66

"dren had their distinct territories by right of private dominion," Observations, 210, p. 40.) he makes it perpetually a doubt upon his principles where the sovereignty is, or to whom we owe our obedience, since fatherhood and property are distinct titles, and began presently upon Adam's death to be in distinct persons. And which then was to give way to the other?

§. 76. Let us take the account of it, as he himself gives it us. He tells us out of Grotius, that "Adam's children by donation, assignation, 66 or some kind of cession before he was dead, had "their distinct territories by right of private "dominion; Abel had his flocks and pastures, "for them: Cain had his fields for corn, and the "land of Nod, where he built him a city," Observations, 210. Here it is obvious to demand, which of these two after Adam's death was sovereign? Cain, says our author, p. 19. By what title? "As heir; for heirs to progenitors, who were natural parents of their people, "are not only lords of their own children, but "also of their brethren," says our author, p. 19. What was Cain heir to? Not the entire possessions, not all that which Adam had private dominion in; for our author allows that Abel by a title derived from his father, had his distinct territory for pasture by right of private dominion. What then Abel had by private dominion, was exempt from Cain's dominion: for he could not have private dominion over that which was under the private dominion of another; and

www

therefore his sovereignty over his brother is gone with this private dominion, and so there are presently two sovereigns, and his imaginary title of fatherhood is out of doors, and Cain is no prince over his brother: or else, if Cain retain his sovereignty over Abel, notwithstanding his private dominion, it will follow, that the first grounds and principles of government have nothing to do with property, whatever our author says to the contrary. It is true, Abel did not outlive his father Adam; but that makes nothing to the argument, which will hold good against Sir Robert in Abel's issue, or in Seth, or any of the posterity of Adam, not descended from Cain.

§. 77. The same inconvenience he runs into about the three sons of Noah, who, as he says, p. 13. "had the whole world divided amongst "them by their father." I ask then, in which of the three shall we find the establishment of regal power after Noah's death? If in all three, as our author there seems to say; 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 so there is an end of paternal power as the fountain of regal authority, and the so-muchmagnified fatherhood quite vanishes. If the regal power descended to Shem as eldest, and heir to his father, then Noah's division of the world by lot, to his sons, or his ten years sailing about the Mediterranean, to appoint each son

his part, which our author tells of, p. 15. was labour lost; his division of the world to them, was to ill, or to no purpose: for his grant to Cham and Japhet was little worth, if Shem, notwithstanding this grant, as soon as Noah was dead, was to be lord over them. Or, if this grant of private dominion to them, over their assigned territories, were good, here were set up two distinct sorts of power, not subordinate one to the other, with all those inconveniences which he musters up against the power of the people, Observations, 158. which I shall set down in his own words, only changing property for people. "All power on earth is either "derived or usurped from the fatherly power, "there being no other original to be found of any power whatsoever for if there should be "granted two sorts of power, without any su"bordination of one to the other, they would be "in perpetual strife which should be supreme, for "two supremes cannot agree: if the fatherly power be supreme, then the power grounded on private dominion must be subordinate, and depend on it; and if the power grounded on property be supreme, then the fatherly power "must submit to it, and cannot be exercised "without the licence of the proprietors, which "must quite destroy the frame and course of na"ture." This is his own arguing against two distinct independent powers, which I have set down in his own words, only putting power rising from property, for power of the people; and when he has

66

66

66

66

answered what he himself has urged here against two distinct powers, we shall be better able to see how, with any tolerable sense, he can derive all regal authority from the natural and private dominion of Adam, from fatherhood and property together, which are distinct titles, that do not always meet in the same person; and it is plain, by his own confession, presently separated as soon, both as Adam's and Noah's death made way for succession: though our author frequently in his writings jumbles them together, and omits not, to make use of either, where he thinks it will sound best to his purpose. But the absurdities of this will more fully appear in the next chapter, where we shall examine the ways of conveyance of the sovereignty of Adam, to princes that were to reign after him.

CHAPTER VIII.

1

Of the Conveyance of Adam's Sovereign Monarchical Power.

§. 78. Sir Robert, not having been very happy in any proof he brings for the sovereignty of Adam, is not much more fortunate in conveying it to future princes, who, if his politics be true, must all derive their titles from that first monarch. The ways he has assigned, as they lie scattered up and down in. his writings, I will set down in his own words: in his preface he tells us, That " Adam, being

"monarch of the whole world, none of his poste"rity had any right to possess any thing, but by "his grant or permission, or by succession from "him." Here he makes two ways of conveyance of any thing Adam stood possessed of; and those are grants or succession. Again he says, "All kings either are, or are to be reputed, the "next heirs to those first progenitors, who were "at first the natural parents of the whole people.' p. 19. "There cannot be any multitude of men "whatsoever, but that in it, considered by itself, "there is one man amongst them, that in nature "hath a right to be the king of all the rest, as

being the next heir to Adam," Observations, 253. Here in these places inheritance is the only way he allows of conveying monarchical power to princes. In other places he tells us, Observations, 155. "All power on earth is either de"rived or usurped from the fatherly power." Observations, 158. "All kings that now are, "or ever were, are or were either fathers of their "people, or heirs of such fathers, or usurpers of "the right of such fathers," Observations, 253. And here he makes inheritance or usurpation the only way whereby kings come by this original, power: but yet he tells us, he tells us, "This fatherly em"pire, as it was of itself hereditary, so it was "alienable by patent and seizable by an usurper," Observations, 190. So then here inheritance, grant, or usurpation, will convey it. And last of all, which is most admirable, he tells us, p. 100. "It skills not which way kings come by their