By the

tion and this appointment together. appointment of God," says Sir Robert, "as soon "as Adam was created, he was monarch of the "world, though he had no subjects; for though "there could not be actual government till there "were subjects, yet by the right of nature it was "due to Adam to be governor of his posterity:

cr

though not in act, yet at least in habit, Adam

was a king from his creation." I wish he had told us here, what he meant by God's appointment for whatsoever Providence orders, or the law of nature directs, or positive revelation declares, may be said to be by God's appointment but I suppose it cannot be meant here in the first sense, i. e. by Providence; because that would be to say no more, but that as soon as Adam was created he was de facto monarch, because by right of nature it was due to Adam, to be governor of his posterity. But he could not de facto be by Providence constituted the governor of the world, at a time when there was actually no government, no subjects to be governed, which our author here confesses. Monarch of the world is also differently used by our author; for sometimes he means by it a proprietor of all the world exclusive of the rest of mankind, and thus he does in the same page of his preface before cited: "Adam," says he, "being commanded to multiply and people the earth, and to subdue it, and having "dominion given him over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the whole world; none

C

"of his posterity had any right to possess any thing but by his grant or permission, or by suc"cession from him." 2. Let us understand then by monarch proprietor of the world, and by appointment God's actual donation, and revealed positive grant made to Adam, Gen. i. 28. as we see Sir Robert himself does in this parallel place, and then his argument will stand thus: by the positive grant of God, as soon as Adam was created, he was proprietor of the world, because by the right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity. In which way of arguing there are two manifest falsehoods. First, It is false, that God made that grant to Adam, as soon as he was created, since, though it stands in the text immediately after his creation, yet it is plain it could not be spoken to Adam, till after Eve was made and brought to him: and how then could he be monarch by appointment as soon as created, especially since he calls, if I mistake not, that which God says to Eve, Gen. iii. 16, the original grant of government, which not being till after the fall, when Adam was somewhat, at least in time, and very much distant in condition, from his creation, I cannot see, how our author can say in this sense, that by God's appointment, as soon as Adam was created, he was monarch of the world. Secondly, were it true that God's actual donation appointed Adam monarch of the world as soon as he was created, yet the reason here given for it, would not prove

it; but it would always be a false inference, that God, by a positive donation, appointed Adam monarch of the world, because by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity: for having given him the right of government by nature, there was no need of a positive donation; at least it will never be a proof of such a donation.

§. 17. On the other side the matter will not be much mended, if we understand by God's appointment the law of nature, (though it be a pretty harsh expression for it in this place) and by monarch of the world, sovereign ruler of mankind for then the sentence under consideration must run thus: By the law of nature, as soon as Adam was created he was governor of mankind, for by right of nature it was due to Adam to be governor of his posterity; which amounts to this, he was governor by right of nature, because he was governor by right of nature: but supposing we should grant, that a man is by nature governor of his children, Adam could not hereby be a monarch as soon 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, unless he will have him to be a father before he was a father, and to have a title before he had it.

§. 18. To this foreseen objection, our author

answers very logically, he was governor in habit, and not in act; a very pretty way of being a governor without government, a father without children, and a king without subjects. And thus Sir Robert was an author before he writ his book; not in act, it is true, but in habit; for when he had once published 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 such a monarch of the world, an absolute monarch in habit, but not in act, will serve the turn, I should not much envy it to any of Sir Robert's friends, that he thought fit graciously to bestow it upon, though even this of act and habit, if it signified any thing but our author's skil in distinctions, be not to his purpose in this place. For the question is not here about Adam's actual exercise of government, but actually having a title to be governor. Government, says our author, was due to Adam by the right of nature what is this right of nature? fathers have over their children by begetting them; generatione jus acquiritur parentibus in liberos, says our author out of Grotius, Observations, 223. The right then follows the begetting as arising from it; so that, according to this way of reasoning or distinguishing of our author, Adam, as soon as he was created, had a title only in habit, and not in act, which in plain English is, he had actually no title at all.

A right

§. 19. To speak less learnedly, and more intelligibly, one may say of Adam, he was in a possibility of being governor, since it was possible he might beget children, and thereby acquire that right of nature, be it what it will, to govern them, that accrues from thence: but what connexion has this with Adam's creation, to make him say, that, as soon as he was created, he was monarch of the world? for it may be as well said of Noah, that as soon as he was born, he was monarch of the world, since he was in possibility (which in our author's sense is enough to make a monarch, a monarch in habit,) to outlive all mankind, but his own posterity. What such necessary connexion there is betwixt Adam's creation and his right to government, so that a natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the creation of Adam, I confess for my part I do not see; nor how those words, by the appointment, &c. Observations, 254. however explained, can be put together, to make any tolerable sense, at least to establish this position, with which they end, viz. Adam was a king from his creation; a king, says our author, not in act but in habit, i. e. actually no king at all.

§. 20. I fear I have tired my reader's patience, by dwelling longer on this passage, than the weightiness of any argument in it seems to require; but I have unavoidably been engaged in it by our author's way of writing,