarchs before, nor their rulers after this Egyptian bondage, numbered their fons or fubjecls amongfi their pofefpons, and difpofed of them with as abfolute a dominion, as they did their other goods. §. 155. This is evident in Jacob, to whom Reuben offered his two fons as pledges ; and Judah was at laft furety for Benjami?i$ fafe N 2 return 1S0 Of Government. return out of Egypt: which all had been vain, fuperfluous, and but a fort of mockery, if facob had had the fame power over every- one of his family, as he had over his ox or his afs, as an owner over his fubfiance ; and the offers that Reuben or jfudab made had been fuch a fecurity for returning of Benja- min, as if a man mould take two lambs out of his lord's flock, and offer one as fecurity, that he will fafely reftore the other. §. 156. When they were out of this bon- dage, what then ? God out of a fpecial care of them, the Ifraelites. It is well that once in his book he will allow God to have any care of the people ; for in other places he fpeaks of mankind, as if God had no care of any part of them, but only of their monarch s, and that the reft: of the people, the focieties of men, were made as fo many herds of cattle, only for the fervice, ufe, and pleafure of their princes. §. 157. Chofe Mofes and Jofhua fuccejjively to govern as princes ; a fhrewd argument our author has found out to prove God's care of the fatherly authority, and Adams heirs, that here, as an expreffion of his care of his own people, he choofes thofe for princes over them, that had not the lead: pretence to either. The perfons chofen were, Mofes of the tribe of Levi, and fofoua of the tribe of Ephraim, neither of which had any title of fatherhood. But fays our author, they were in the place and Of Government. i$i and flead of the fupreme fathers. If God had any where as plainly declared his choice of fuch fathers to be rulers, as he did of Mofes and JoJJjua, we might believe Mofes and fofiua were in their place and Jiead: but that being the queftion in debate, till that be better proved, Mofes being chofen by God to be ruler of his people, will no more prove that government belonged to Adams heir, or to the fatherhood, than God's choofing Aaron of the tribe of Levi to be prieft, will prove that the priefthood belonged to Adam's heir, or the prime fathers ; fince God would choofe Aaron to be prieft, and Mofes ruler in Ifrael, though neither of thofe offices were fettled on Adam's heir, or the fatherhood. §. 158. Our author goes on, and after them likewife for a time he r a fed up judges, to defend his people in time of peril, p. 18. This proves fatherly authority to be the original of go- vernment, and that it defcended from Adam to his heirs* juft as well as what went be- fore : only here our author feems to confefs, that thefe judges, who were all the governors they then had, were only men of valour, whom they made their generals to defend them in time of peril; and cannot God raife up fuch men, unlefs fatherhood have a title to government ? But fays our author, when God gave the Is- raelites kings, he re-eflabliflded the ancient and N 3 prime 182 Of Government. prime right of lineal fuccejjion to paternal go- vernment, p. 1 8. §. 1 60. How did God re-eftablijh it ? by a law, a pofitive command ? We find no fuch thing. Our author means then, that when God gave them a king, in giving them a king, he r:-ejlablijl:ed the right, &c. To re- eflablifh de Jaclo the right of lineal fucceffion to paternal government, is to put a man in poffeffion of that government which his fathers did enjoy, and he by lineal fucceffion had a right to : for, firft, if it were another government than what his anceflors had, it was not fucceeding to an ancient right, but beginning a new one : for if a prince mould give a man, belides his antient patrimony, which for ibme ages his family had been diffeized of, an additional eflate, never before in the poffeffion of his anceflors, he could not be faidto re-ejlablifo the right of lineal fuc- ceffion to any more than what had been formerly enjoyed by his anceflors. If there- fore the power the kings of Ifrael had, were any thing more than Ifaac or Jacob had, it was net the re-efiablifing in them the right of fucceffion to a power, but giving them a new power, however you pleafe to call it, paternal or not : and whether Ifaac and Jacob had the fame power that the kings of Ifrael had, I delire any one, by what has been above iaid, to confider 3 and I do not think they will Of Government. 183 will find, that either Abraham, Ifaac, or "Jacob, had any regal power at all. §. 161. Next, there can be no re-eftablijh- merit of the prime and ancient right of lineal fiicceffion to any thing, unlefs he, that is put in pofieffion of it, has the right to fucceed, and be the true and next heir to him he fucceeds to. Can that be a re-eftablifhment, which begins in a new family ? or that the re-eft abUJJjment of an ancient right of lineal fuc- cefion, when a crown is given to one, who has no right of fiicceffion to it, and who, if the lineal fucceffion had gone on, had been out of all poffibility of pretence to it ? Saul, the firft king God gave the Ifraelites, was of the tribe of Benjamin. Was the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccejjion re-ejlablijhed in him ? The next was David, the youngeil fon of Jefje, of the pofterity of Judah, Jacob's third fon. Was the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccejjion to paternal government re- tftablified in him ? or in Solomon, his younger fon and fuccefibr in the throne ? or in J ere- boam over the ten tribes ? or in Athaliah, a woman who reigned fix years an utter fixanger to the royal blood ? If the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccejjion to paternal government were re-ejlablified in any of thefe or their pofterity, the ancient and prime right oj' lineal fuccejjion to paternal government belongs to younger brothers as well as elder, and may be re-eftabliihed in any man living ; for what- N 4 ever 184 Of Government. ever younger brothers, by ancient and prime right of lineal Juccejjion, may have as well as the elder, that every man living may have a right to, by lineal fucceflion, and Sir Robert as well as any other. And fo what a brave right of lineal fucceflion, to his paternal or regal government, our author has re-ejia- blijhedj for the fecuring the rights and inhe- ritance of crowns, where every one may have it, let the world confider. §. 162. But fays our author however, p. 19. Whenjoever God made choice of any fpecial per Jon to be king, he intended that the ijfue alfo fiould have benefit thereof as being comprehended Juf- ficiently in the perfon of the father, altho' the father was only named in the grant. This yet will apt help out fucceflion ; for if, as our author fays, the benefit of the grant be in- tended to the ijfue of the grantee, this will not direct the fucceflion -, fince, if God give any thing to a man and his ijfue in general, the claim cannot be to any one of that ijfue in particular ; every one that is of his race will have an equal right. If it be faid, our author meant heir, I believe our author was as willing as any body to have ufed that word, if it would have ferved his turn : but Solomon, who fucceeded David in the throne, being no more his heir than Jerobobam, who fucceeded him in the government of the ten tribes, was his iflue, our author had reafon to avoid faying, That God intended it to the Of Government. 185 the heirs, when that would not hold in a fucceffion, which our author could not ex- cept againft ; and fo he has left his fuccetTion as undetermined, as if he had faid nothing about it : for if the regal- power be given by God to a man and his iffue, as the land of Canaan was to Abraham and his feed, mud they not all have a title to it, all mare in it ? And one may as well fay, that by God's grant to Abraham and his feed, the land of Canaan was to belong only to one of his feed ex- clulive of all others, as by God's grant of dominion to a man and his iffite, this domi- nion was to belong in peculiar to one of his ijfue exclufive of all others. §. 163. But how will our author prove that whenfoever God made choice of any fpecial perfon to be a king, he intended that the (I fuppofe he means his) ijfue aljo Jloould have benefit thereof? has he fo foon forgot Mofes and Jojhua, whom in this very fecJion, he fays, God out of a jpecial care choje to govern as princes, and the judges that God railed up ? Had not thefe princes, having the au- thority of the jupreme fatherhood, the fame power that the kings had ; and being fpe- cially chofen by God himfelf, mould not their ijfue have the benefit of that choice, as well as David's or Solomons ? If thefe had the paternal authority put into their hands im- mediately by God, why had not their ijfue the benefit of this grant in a fucceffion to - this i£6 Of Government. this power ? or if they had it as Adams heirs, why did not their heirs enjoy it after them by right defcending to them ? for they could not be heirs to one another. Was the power the fame, and from the fame original, in Mofes, fofiua and the 'Judges, as it was in David and the Kings j 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 thofe that had not -paternal authority, and thofe governors did well enough without it : if it were paternal au." thority, and God chofe the perfons that were to exercife it, our author's rule fails, that whenfoever God makes choice ef any per/on to be reme ruler (for I fuppofe the name king has no fpell in it, it is not the title, but the power makes the difference) he intends that the ijjiie alfo Jhould have the benefit of it, fince from their coming out of Egypt to David's time, 400 years, the iffue was never fo fuf- ficie'ntly comprehended in the per/on of the fa- ther, as that any fon, after the death of his father, fucceeded to the government amongft all thofe judges that judged Ifrael. If, to avoid this, it be faid, God always chofe the perfon of the fucceffor, and fo, transferring the fatherly authority to him, excluded his iffue from fucceeding to it, that is manifeftly not fo in the ftory of Jephtha, where he ar- ticled with the people, and they made him judge over them, as is plain, judg. 11. §. 164. Of Government. 187 §. 164. It is in vain then to fay, that when* Jbever God choofes any fpecial ferfon to have the exercife of paternal authority, (for if that be not to be king, I deftre to know the dif- ference between a king and one having the exercife of paternal authority] he intends the iffue alfo fiould have the benefit of it, fince we find the authority, the judges had, ended with them, and defcended not to their iffue ; 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 amongft. the Israelites $ and 1 fufpect they muft confefs that the chofen people of God continued a people feveral hundreds of years, without any know- ledge or thought of this paternal authority, or any appearance of monarchical govern- ment at all. §. 165. To be fatisfied of this, he need but read the ftory of the Levite, and the war thereupon with the Benjamites, in the three laft chapters of Judges; and when he finds, that the Levite appeals to the people for juftice that it was the tribes and the congregation, that debated, refolved, and directed all that was done on that occafion j he muft con- clude, either that God was not careful to pre- ferve the fatherly authority amongft his own chofen people ; or elfc that the fatherly au- thority may be preferved, where there is no monarchical 1 88 Of Government. monarchical government : if the latter, then it will follow, that though fatherly authority be never fo well proved, yet it will not infer a necefiity of monarchical government; if the former, it will feem very ftrange and improbable, that God fhould ordain fatherly authority to be fo facred amongft the fons of men, that there could be no power, or go- vernment without it, and yet that amongft his own people, even whilft he is providing a government for them, and therein prefcribes rules to the feveral flates and relations of men, this great and fundamental one, this mod material and necefTary of all the reft, mould be concealed, and lie neglected for 400 years after. §. 