Sometimes fathers indefinitely, O. 155. Sometimes the posterity of Adam, 244, 246. Sometimes prime fathers, all sons or grandchildren of Noah, O. 244. Sometimes the eldest parents, p. 12. Sometimes all kings, p. 19. Sometimes all that have supreme power, O. 245. Sometimes heirs to those first progenitors, who were at first the natural parents of the whole people, p. 19. Sometimes an elective king, p. 23. Sometimes those, whether a few or a multitude, that govern the commonwealth, p. 23. Sometimes he that can catch it, an usurper, p. 23. O. 155. §. 72. Thus this new nothing, that is to carry with it all power, authority, and government; this fatherhood, which is to design the person, and establish the throne of monarchs, whom the people are to obey; may, according to sir Robert, come into any hands, any how, and so by his politics give to democracy royal authority, and make an usurper a lawful prince. And if it will do all these fine feats, much good do our author and all his followers with their omnipotent fatherhood, which can serve for nothing but to unsettle and destroy all the lawful governments in the world, and to establish in their room disorder, tyranny, and usurpation. CHAPTER VII. Of fatherhood and property considered together as foun tains of sovereignty. §. 75. Adam's monarchy was, in our author's opiIN N the foregoing chapters we have seen what nion, and upon what titles he founded it. The foun dations dations which he lays the chief stress on, as those from which he thinks he may best derive monarchical power to future princes, are two, viz. "fatherhood and pro"perty:" and therefore the way he proposes to "re"move the absurdities and inconveniencies of the doc"trine of natural freedom, is, to maintain the natural "and private dominion of Adam," O. 222. Conformable hereunto, he tells us, the "grounds and prin"ciples of government necessarily depend upon the "original of property, O. 108. The subjection of chil"dren to their parents is the fountain of all regal au"thority, p. 12. And all power on earth is either de"rived or usurped from the fatherly power, there be"ing no other original to be found of any power what"" soever," O. 158. I will not stand here to examine how it can be said without a contradiction, that the "first grounds and principles of government necessa"rily depend upon the original of property," and yet, "that there is no other original of any power what soever but that of the father:" it being hard to understand how there can be "no other original but fa"therhood," and yet that the "grounds and princi"ples of government depend upon the original of pro perty;" property and fatherhood being as far different as lord of a manor and father of children. Nor do I see how they will either of them agree with what our author says, O. 244, of God's sentence against Eve, Gen. iii. 16, "that it is the original grant of govern"ment:" so that if that were the original, government had not its original, by our author's own confession, either from property or fatherhood; and this text, which he brings as a proof of Adam's power over Eve, necessarily contradicts what he says of the fatherhood, that it is the sole fountain of all power:" for if Adam had any such regal power over Eve as our author contends for, it must be by some other title than that of begetting. §. 74. But I leave him to reconcile these contradictions, as well as many others, which may plentifully be found in him by any one, who will but read him with a little a little attention; and shall come now to consider, how these two originals of government, "Adam's natural "and private dominion," will consist and serve to make out and establish the titles of succeeding monarchs, who, as our author obliges them, must all derive their power from these fountains. Let us then suppose Adam made, by God's donation," lord and sole proprietor of the whole earth, in as large and ample a manner as sir Robert could wish; let us suppose him also, "by right of "fatherhood," absolute ruler over his children with an unlimited supremacy; I ask then, upon Adam's death, what becomes of both his natural and private dominion? and I doubt not it will be answered, that they descended to his next heir, as our author tells us in several places. But this way, it is plain, cannot possibly convey both his natural and private dominion to the same person for should we allow that all the property, all the estate of the father, ought to descend to the eldest son, (which will need some proof to establish it) and so he has by that title all the private dominion of the father, yet the father's natural dominion, the paternal power, cannot descend to him by inheritance: for it being a right that accrues to a man only by begetting, no man can have this natural dominion over any one he does not beget; unless it can be supposed, that a man can have a right to any thing, without doing that upon which that right is solely founded: for if a father by begetting, and no other title, has natural dominion over his children, he that does not beget them cannot have this natural dominion over them; and therefore be it true or false, that our author says, O. 156. That "every : man that is born, by his very birth, becomes a sub"ject to him that begets him," this necessarily follows, viz. That a man by his birth cannot become a subject to his brother, who did not beget him; unless it can be supposed that a man by the very same title can come to be under the "natural and absolute dominion" of two different men at once; or it be sense to say, that a man by birth is under the natural dominion of his father, only because he begat him, and a man by birth also is under under the natural dominion of his eldest brother, though he did not beget him. §. 75. If then the private dominion of Adam, i. e. his property in the creatures, descended at his death all entirely to his eldest son, his heir; (for, if it did not, there is presently an end of all sir Robert's monarchy) and his natural dominion, the dominion a father has over his children by begetting them, belonged, immediately upon Adam's decease, equally to all his sons who had children, by the same title their father had it, the sovereignty founded upon property, and the sovereignty founded upon fatherhood, come to be divided; since Cain, as heir, had that of property alone; Seth, and the other sons, that of fatherhood equally with him. This is the best can be made of our author's doctrine, and of the two titles of sovereignty he sets up in Adam: one of them will either signify nothing; or, if they both must stand, they can serve only to confound the rights of princes, and disorder government in his posterity: for by building upon two titles to dominion, which cannot descend together, and which he allows may be separated, (for he yields that "Adam's children had their distinct territories by right of private dominion,' O. 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, or some kind of "cession before he was dead, had their distinct territo"ries by right of private dominion; Abel had his "flocks, and pastures for them: Cain had his fields for 66 corn, and the land of Nod, where he built him a "city," O. 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 "their people, are not only lords of their own chil"dren, but also of their brethren," says our author, p. 19. What was Cain heir to? Not the entire posses→ sions, 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 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. 66 §. 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 fa"ther." I ask then, in which of the three we shall 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 much magnified fatherhood quite vanishes. If the regal power descended to Shem as eldest, and heir to his father, then "Noah's division of the "world by lot to his 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, |