166. Before I leave this, I muft afk how our author knows that whenfoever God makes choice of any fpecial perfon to be king> he intends that the iffue fhould have the benefit thereof? Does God by the law of nature or revelation fay fo ? By the fame law alfo he muft fay, which of his iffue muft enjoy the crown in fucceiTion, and fo point out the heir, or elfe leave his iffue to divide or fcramble for the government : both alike abfurd, and fuch as will deftroy the benefit of fuch grant to the iffue. When any fuch declaration of God's intention is produced, it will be our duty to believe God intends it fo ; but till that bs done, our author muft fhew us fome better warrant, before we fhall be obliged to re- cede Of Government. 189 ccive him as the authentic revealer of God's intentions. §. 167. The iffue, fays our author, is com- prehended fufficieiitly in the perfon of the fa- ther, although the father only was named in the grant : and yet God, when he gave the land of Canaan to Abraham, Gen. xiii. 15. thought fit to put his feed into the grant too : fo the priefthood was given to Aaron and his feed*, and the crown God gave not only to David, but his feed alfo : and however our author affures us that God intends, that the if lie Jhould have the benefit of it, when he choofes any perfon to be king, yet we fee that the kingdom which he gave to Saul, without mentioning his feed after him, never came to any of his iffue ; and why, when God chofe a perfon to be king, he mould intend, that his iffue fhould have the benefit of it, more than when he chofe one to be judge in Ifrael, I would fain know a reafon ; or why does a grant of fatherly authority to a king more comprehend the iffue, than when a like grant is made to a judge ? Is paternal authority by right to defcend to the iffue of one, and not of the other ? There will need fome reafon to be Ihewn of this difference, more than the name, when the thing given is the fame fa- therly authority, and the manner of giving it, God's choice of the perfon, the fame too ; for I fuppofe our author, when he fays, God raifcd 1 90 Of Government. raifed up judges, will by no means allow, they were chofen by the people. §. 1 68. But fince our author has Co con- fidently aflured us of the care of God to pre- ferve the fatherhood, and pretends to build all he fays upon the authority of the fcrip- ture, we may well expect that that people, whofe law, constitution and hiflory is chiefly contained in the fcripture, fhould furnifh him with the cleared inftances of God's care of preferving the fatherly authority, in that people who it is agreed he had a mofl pecu- liar care of. Let us fee then what flate this paternal authority or government was in among!! the fews, from their beginning to be a people. It was omitted, by our author's confefiion, from their coming into Egypt, till their return out of that bondage, above 200 years : from thence till God gave the If- raellies a king, about 400 years more, our author gives but a very (lender account of it; nor indeed all that time are there the leafl footfleps of paternal or regal government amongft them. But then fays our author, God re-ejlablifoed the ancient and prime right of lineal jtic cefjion to paternal government. §. 169. What a lineal face effion to paternal government was then eitablifhed, we have already feen. I only now confider how long this lafted, and that was to their captivity, about 500 years : from thence to their de- duction by the Romans, above 650 years 4 after, Of Government. 191 after, the ancient and prime right of lineal fuccefjion to paternal government was again loft, and they continued a people in the pi'o- mifed land without it. So that of 1750 years that they were God's peculiar people, they had hereditary kingly government amongft them not one third of the time ; and of that time there is not the leaft footftep of one moment of paternal government, nor the re-eflablijhment of the ancient and prime right of lineal fucce/jion to it, whether we fuppofe it to be derived, as from its fountain, from David, Saul, Abraham, or, which upon our author's principles is the only true, from Adam, OF OF CIVIL-GOVERNMENT BOOK II k Chap. I. §. i. It having been fhewn in the foregoing difcourfe, i. That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by pofitive donation from God, any fuch authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended : 2. That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it : 3. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor pofitive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cafes that may arife, the right of fucceffion, and confequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined : 4. That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the elded line O of- 194 Of Civil-Government. of Adam's pofterity, being fo long fince utterly loft, that in the races of mankind and fa- milies of the world, there remains not to one above another, the leaft pretence to be the eldeft houfe, and to have the right of inhe- ritance : All thefe premifes having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impoflible that the rulers now on earth mould make any be- nefit, or derive any the lead: madow of au- thority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adams private dominion and paternal jurifdiciion j fo that he that will not give juft occafion to think that all go- vernment in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beafts, where the ftrongeft carries it, and fo lay a foundation for perpetual diforder and mifchief, tumult, fedition and rebellion, (things that the fol- lowers of that hypothecs fo loudly cry out again.lt) mull of neceffity find out another rife of governwent, another original of poli-r tical power, and another way of defigning and knowing the perfons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us. §. 2. To this purpofe, I think it may not be amifs, to fet down what I take to be poli- tical power ; that the power of a magijlrate over a fubject may be diftinguifhed from that of a father over his children, a ?najier over his fervant, a hnjband over his wife, and a Of Civil-Government. 195 a lord over his flave. All which diftindt powers happening fometimes together in the fame man, if he be confidered under thefe different relations, it may help us to diiKn- guifh thefe powers one from another, and ihew the difference betwixt a ruler of a common-wealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley. §.3. Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and confequently all lefs penalties, for the regulating and preferving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of fuch laws, and in the de- fence of the common-wealth from foreign injury ; and all this only for the public good. CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature. §.4. r a ^ O underftand political power right, and derive it from its original, we muft confider, what flate all men are naturally in, and that is, a fate of perfect freedom to order their actions, and difpofe of their poffeffions and perfons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without afking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. A fate alfo of equality, wherein all the power and jurifdicticn is reciprocal, no one , O 2 having 196 Of Civil-Government. having more than another ; there being no- thing more evident, than that creatures of the fame fpecies and rank, promifcuoufly born to all the fame advantages of nature, and the ufe of the fame faculties, fhould alfo be equal one amongft another without fubor- dination or fubjeclion, unlefs the lord and mafter of them all mould, by any manifeft declaration of his will, fet one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and fovereignty. §. 5. This equality of men by nature, the judicious Hooker looks upon as fo evident in itfelf, and beyond all queftion, that he makes it the foundation of that obligation to mu- tual love amongft men, on which he builds the duties they owe one another, and from whence he derives the great maxims of jujiice and charity. His words are, The like natural inducement hath brought men to know that it is no lefs their duty, to love others than themf elves; for feeing thofe things which are equal, mujl needs all have one wieafure ; if I cannot but wifi to receive good, even as much at every mans hands, as any man can wijh unto his own foul, how Jhould I look to have any part of my defre herein fatisfed, unlefs myfelf be careful to fatify the like defre, which is undoubtedly i?i other men, being of one and the fame nature ? To have any thing offered them repugnant to this defre, mujl needs in all refpecls Of Civil-Government. 197 rejpecls grieve them as much as me -, fo that if I do harm, I muji look to fuffer, there being no reafon that others Jhould Jhew greater mea- fure of love to me, than they have by me /hewed unto them ; my defre therefore to be loved of my equals in nature, as much as pofjible may be, impofeth upon me a natural duty of bearing to t hem-ward fully the like affeBion ; from which relation of equality between ourfehes and them that are as ourfehes, what feveral rules and canons natural reafon hath drawn, for direction of life, no man is ignorant ■*■ Bccl. Pol. Lib. 1. §. 6. But though this be a fate of liberty, yet // is not a fate of licence : though man in that ftate have an uncontroulable liberty to difpofe of his perfon or porTeflions, yet he has not liberty to deftroy himfelf, or fo much as any creature in his porTeflion, but where fome nobler ufe than its bare prefervation calls for it. The fate of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one : and reafon, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but confult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or pofleffions : for men being all the workman- Ihip of one omnipotent, and infinitely wife maker ; all the fervants of one fovereign mafter, fent into the world by his order, and about his bulinefs; they are his property, whofe workmanfhip they are, made to laft O 3 during; 198 Of Civil-Government. during his, not one another's pleafure: and being furnifhed with like faculties, maring all in one community of nature, there cannot be fuppofed any fuch jub ordination among us, that may authorize us to deftroy one another, as if we were made for one another's ufes, as the inferior rafiks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preferve himfelf, and not to quit his flation wilfully, fo by the like reafon, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preferve the reft of mankind, and may not, unleis it be to do juftice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the prefervation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or*gcods of another. §. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be obferved, which willeth the peace and prefervation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that ftate, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punifh the tranfgrefTors of that law to fuch a degree, as may hinder its violation : for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were no body that in the ftate of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preferve the innocent and reftrain offenders. And if anyone in the ftate of na- ture may punifh another for any evil he has 4 done, Of Civil-Government. 199 done, every one may do fo : for m that Jlate of p erf eft equality, where naturally there is no fuperiority or jurifdiction of one over another, what any may do in profecution of that law, every one mull: needs have a right to do. §. 8. And thus, in the ilate of nature, one man comes by a power over a?iother ; but yet no abfolute or arbitrary power, to ufe a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the paffionate heats, or boundlefs extravagancy of his own will ; but only to retribute to him, fo far as calm reafon and confcience dictate, what is proportionate t© his tranfgreffion, which is fo much as may ferve for reparation and restraint : for thefe two are the only reafons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punifhrnent. In tranfgreffing the law of nature, the offender declares himfelf to live by another rule than that of reafon and common equity, which is that meafure God has fet to the actions of men, for their mutual fecurity j and fo he becomes dan- gerous to mankind, the tye, which is to fecure them from injury and violence, being flighted and broken by him. Which being a trefpafs againfl: the whole fpecies, and the peace and fafety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man Cipon this fcore, by the right he hath to preferve mankind in general, may reftrain, or where it is necef- O 4 fary,' 200 Of Civil-Government. fary, deftroy things noxious to them, and fo rnay bring fuch evil on any one, who hath tranfgreffed that law, as may make him re- pent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mifchief. And in this cafe, and upon this ground, every ?na?i hath a right to punifi the offender, and be executioner of the law of nature. §. 9. I doubt not but this will feem a very flrange doctrine to fome men : but before they condemn it, I defire them to refolve me, by what right any prince or ftate can put to death, or punifh an alien, for any crime he commits in their country. It is certain their laws, by virtue of any fanclion they receive from the promulgated will of the legiflative, reach not a ftranger : they fpeak not to him, nor, if they did, is he bound to hearken to them. The legiflative authority, by which they are in force over the fubjec~ts of that common-wealth, hath no power over him. Thofe who have the fupreme power of making laws in England, France or Holland, are to an Indian, but like the reft of the world, men without authority : and there- fore, if by the law of nature every man hath not a power to punifh offences againft it, as he foberly judges the cafe to require, I fee not how the magistrates of any com- munity can funijh an alien of another coun- try ; fince, in reference to him, they can have no Of Civil-Government. 201 no more power than what every man na- turally may have over another. §. 10. Beiides the crime which confifts in violating the law, and varying from the right rule of reafon, whereby a man fo far be- comes degenerate, and declares himfelf to quit the principles of human nature, and to be a noxious creature, there is commonly injury done to fome perfon or other, and fome other man receives damage by his tranfgrerlion : in which cafe he who hath received any damage, has, befides the right of punifhment common to him with other men, a particular right to feek reparation from him that has done it : and any other perfon, who finds it juft, may alfo join with him that is injured, and afTifl him in recovering from the offender fo much as may make fatisfaction for the harm he has fuffered. §. ii. From thefe two dijlindi rights, the one of ' punijhing the crime for reflraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punifhing is in every body ; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pafs that the ma- giftrate, who by being magiftrate hath the common right of punifhing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punifhment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the fa- tisfaction due to any private man for the damage 202 Of Civil-Government. damage he has received. That, he who has fuffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit : the damnified perfon has this power of ap- propriating to himfelf the goods or fervicc of the offender, by right of felf-prefervation, as ev^ery man has a power to punifh the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preferring all mankind, and doing all reafonable things he can in order to that end : and thus it is, that every man, in the ftate of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compenfate, by the example of the punifh- ment that attends it from every body, and alfo to fecure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reafon, the common rule and meafure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjuft violence and Haughter he hath committed upon one, de- clared war againft all mankind, and there- fore may be deftroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of thofe wild favage beafts, with whom men can have no fociety nor fecurity : and noon this is grounded that great law of na- ture, Wbofo jheddetb mans blood, by man fhall his blood be fed. And Cain was fo fully con- vinced, that every one had a right to deilroy fuch a criminal, that after the murder of his brother, he cries out, Every one thatfndeth me, Of Civil-Government. 203 me, jhall fiay ?ne\ fo plain was it writ in the hearts of all mankind. §. 12. By the fame reafon may a man in the Itate of nature punijh the leffer breaches of that law. It will perhaps be demanded, with death ? I anfwer, each tranfgreffion ma^' be punijhed to that degree, and with fo m>Bch feverity, as will fuffice to make it an ill bargain to the offender, give him caufe to repent, and terrify others from doing the like. Every offence, that can be committed in the ftate of nature, may in the ftate of nature be alfo puniftied equally, and as far forth as it may, in a common-wealth : for though it would be befides my prefent pur- pofe, to enter here into the particulars of the law of nature, or its meafures of puntjhment ; yet, it is certain there is fuch a law, and that too, as intelligible and plain to a rational creature, and a ftudier of that law, as the pofitive laws of common- wealths ; nay, pof- iibly plainer ; as much as reafon is eafier to be understood, than the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words ; for fo truly are a great part of the municipal laws' of coun- tries, which are only fo far right, as they are founded on the law of nature, by which they are to be regulated and interpreted. §.13. To this flrange doctrine, viz. That in the Ji ate of nature every one has the executive power of the law of nature, I doubt not but it will 204 ^F Civil-Government. will be objected, that it is unreafonable for men to be judges in their own cafes, that felf-lovc will make men partial to themfelves and their friends : and on the other fide, that ill na- ture, paflion and revenge will carry them too far in punifhing others ; and hence nothing but confufion and diforder will follow, and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to reftrain the partiality and violence of men. I eafily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the in- conveniencies of the (late of nature, which mull: certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own cafe, fince it is eafy to be imagined, that he who was fo unjuft as to do his brother an injury, will fcarce be fo juft as to condemn himfelf for it : but I (hall defire thofe who make this objection, to re- member, that abfolute monarch s are but men ; and if government is to be the remedy of thofe evils, which necefTarily follow from men's being judges in their own cafes, and the ftate of nature is therefore not to be endured, I defire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the ftate of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own cafe, and may do to all his fubjects whatever he pleafes, without the leaft liberty to any one to queftion or controul thofe who execute his pleafure ? and in what- foever he doth, whether led by reafon, miftake or paffion, mud be fubmitted to? much better it OF Clt'l L-G OVERNMEN T. 20£ it is in the ftate of nature, wherein men are not bound to fubmit to the unjuft will of ano- ther : and if he that judges, judges amifs in his own, or any other cafe, he is anfwerable for it to the reft of mankind. §. 14. It is often afked as a mighty ob- jection, where are, or ever were there any men in fuch a Jiate of nature f To which it may fuffice as an anfwer at prefent, that fince all princes and rulers of independent — governments all through the world, are in a ftate of nature, it is plain the world never was, nor ever will be, without numbers of men in that ftate. I have named all go- vernors of independent communities, whether they are, or are not, in league with others : for it is not every compact that puts an end to the ftate of nature between men, but only this one of agreeing together mutually to enter into one community, and make one body politic ; other promifes, and compacts, men may make one with another, and yet ftili be in the ftate of nature. The promifes .and bargains for truck, &c. between the two men in the defert ifland, mentioned by Gar- cilajfo de la Vega, in his hiftory of Peru ; or between a Swifs and an Indian, in the woods, of America, are binding to them, though they are perfectly in a ftate of nature, in reference to one another : for truth and keeping of faith belongs to men, as men, and not as members of fociety. §• *5- 206 Of Civil-Government. §. 15. To thofe that fay, there were never any men in the flate of nature, I will not only oppofe the authority of the judicious Hooker, Keel. Pol. lib. \. feci. 10. where he fays, 'The laws which have been hitherto men-' tioned, i. e. the laws of nature, do bind rrien abfolutely, even as they are 7nen, although they have never any fettled fellow/hip, never any folemn agreement amongjl them/elves what to do, or not to do: but forafmuch as we are not by ourfelves fufficie?it to furnijh ourfelves with competent ftore of things, needful for fuch a life as our nature doth defire, a life fit for the dignity of man ; therefore to fupply thofe defects and imperfections which are in us, as living fingle and folely by ourfelves, we are fiaturally induced to feek communio?i and fellowfhip with others : this was the caufe of?nens uniting them- f elves at firfl in politic focieties. But I more- over affirm, that all men are naturally in that flate, and remain fo, till by their own confents they make themfelves members of fome politic fociety -, and I doubt not in the fequel of this difcourfe, to make it very clear. CHAP. III. Of the State of War, §. 16. f"'g "^ H E flate of war is a ftate of enmity and deflruBion : and therefore declaring by word or adion, not Of Civil-Government, 207 a paffionate and hafty, but a fedate fettled defign upon another man's life, puts him in a fiate of war with him againft whom he has declared fuch an intention, and fo has expofed his life to the other's power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and efpoufes his quarrel; it being reafonable and juft, I mould have a right to deflroy that which threatens me with deftru&ion : for, by the fundamental law of naturet man being to be prrferi).ed as much as poffible, when all cannot be pre- ferred, the fafety of the innocent is to be preferred : and one may deflroy a man who makes war upon him, or has difcovered an enmity to his being, for the fame reafon that he may kill a wolf or a lion ; becaufe fuch men are not under the ties of the common- law of reafon, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and fo may be treated as beafts of prey, thofe dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be fure to deflroy him whenever he falls into their power. §.17. And hence it is, that he who at- tempts to get another man into his abfolute power, does thereby put himfelf into a fiate of war with him ; it being to be underftood as a declaration of a defign upon his life : for I have reafon to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my confent, would ufe me as he pleafed when he had got me there, and deflroy me too ' when 2o8 Of Civil-Government. when he had a fancy to it ; for no body can defire to have me in his abfolute power, unlefs it be to compel me by force to that which is againft the right of my freedom, i. e. make me a flave. To be free from fuch force is the only fecurky of my prefervation > and reafon bids me look on him, as an enemy to my prefervation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it ; fo that he who makes an attempt to enjlave me, thereby puts himfelf into a ftate of war with me. He that, in the ftate of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that ftate, muft neceffarily be fuppofed to have a defign to take away every thing elfe, that freedom being the foundation of all the reft ; as he that, in the ftate of fociety, would take away the freedom belonging to thofe of that fociety or common-wealth, muft he fuppofed to defign to take away from them every thing elfe, and fo be looked on as in a ftate of war* §. 1 8. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the leaft hurt him, nor declared any defign upon his life, any farther than, by the ufe of force, fo to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleafes, from him $ be- caufe ufing force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reafon to fuppofe, that he, who would take away my liberty > would not, Ar Of Ci vil-Gove rn Me nt. 209 not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing elfe. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himfelf into a Jiate of war with me, /. e. kill him if I can ; for to. that hazard does he juftly expofe himfelf, whoever introduces a ftate of war, and is aggreffor in it. §. 19. And here we have the plain dif- ference between the Jiate of nature a?id the fiate of war, which however fome men have confounded, are as far diftant, as a {late of peace, good will, mutual affiftance and pre- fervation, and a flate of enmity, malice, violence and mutual deftruction, are one from another. Men living together according to reafon, without a common fuperior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the fiate of nature. But force, or a declared deiign of force, upon the perfon of another, where there is no common fuperior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the Jiate of war : and it is the want of fuch an appeal gives a man the right of war even againft an aggrefjor, tho' he be in fociety and a fellow fubjedt. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having ftolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he fets on me to rob me but of my horfe or coat ; becaufe the law, which was made for my prefervation, where it cannot interpofe to fe- cure my life from prefent force, which, if loft, is capable of no reparation, permits me P my 210 Of Civil-Government. my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggreffor, becaufe the ag- grefTor allows not time to appeal to our com- mon judge, nor the decifion of the law, for remedy in a cafe where the mifchief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a ftate of nature : force without right, upon a man's perfon, makes a flate of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge. §. 20. But when the actual force is over, the Jlate of war ceafes between thofe that are in fociety, and are equally on both fides fubjected to the fair determination of the law '3 becaufe then there lies open the remedy of appeal for the paft injury, and to prevent future harm : but where no fuch appeal is, as in the flate of nature, for want of pofitive laws, and judges with authority to appeal to, the flate of war once begun, continues, with a right to the innocent party to deftroy the other whenever he can, until the aggreffor offers peace, and defires reconciliation on fuch terms as may repair any wrongs he has al- ready done, and Secure the innocent for the future ; nay, where an appeal to the law, and conftituted judges, lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifelt, perverting of juflice, and a barefaced wrefdng of the laws to pro- tect or indemnify the violence or injuries of fome men, or party df men, there it is hard to imagine any thing but a jlate of war: for Of Civil-Government. 211 for where-ever violence is ufed, and injury done, though by hands appointed to admi- nifter juftice, it is Hill violence and injury, however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to protect and redrefs the innocent, by an un- biased application of it, to all who are under it ; where-ever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the fufferers, who ftaving no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in fuch cafes, an appeal to heaven. §.21. To avoid this Jlate of war (wherein there is no appeal but to heaven, and wherein every the leaft difference is apt to end, where there is no authority to decide between the contenders) is one great reafon of men's putting themfelves into fociety, and quitting the date of nature : for where there is an authority, a power on earth, from which relief can be had by appeal, there the continuance of the jlate of war is excluded, and the controverfy is decided by that power. Had there been any fuch court, any fuperior jurifdiclion on earth, to determine the right between Jephtha and the Ammojiites, they had never come to a Jlate of war : but we fee he was forced to appeal to heaven. The Lord- the Judge (fays he) be judge this day between the children of Ifrael and the children of Amnion, J^g- **• 27. and then profecuting, and relying on his appeal, he leads out his army to battle : and P 2 therefore 212 Of Civil-Government. therefore in fuch controverfies, where the queftion is put, who Jhall be judge ? It cannot be meant, who (hall decide the controverfy; every one knows what fephtha here tells us, that the Lord the "Judge mall judge. Where there is no judge on earth, the appeal lies to God in heaven. That quefHon then can- not mean, who mall judge, whether another hath put himfelf in a jlate of war with me, and whether I may, as fephtha did, appeal to heaven in it ? of that I myfelf can only be judge in my own'confcience, as I will an- swer it, at the great day, to the fupreme judge of all men. CHAP. IV. Of SLAVERY. §.22. ' | ^ HE natural liberty of man is to L be free from any fuperior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legiflative authority of man, but to have only the law of nature for his rule. The liberty of man, in fociety, is to be under no other legiflative power, but that eftablimed, by confent, in the common-wealth ; nor under the dominion of any will, or reftraint of any law, but what that legiflative mail enact, according to the trufl: put in it. Freedom then is not what Sir Robert Filmer tells us, Obfervations, A. $$. a liberty for every one 4 t$ Of Civil-Government. 213 t@ do what be lifts, to live as be pleafes, and not to be tied by any laws : but freedom of men under government is, to have a ftanding rule to live by, common to every one of that fociety, and made by the legiflative power erected in it ; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prefcribes not ; and not to be fubjecl to the inconftant, un- certain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man : as freedom of nature is, to be under no other restraint but the law of nature. §. 23. This freedom from abfolute, arbi- trary power, is fo neceffary to, and clofely joined with a man's prefervation, that he cannot part with it, but by what forfeits his prefervation and life together : for a man, not having the power of his own life, cannot, by compact, or his own confent, en/lave bim- felf to any one, nor put himfelf under the abfolute, arbitrary power of another, to take away his life, when he pleafes. No body can give more power than he has himfelf -, and he that cannot take away his own life, cannot give another power over it. Indeed, having by his fault forfeited his own life, by fome acl: that deferves death j he, to whom he has forfeited it, may (when he has him in his power) delay to take it, and make ufe of him to his own fervice, and he does him no injury by it : for, whenever he finds the hardmip of his flavery outweigh the value of his life, it is in his power, by refilling the, P 3 will 214 O F C I V I L -G O V E R N M E N T . will of his mafter, to draw on himfelf the death he defires. §. 24. This is the perfect condition of ftanjery, which is nothing elfe, but the ft ate of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive : for, if once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one fide, and obedience on the other, the ft ate of war and ftavery ceafes, as long as the compact endures : for, as has been faid, no man can, by agreement, pafs over to another that which he hath not in himfelf, a power over his own life. I confefs, we find among the Jews, as- well as other nations, that men did fell themfelves 3 but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to ftavery : for, it is evident, the perfon fold was not under an abfolute, arbitrary, defpotical power : for the mafter could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was ob- liged to let go free out of his fervicej and the mafter of fuch a fervant was-fo far from having an arbitrary power over his life, that he could not, ^t pleafure, fo much as maim him, but the lofs of an eye, or tooth, fet him free, Exod. xxi. / CHAP. Of Civil-Government. 215 CHAP. V. Of PROPER? T. §. 25. \ T THether we confider natural rea- VV fon, which tells us, that men, being once born, have a right to their pre- fervation, and confequently to meat and drink, and fuch other things as nature af- fords for their fubflftence : or revelation* which gives us an account of thofe grants God made of the world to Adam, and to Noah, and his fons, it is very clear, that God, as king David fays, Pfal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men ; given it to mankind in common. But this being fuppofed, it feems to fome a very great dif- ficulty, how any one fhould ever come to have a property in any thing : I will not con- tent myfelf to anfwer, that if it be difficult to make out property, upon a fuppofition that God gave the world to Adamy and his po- jfterity in common, it is impoffible that any man, but one univerfal monarch, fhould have any property upon a fuppofition, that God gave the world to Ada?n, and his heirs in fucceffion, excluiive of all the reft of his po- fterity. But I (hall endeavour to (hew, how men might come to have a property in feveral parts of that which God gave to mankind in common, and that without any exprefs com- pact of all the commoners. P4 §.26.. 2"i6 Of Civil-Government. §. 26. God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath alfo given them reafon to make ufe of it to the beft advantage of life, and convenience. The earth, and all that is therein, is given to men for the fup- port and comfort of their being. And tho' ^ all the fruits it naturally produces, and fyeafts %/J ^QL~ it feeds, belong to mankind in common, as ) * they are produced by the fpontaneous hand of nature ; and no body has originally a private dominion, exclufive of the reft of mankind, in any of them, as they are thus in their natural ftate : yet being given for the ufe of men, there muft of necemty be a means to appropriate them fome way or other, before they can be of any ufe, or at all be- neficial to any particular man. The fruit, or venifon, which nourimes the wild Indian, who knows no inclofure, and is ftill a tenant in common, muft be his, and fo his, i. e. a part of him, that another can no longer have anv ri^ht to it, before it can do him any good for the fupport of his life. §. 27. Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own perfon : this no body has any right to but himfelf. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may fay, are properly his. Whatfoever then he removes out cf the ftate that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it fomething that Of Civil-Government. 217 that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. It being by him removed from the common ftate nature hath placed it in, it hath by this labour fomething annexed to it, that excludes the common right of other I men : for this labour being the unqueftionable property of the labourer, no man but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at leaft where there is enough, and as good, left in common for others. §. 28. He that is nourifhed by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated them to himfelf. No body can deny but the nourifhrnent is his. I afk then, when did they begin to be his ? when he digefled ? or when he eat ? or when he boiled ? or when he brought them home ? or when he picked their, up ? and it is plain, if the firft gathering made them not his, nothing elfe could. That labour put a di- ftinction between them and common : that added fomething to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done ; and fo they became his private right. And will any one fay, he had no right to thofe acorns or apples, he thus appropriated, becaufe he had not the confent of all maikind to make them his ? Was it a robbery tius to aflume to himfelf what belonged to all in common ? If fuch a confent as that was neceffary, man had flarved, notwithstanding the plenty God had 2i8 Of Civil-Government. had given him. We fee in commons, which remain fo by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the flate nature leaves it in, which begins the property j without which the com- mon is of no ufe. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the exprefs confent of all the commoners. Thus the grafs my horfe has bit ; the turfs my fervant has cut ; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property , without the aflignation or confent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common flate they were in, hath fixed my property in them. §. 29. By making in explicit confent of every commoner, neceffary to any one's ap- propriating to himfelf any part of what is given in common, children or fervants could not cut the meat, which their father or matter had provided for them in common, without affigning to every one his peculiar part. Though the water running in the fountain be every one's, yet who can doubt, but that in tbe pitcher is his only who drew it out ? His labour hath taken it out of the hands cf nature, where it was com- mon, and belonged equally to all her chil- dren, and hath thereby appropriated it to himfelf. §•3°- Of Civil-Government. 219 §. 30. Thus this law of reafon makes the deer that Indians who hath killed it ; it is allowed to be his goods, who hath beft'owed his labour upon it, though before it was the common right of every one. And amongfl thofe who are counted the civilized part of mankind, who have made and multiplied pofitive laws to determine property, this ori- ginal law of nature, for the beginning of pro- perty, in what was before common, itill takes place j and by virtue thereof, what flm any one catches in the ocean, that great and frill remaining common of mankind ; or what ambergrife any one takes up here, is by the labour that removes it out of that common itate nature left it in, made his property, who takes that pains about it. And even amongir, us, the hare that any one is hunting, is thought his who purfues her during the chafe : for being a bead that is ftill looked upon as common, and no man's private pofleilion ; whoever has employed fo much labour about any of that kind, as to find and purfue her, has thereby removed her from the ftate of nature, wherein me was common, and hath begun a property. §.31. It will perhaps be objected to this, that if gathering the acorns, or other fruits of the earth, &c, makes a right to them, then any one may ingrofs as much as he will- To which I anfwer, Not fo. The fame law of nature, that does by this means give us property, 220 Of Civil-Government. property, does alio bound that property too. God has given us all things richly, r Tim. vi. 12. is the voice of reafon confirmed by in- fpiration. But how far has he given it us ? *to enjoy. As much as any one can make ufe of to any advantage of life before it fpoils, fo much he may by his labour fix a property in : whatever is beyond this, is more than his mare, and belongs to others. Nothing was made by God for man to fpoil or de- stroy. And thus, confidering the plenty of natural provisions there was a long time in the world, and the few fpenders ; and to how frnall a part of that provision the induitry of one man could extend itfelf, and ingrofs it to the prejudice of others j efpecially keeping within the bounds, fet by reafon, of what might ferve for his ufe; there could be then little room for quarrels or contentions about property fo efcablifhed. §. 32. But the chief matter of property be- ing now not the fruits of the earth, and the beafl:s that fubfift on it, but the earth itfelf -, as that which takes in and carries with it all the reft -, I think it is plain, that property in that too is acquired as the former. As much land as a man tills, plants, improves, culti- vates, and can ufe the product of, fo much is his property. He by his labour does, as it were, inclofe it from the common. Nor will it invalidate his right, to fay every body elfe has aQ eaual title to it ; and therefore he cannot Of Civil-Government. 221 cannot appropriate, he cannot inclofe, with- out the confent of all his fellow -commoners, all mankind. God, when he gave the world in common to all mankind, commanded man alfo to labour, and the penury of his con- dition required it of him. God and his rea- fon commanded him to fubdue the earth, i. e. improve it for the benefit of life, and therein lay out fomething upon it that was his own, his labour. He that in obedience to this command of God, fubdued, tilled and fowed any part of it, thereby annexed to it fomething that was his property \ which another had no title to, nor could without injury take from him. §.33. Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by improving it, any pre- judice to any other man, fince there was ftill enough, and as good left ; and more than the yet unprovided could ufe. So that, in effect, there was never the lefs left for others becaufe of his inciofure ffer himfelf : for he that leaves as much as another can make ufe of, does as good as take nothing at all. No body could think himfelf injured by the drinking of another man, though he took a good draught, who had a whole river of the fame water left him to quench his thirfl : and the cafe of land and water, where there is enough of both, is perfectly the fame. §• 34- 222 Of Civil-Government. §. 34. God gave the world to men in common ; but fince he gave it them for their benefit, and the greater! conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be fuppcfed he meant it fhould al- ways remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the ufe of the induftrious and ra- tional, (and labour was to be his title to it;) not to the fancy or covetoufnefs of the quar- relfome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement, as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour : if he did, it is plain he defired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as good left, as that already pofTeiTed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his induflry could reach to. §. 25- K is true, in land that is common in "England^ or any other country, where there is plenty of people under government, who have money and commerce, no one can in- clofe or appropriate any part, without t confent of all his fellow-commoners ; becaufe this is left common by compact, *'. e. by the law of the land, which is not to be violated. And though it be common, in refpecl of feme men, it is not fo to all mankind; but is the joint property of this country, or this pariih - Of Civil-Government. 223 parifb. Befides, the remainder, after fuch inclofure, would not be as good to the reft of the commoners, as the whole was when they could all make ufe of the whole; v/hereas in the beginning and firft peopling of the great common of the world, it was quite otherwife. The law man was under, was rather for appropriating. God commanded, and his wants forced him to labour. That was his property which could not be taken from him where-ever he had fixed it. And hence fubduing or cultivating the earth, and having dominion, we fee are joined together. The one gave title to the other. So that God, by commanding to fubdue, gave au- thority fo far to appropriate : and the con- dition of human life, which requires labour and materials to work on, neceffarily intro- duces private pofTeflions. §. 36. The meajure of property nature has well let by the extent of men's labour and the conveniencies of life : no man's labour could fubdue, or appropriate all ; nor could his enjoyment confume more than a fmall part; fo that it was impoflible for any man, this way, to intrench upon the right of another, or acquire to himfelf a property, to the pre- judice of his neighbour, who would frill have room for as good, and as large a porTeffion (after the other had taken out his) as before it was appropriated. This meafure did confine every man's pojfeffion to a very moderate pro- > 5 portion, 224 Of Civil-Government. portion, and fuch as he might appropriate to himfelf, without injury to any body, in the firft ages of the world, when men were more in danger to be loft, by wandering from their company, in the then vaft wildernefs of the earth, than to be ftraitened for want of room to plant in. And the fame meafure may be allowed ftill without prejudice to any body, as full as the world ieems : for fup- pofing a man, or family, in the ftate they were at firft peopling of the world by the children of Adam, or Noah -, let him plant in fome in-land, vacant places of America, we fhall find that the pojfejjtons he could make himfelf, upon the meajures we have given, would not be very large, nor, even to this day, prejudice the reft of mankind, or give them reaibn to complain, or think them- felves injured by this man's incroachment, though the race of men have now fpread themfelves to all the corners of the world, and do infinitely exceed the fmall number was at the beginning. Nay, the extent of ground is of io little value, without labour, that I have heard it affirmed, that in Spain itfelf a man may be permitted to plough, ibw and reap, without being difturbed, upon land he has no other title to, but only his making ufe of it. But, on the contrary, the inhabitants think themfelves beholden to him, who, by his induftry on neglecled, and confequently wafte land, has increafed the ftock Of Cl VIL-GOVERNMENT. 22£ flock of corn, which they wanted. Bat be this as it will, which I lay no ftrefs on ; this I dare boldly affirm, that the fame rule of propriety, {viz.) that every man mould have as much as he could make-ufe of, would hold frill in the world, without flraitening any body; fince there is land enough in the world to fuffice double the inhabitants, had not the invention of money, and the tacit agree- ment of men to put a value on it, introduced (by confent) larger polTemons, and a right to them ; which, how it has done, I (hail by and by fhew more at large. §. 37. This is certain, that in the begin- ning, before the defire of having more than man needed had altered the intrinfic value of things, which depends only on their ufe- fulnefs to the life of man ; or had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would keep without wafting or decay, mould be worth a great piece of flefh, or a whole heap of corn ; though men had a right to appro- priate, by their labour, each one to himfelf, as much of the things of nature, as he could ufe : yet this could not be much, nor to the prejudice of others, where the fame plenty was flill left to thofe who would ufe the fame induftry. To which let me add, that he who appropriates land to himfelf by his labour, does not lelTen, but increafe the com- mon frock of mankind : for the provifions ferving to the fupport of human life, pro- Q^ duced 226 Of Civil-Government. duced by one acre of inclofed and culti- vated land, are (to fpeak much within com- pafs) ten times more than thofe which are yielded by an acre of land of an equal rich- nefs lying wafte in common. And therefore he that inclofes land, and has a greater plenty of the conveniencies of life from ten acres, than he could have from an hundred left to nature, may truly be faid to give ninety acres to mankind : for his labour now fup- plies him with provifions out of ten acres, which were but the product of an hundred lying in common. I have here rated the improved land very low, in making its pro- duct but as ten to one, when it is much nearer an hundred to one : for I afk, whether in the wild woods and uncultivated wafte of America, left to nature, without any improve- ment, tillage or hufbandry, a thoufand acres yield the needy and wretched inhabitants as many conveniencies of life, as ten acres of equally fertile land do in Devcnfljire, where they are well cultivated ? Before the appropriation of land, he who gathered as much of the wild fruit, killed, caught, or tamed, as many of the beafts, as he could -, he that fo imployed his pains about any of the fpontaneous products of nature, as any way to alter them from the ftate which nature put them in, by placing any of his labour on them, did thereby ac- quire a propriety in them : but if they perifhed, in Of CiviL'OovEKivMtNT, 227 in his poffeiiion, without their due ufe ; if the fruits rotted, or the venifon putriiied, before he could fpend it, he offended againfl the common law of n;.:ure, and was liable to be punimed ; he invaded his neighbour's fhare, for he had no right, farther than his z/fe called for any of them, and they might ferve to afford him conveniencies of life. §.38. The fame meafures governed the pofjefjion of land too : whatfeever he tilled and reaped, laid up and made ufe of, before it fpoiled, that was his peculiar right ; what- foever he enclofed, and could feed, and make ufe of, the cattle and product was alfo his. But if either the grafs of his inclofure rotted on the ground, or the fruit of his planting perifhed without gathering, and laying up, this part of the earth, notwithftanding his inclofure, was ftill to be looked on as wafte, and might be the poffeffion of any other. Thus, at the beginning, Cain might take as much ground as he could till, and make it his own land, and yet leave enough to Abel's fheep to feed on ; a few acres would ferve for both their poffefTions. But as fa- milies increafed, and induftry inlarged their flocks, their pojfej/ions inlarged with the need of them -, but yet it was commonly without any fixed property in the ground they made ufe of, till they incorporated, fettled them- felves together, and built cities ,• and then, by confent, they came in time, to fet out ' Qj2 the 228 Of Civil-Government. the bounds of their dijiincl territories, and agree on limits between them and their neigh- bours j and by laws within themfelves, fet- tled the properties of thofe of the fame fo- ciety : for we fee, that in that part of the world which was firft inhabited, and there- fore like to be beft peopled, even as low down as Abraham's time, they wandered with their flocks, and their herds, which was their fubftance, freely up and down ; and this Abraham did, in a country where he was a Granger. "Whence it is plain, that at leaft a great part of the land lay in common ; that the inhabitants valued it not, nor claimed property in any more than they made ufe of. But when there was not room enough in the fame place, for their herds to feed together, they by confent, as Abraham and Lot did, Gen. xiii. 5. feparated and inlarged their pafture, where it bell liked them. And for the fame reafon Efau went from his father, and his brother, and planted in mount Seir, Gen. xxxvi. 6. §. 39. And thus, without fuppofing any private dominion, and property in Adam, over all the world, exclufive of all other men, which can no v/ay be proved, nor any one's property be made out from it ; but fuppofing the 'world given, as it was, to the children of men in common, we fee how labour could make men diftinct titles to feveral parcels of it, for their Of Civil-Government. 229 their private ufes ; wherein there could be no doubt of right, no room for quarrel. §. 40. Nor is it fo ftrange, as perhaps before confideration it may appear, that the property of labour mould be able to over- balance the community of land : for it is labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thing ; and let any one conlider what the difference is between an acre of land planted with tobacco or fugar, fown with wheat or barley, and an acre of the fame land lying in common, without any huf- bandry upon it, and he will find, that the improvement of labour makes the far greater part of the value. I think it will be but a very modeft computation to fay, that of the produces of the earth ufeful to the life of man nine tenths are the effects of labour : nay, if we will rightly eftimate things as they come to our ufe, and caft up the feveral expences about them, what in them is purely owing to nature, and what to labour, we (hall find, that in moil of them ninety-nine hundredths are wholly to be put on the account of labour, §. 41. There cannot be a clearer demon- ftration of any thing, than feveral nations of the Americans are of this, who are rich in land, and poor in all the comforts of life ; whom nature having furnifhed as liberally as any other people, with the materials of plenty, z. e. a fruitful foil, apt to produce in abundance, what might , 0^,3 ' ferve 230 Of Civil-Government. ferve for food, raiment, and delight; yet for want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part of the conveniencies we en- joy : and a king of a large and fruitful ter- ritory there, feeds, lodges, and is clad worfe than a day-labourer in England. §. 42. To make this a little clearer, let us but trace fome of the ordinary provilions of life, through their feveral progrerTes, before they come to our ufe, and fee how much they receive of their value from human indujiry,. Bread, wine and cloth, are things of daily ufe, and great plenty -, yet notwithftanding, acorns, water and leaves, or fkins, muit be our bread, drink and cioathing, did not la- bour furnifh us with thefe more ufeful com- modities : for whatever bread is more worth than acorns, wine than water, and cloth or flk, than leaves, fkins or mofs, that is wholly owing to, labour and indujiry -, the one of thefe being the food and raiment which unafiifted nature furnifhes us with -, the other, provilions which our induftry and pains pre- pare for us, which how much they exceed the other in value, when any one hath com* p«ted, he will then fee how much labour makes the far greatejl part of the value of things we enjoy in this world : and the ground which produces the materials, is fcarce to be reckoned in, as any, or at moft, but a very fmall part of it ; fo little, that even amongft us, land that is left wholly to nature^ Of Civil-Government. 231 nature, that hath no improvement of paftu- rage, tillage, or planting, is called, as indeed it is, wajie ; and we (hall find the benefit of it amount to little more than nothing. This mews how much numbers of men are to be preferred to largehefs of dominions; and that the increafe of lands, and the right employing of them, is the great art of govern- ment : and that prince, who (hail be fo wife and godlike, as by eftabliihed laws of liberty to fecure protection and encouragement to the honeft induftry of mankind, againft the oppreflion of power and narrownefs of party, will quickly be too hard for his neighbours : but this by the by. To return to the argu- ment in hand, §. 43. An acre of land, that bears here twenty bumels of wheat, and another in America, which, with the fame husbandry, would do the like, are, without doubt, of the fame natural intrinfic value : but yet the benefit mankind receives from the one in a year, is worth 5 /. and from the other pofiibly not worth a penny, if all the profit an Indian received from it were to be valued, and fold here ; at lead, I may truly fay, not one thoufandth. It is labour then which puts the great efi part of value upon land, without which it would fcarcely be worth any thing : it is to that we owe the greatefl part of ail its uieful products • for all that the draw, bran, bread, of that acre of wheat, is more Q^j. worth 232 Of Civil-Government. worth than the product of an acre of as good land, which lies wafte, is all the effect of labour : for it is not barely the plough-man's pains, the reaper's and threfher's toil, and the baker's fweat, is to be counted into the bread we eat ; the labour of thofe who broke the oxen, who digged and wrought the iron and ftones, who felled and framed the timber employed about the plough, mill, oven, or any other utenfils, which are a van: number, requifite to this corn, from its being feed to be fown to its being made bread, mult all be charged on the account of labour, and re- ceived as an effect of that : nature and the earth furnifhed only the almoft worthlefs materials, as in themfelves. It would be a flrange catalogue of things ', that induftry pro- 'vided and made nfe of, about every loaf of bread, before it came to our ufe, if we could trace them ; iron, wood, leather, bark, timber, ilone, bricks, coals, lime, cloth, dying drugs, pitch, tar, malls, ropes, and all the materials made ufe of in the fhip, that brought any of the commodities made ufe of by any of the workmen, to any part of the work ; all which it would be almoft impofiible, at leaft too long, to reckon up. §. 44. From all which it is evident, that though the things of nature are given in common, yet man, by being mailer of him- felf, and proprietor of his own perfon, and the &c~lions or labour of it, had fill tn himfelf the great Of Civil-Government. 233 great foundation of property ; and that, which made up the great part of what he applied to the fupport or comfort of his being, when invention and arts had improved the conve- niences of life, was perfectly his own, and did not belong in common to others. §. 45. Thus labourt in the beginning, gave a right of property, wherever any one was pleafed to employ it upon what was com- mon, which remained a long while the far greater part, and is yet more than mankind makes ufe of. Men, at firft, for the mod part, contented themfelves with what un- affifted nature offered to their neceilities : and though afterwards, in fome parts of the world, (where the increafe of people and flock, with the ufe of mo?iey, had made land fcarce, and fo of fome value) the feveral communities fettled the bounds of their diftinct territories, and by laws within themfelves regulated the properties of the private men of their fociety, and fo, by co?npat~l and agreement, fettled the property which labour and induftry began ; and the leagues that have been made between feveral ftates and kingdoms, either exprefly or tacitly difowning all claim and right to the land in the others porTeffion, have, by common confent, given up their pretences to their natural common right, which originally they had to thofe countries, and fo have, by po/itive agreement, fettled a property amongft themfelves, in diftinct; parts and parcels of the earth ; yet there are rtill ' great ' 234 Of Civil-Government. great tracts of ground to be found, which (the inhabitants thereof not having joined with the red of mankind, in the confent of the ufe of their common money) lie wafte, and are more than the people who dwell on it do, or can make ufe of, and fo ftill lie in common j tho' this can fcarce happen amongft that part of mankind that have confented to the ufe of money. §. 46. The greatell: part of things really iifeful to the life of man, and fuch as the neceffity of fubfifting made the firfl com- moners of the world look after, as it doth the Americans now, are generally things of jhort duration ; fuch as, if they are not con- fumed by ufe, will decay and perifh of them- felves : gold, filver and diamonds, are things that fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real ufe, and the necelfary fupport of life. Now of thofe good things which nature hath provided in common, every one had a right (as hath been faid) to as much as he could ufe, and property in all that he could erTecl: with his labour ; all that his indujlry could extend to, to alter from the ftate nature had put it in, was his. He that gathered a hundred bufhels of acorns or ap- ples, had thereby a property in them, they were his goods as foon as gathered. He was only to look, that he ufed them before they fpoiled, elfe he took more than his fhare, and robbed others. And indeed it was a foolilh thing, as well as difhoneft, to hoard up more l than Of Civil-Government. 235 than he could make ufe of. If he gave away a part to any body elfe, fo that it perifhed not ufelefly in his poffefTion, thefe he alfo made ufe of. And if he alfo bartered away plums, that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would lafl good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury ; he wailed not the common flock ; deflroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, fo long as nothing perifhed ufelefly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleafed with its co- lour; or exchange his fheep for fhells, or wool for a fparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep thofe by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of thefe durable things as he pleafed; the exceeding of the bounds cfh'is juft property not lying in the largenefs of his poMeilion, but the perifbing of any thing ufelefly in it. §.47. And thus came in the ufe of mo?iey9 fome lafling thing that men might keep witn- out fpoiling, and that by mutual confent men would take in exchange for the truly ufefu!, but perifhable fupports of life. §.48. And as different degrees of induflry were apt to give men pofTeffions in different proportions, fo this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and en- large them : for fuppoiing an ifland, feparate from all pofhble commerce with the reft of the world, wherein there were but an hun- dred families, but there were fheep, horfes and 236 Of Civil-Government. 2nd cows, with other ufeful animals, whol- fome fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred thoufand times as many, but no- thing in the itland, either becaufe of its com- monnefs, or perifhablenefs, fit to fupply the place of money ; what reafon could any one have there to enlarge his poiTeffions beyond the ufe of his family, and a plentiful fupply to its conjumption, either in what their own induftry produced, or they could barter for like perimable, ufeful commodities, with others ? Where there is not fome thing, both lafting and fcarce, and fo valuable to be hoarded up, there men will be apt to enlarge their pojj'ejjions of land, were it never fo rich, never fo free for them to take : for I afk, what would a man value ten thoufand, or an. hundred thoufand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated, and well flocked too with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of com- merce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the fale of the product. ? It would not be worth the inclofing, and we fhould fee him give up again to the wild common of nature, whatever was more than would fupply the conveniencies of life to be had there for him and his family. ^, 49. Thus in the beginning all the world was America, and more fo than that is now ; for no fuch thing as money was any where known. Find out fomething that hath the Of Civil-Government. 237 ufe and value of money amongft his neighbours, you (hall fee the fame man will begin pre- iently to enlarge his poffeflions. §. 50. But lince gold and filver, being little ufeful to the life of man in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the confent of men, whereof labour yet makes, in great part, the meafure, it is plain, that men have agreed to a difpro- portionate and unequal poffejjion of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary con- fent, found out a way how a man may fairly poflefs more land than he himfelf can ufe the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and filver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one; thefe metals not fpoiling or decaying in the hands of the poffefTor. This partage of things in an inequality of private poifeffions, men have made practicable out of the bounds of fociety, and without compact, only by put- ting a value on gold and filver, and tacitly agreeing in the ufe of money : for in go- vernments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the pofTeflion of land is deter- mined by pofitive conftitutions. §. 51. And thus, I think, it is very eafy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at firfi begin a title of property in the common things of nature, and how the fpend- ing it upon our ufes bounded it. So that there could then be no reafon of quarrelling about 238 Of Civil-Government. about title, nor any doubt about the large- neis of poilcflion it gave. Right and con- veniency went together -, for as a man had a right to ali he could employ his labour upon, ib he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make ufe of. This left no room for con troverfy about the title, nor for incroach- ment on the right of others ; what portion a man carved to himfelf, was eafily feen ; and it was ufelefs, as well as difhoneft, to carve himfelf too much, or take more than he needed. CHAP. VI. Of Paternal Power. §. 52. T T may perhaps be cenfured as an JL impertinent criticifm, in a difcourfe of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world : and yet poffibly it may not be amifs to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into miftakes, as this of paternal power pro- bably has done, which feems fo to place the power of parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no (hare in it ; whereas, if we confult reafon or reve- lation, we fhall find, {he hath an equal title. This may give one reafon to afk, whether this might not be more properly called pa- rental power ? for whatever obligation nature arid Of Civil-Government. 239 and the right of generation lays on children, it mull certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent caufes of it. And accordingly . we fee the politive law of God every where joins them together, without di{lin6tion>wheii it commands the obedience of children, Ho- nour thy father and thy mother, Excd. xx. 12. Whofoever curfeth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9. Te fiall fear every man his mother and bis father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents, Sec. Eph. vi. 1. is the flile of the Old and New Teftament. §. 53. Had but this one thing been well confidered, without looking any deeper into the matter, it might perhaps have kept men. from running into thofe grofs miftakes, they have made, about this power of parents ; which, however it might, without any great harfhnefs, bear the name of abfolute domi- nion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it feemed appropriated to the father, would yet have founded but oddly, and in the very name (hewn the ab- furdity, if this fuppofed abfolute power over children had been called parental; and thereby have difcovered, that it belonged to the mo- Jj. ty ther too : for it will but very ill ferve the turn of thofe men, who contend fo much for the abfolute power and authority of the father- hood, as they call it, that the mother mould have any mare in it ; and it would have but ill fupported the monarchy they contend for, when ' 24^ Of Civil-Government. when by the very name it appeared, that that fundamental authority, from whence they would derive their government of a fingle per foil only, was not placed in one, but two perfons jointly. But to let this of names pafs. §. 54. Though I have faid above, Chap. IL 'That all men by nature are equal, I cannot be fuppofed to underfland all forts of equality : age or virtue may give men a juft precedency : excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level : birth may fubject fome, and alliance or benefits others, to pay an obfervance to thofe to whom nature, gra- titude, or other refpec~ts, may have made it due : and yet all this confifts with the equa- lity, which all men are in, in refpect of jurifdiction or dominion one over another ; which was the equcHty I there fpoke of, as proper to the bufinefs in hand, being that equal right, that every man hath, to his natural freedom, without being fubjec~ted to the will or authority of any other man. §. 55. Children, I confefs, are not born in this full ftate of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a fort of rule and jurifdiclion over them, when they come into the world, and for fome time after ; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this fubjeclion are like the fwaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and fupported by, in the weaknefs of their infancy : age and reafon Of Civil-Government. 241 reafon as they grow up, loofen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free difpofal. §. 56. Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full poffeffion of their ftrength and reafon, and fo was capable, from the fir/l inffant of his being to provide for his own fupport and prefervation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reafon which God had im- planted in him. From him the world is peopled with his defendants, who are all born infants, weak and helplefs, without knowledge or underftanding : but to fupply the defects of this imperfect ftate, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preferve, ?iourifo, and educate the children they had begotten ; not as their own workmanfhip, but the workmanfhip of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them. §. 5j> The law, that was to govern Adam, was the fame that was to govern all his polterity, the law of reafon. But his off- spring having another way of entrance into the world, different from him, by 'tf natural birth, that produced them ignorant and without the ufe of reafon, they were not prefently under that law ; for no body can be under a law, which is not promulgated x R t© 242 Of Civil-Government. to him ; and this law being promulgated or made known by reafon only, he that is not come to the ufe of his reafon, cannot be faid to be wider this law ; and Adams children, being not prefently as foon as born under this law of reafon, were not prefently free : for law, in its true notion, is not fo much the limitation as the direction of a free and in~ tellige?it agent to his proper intereft, and pre- fcribes no farther than is for the general good of thofe under that law : could they be hap- pier without it, the law, as an ufelefs thing, would of itfelf vanifh ; and that ill deferves the name of confinement which hedges us in only from bogs and precipices. 9o that, however it may be miftaken, the e?id of law is not to abolifh or reftrain, but to pnferve and enlarge freedom : for in all the ftates of created beings capable of laws, where there is no law, there is no freedom : for liberty is, to be free from reftrain t and violence from others ; which cannot be, where there is no law : but freedom is not, as we are told, a liberty for every man to do what he lifts : (for who could be free, when every other man's humour might domineer over him ?) but a liberty to difpofe, and order as he lifts, his perfon, actions, pofieffions, and his whole property, within the allowance of thofe laws under which he is, and therein not to be fubject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own. §•58- Of Civil-Government. 243 §.58. The power, then, that parents have over their children, arifes from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their off-fpring, during the imperfect ftate of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non- age, till reafon mail take its place, and eafe them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to : for God having given man an underflanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly be- longing thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilft, he is in an eftate, wherein he has not under/landing of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow : he that im- derjlands for him, mud will for him too; he muft prefcribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the eftate that made his father a freeman, the fon is a freejnan too. §. 59. This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature ? What made him free of that law ? what gave him a free difpofing of his property, according to his own will, within the compafs of that law ? I anfwer, a ftate of maturity wherein he might be fup- pofed capable to know that law, that {0 he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that ftate, he is R 2 prefumed 244 Op Civil-Government. prefumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make ufe of his freedom, and fo comes to have it -3 till then, fome body elfe mud guide him, who is prefumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If fuch a flate of reafon, fuch an age of difcretion made him free ', the fame mall make his fon free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law ? that is, to have the liberty to difpofe of his actions and polTeflions ac- cording to his own will, within the permiflion of that law ? A capacity of knowing that law -y which is fuppofed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in fome cafes fooner. If this made the father free, it (hall make the fon free too. Till then we fee the law allows the fon to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to underfrand for him. And if the father die, and fail to fub- flitute a deputy in his truft ; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his fon, during his minority, during his want of undemand- ing, the law takes care to do it ; fome other mufl: govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a Jiate of freedom, and his undemanding be fit to take the govern- ment of his will. But after that, the father and fon are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage ; equally fubjects of the fame law together, without any dominion left Of Civil-Government. 245 eft in the father over the life, liberty, or eftate of his fori, whether they be only in the ftate and under the law of nature, or under the pofitive laws of an eftablifhed government. §. 60. But if, through defects that may happen out of the ordinary courfe of nature* any one comes not to fuch a degree of rea- fon, wherein Jie might be fuppofed capable of knowing the law, and fo living within the rules of it, he is never capable of being a free man, he is never let loofe to the difpofure of his own will (becaufe he knows no bounds to it, has not understanding, its proper guide) but is continued under the tuition and go- vernment of others, all the time his own underftanding is uncapable of that charge. And fo lunatics and ideots are never fet free from the government of their parents ; chil- dren, who are not as yet come unto thofe years whereat they may have ; and innocents which are excluded by a natural defect from ever having; thirdly, madmen, which for the pre- fent cannot poj/ibly have the ufe of right reafon to guide tbemfelves, have for their guide, the reafon that guideth other men which are tutors over them, to feek and procure their good for them, fays Hooker, Eccl. Pol. lib. i. feci. 7. All which feems no more than that duty, which God and nature has laid on man, as well as other creatures, to preferve their ofF- fpring, till they can be able to £hift for them- R 3 felves, 246 Of Civil-Government. felves, and will fcarce amount to an inftance or proof of parents regal authority. §. 6 1 . Thus we are born free, as we are born rational ; not that we have actually the exercife of either : age, that brings one, brings with it the other too. And thus we fee how natural freedom and fub) eel ion to parents may confift together, and are both founded on the fame principle. A child is free by his fa- ther's title, by his father's understanding, which is to govern him till he hath it of his own. The freedom of a man at years of difcretion, and the fubjeclion of a child to his pareiits, whilft yet fhort of that age, are fo confifcent, and fo diftinguimable, that the moft blinded contenders for monarchy, by right of fatherhood, cannot mifs this difference-, the moll obflinate cannot but allow their confiftency : for were their doctrine all true, were the right heir of Adam now known, and by that title fettled a monarch in his throne, inverted with all the abfolute unli- mited power Sir Robert Filmer talks of; if he fhould die as foon as his heir were born, muft not the child, notwithstanding he were never fo free, never fo much fovereign, be in fubje&ion to his mother and nurfe, to tutors and governors, till age and education brought him reafon and ability to govern himielf and others ? 'The neceiiities of his life, the health of his body, and the infor- mation of his mind, would require him to be directed Of Civil-Government. 247 directed by the will of others, and not his own ; and yet will any one think, that this reftraint and fubjeclion were inconiiftent with, or fpoiled him of that liberty or fovereignty he had a right to, or gave away his empire to thofe who had the -government of his nonage ? This government over him only prepared him the better and fooner for it. If any body fhould afk me, when my fon is of age to be free? I mall anfwer, jull when his monarch is of age to govern. , But at what time, fays the judicious Hooker, Eccl. Pol. 1. i. feci. 6. a man may be /aid to have attained fo far forth the ufe of reafon, as fuf- ficeth to make him capable of thofe laws whereby he is then bound to guide his actions : this is a great deal ?nore eafy for fenfe to difcem, than for any one by fkill and learning to determine. §. 62. Common-wealths themfelves take notice of, and allow, that there is a time when men are to begin to ac~l like free men, and therefore till that time require not oaths of fealty, or allegiance, or other public owning of, or fubmiffion to the government of their countries. §. 63. The freedom then of man, and li- berty of acting according to his own will, is grounded on his having reafon, which is able to innruct him in that law he is to Severn himfelf by, and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will. To turn him loofe to an unreftrained liberty, R 4 before 248 Of Civil-Government. before he has reafon to guide him, is not the allowing him the privilege of his nature to, be free ; but to thruft him out amongft brutes, and abandon him to a ftate as wretched, and as much beneath that of a man, as their's. This is that which puts the authority into the parents hands to govern the minority of their children. God hath made it their bufmefs to employ this care on their ofF- fpring, and hath placed in them fuitable inclinations of tendernefs and concern to temper this power, to apply it, as his wifdom defigned it, to the children's good, as long as they mould need to be under if. §. 64. But what reafon can hence advance this care of the parents due to their off-fpring into an abfolute arbitrary dominion of the fa- ther, whole power reaches no farther, than by fuch a discipline, as he rinds mod: ef- fectual, to give fuch ftrength and health to their bodies, fuch vigour and rectitude to their minds, as may heft fit his children to be moft ufeful to themfelves and others; and, if it be necefTary to his condition, to make them work, when they are able, for their swn fubfiitence. But in this power the mother too has her mare with the father. §. 65. Nay, this power lb little belongs to the father by any peculiar right of nature, but only as he is guardian of his children, that when he quits his care of ihem, he lofes his power over them, which goes along with their Of Civil-Government. 249 their nourishment and education, to which it is inieparably annexed ; and it belongs as much to the fofier-father of an expofed child, as to the natural father of another. So little power does the bare ac~l of begetting give a man over his iflue ; if all his care ends there, and this be all the title he hath to the name and authority of a father. And what will become of this paternal power in that part of the world, where one woman hath more than one hufband at a time ? or in thofe parts of America, where, when the hulband and wife part, which happens frequently, the children are all left to the mother, follow her, and are wholly under her care and proviiion ? If the father die whilfl the children are young, do they not naturally every where owe the fame obedience to their mother, during their minority, as to their father were he alive? and will any one fay, that the mother hath a legiflative power over her children ? that fhe can make (binding rules, which mall be of perpetual obligation, by which they ought to regulate all the concerns of their property, and bound their liberty all the courfe of their lives ? or can me inforce the obfervation of them with capital punimments ? for this is the proper power of the magi/Irate, of which the father hath not fo much as the Shadow. His command over his children is but tem- porary, and reaches not their life or pro- perty : it is but a help to the weaknefs and imperfection 250 Of Civil-Government. imperfection of their nonage, a difeiplinc neceflary to their education : and though a father may difpofe of his own porTeffions as he pleafes, when his children are out of danger of perifhing for want, yet his power extends not to the lives or goods, which either their own induflry, or another's bounty has made their's ; nor to their liberty neither, when they are once arrived to the infranchife- ment of the years of difcretion. The father s empire then ceafes, and he can from thence forwards no more difpofe of the liberty of his fon, than that of any other man : and it muft be far from an abiolute or perpetual jurif- diction, from which a man may withdraw himfelf, having licence from divine autho- rity to leave father and mother, and cleave to his wife. §. 66. But though there be a time when a child comes to be as free horn fubjeclion to the will and command of his father, as the father himfelf is free from fubjection to the will of any body clfc, and they are each under no other reftraint, but that which is common to them both, whether it be the law of nature, or municipal law of their coun- try; yet this freedom exempts not a fon from that honour which he ought, by the law of God and nature, to pay his parents. God having made the parents instruments in his great defign of continuing the race of man- kind, and the occafions of life to their chil- dren -, Of Civil-Government. 251 dren ; as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourifh, preferve, and bring up their off- spring ; lb he has laid on the children a per- petual obligation of honouring their parents, which containing in it an inward efteem and reverence to be Shewn by all outward ex- preiiions, ties up the child from any thing that may ever injure or affront, difturb or endanger, the happinefs or life of thole from whom he received his ; and engages him in all actions of defence, relief, afliftance and comfort of thofe, by whofe