to do what is neither for their own, nor the good of those under their care; whereby great

mischiefs cannot but follow.

§. 11. The sovereignty of Adam, being that on which, as a sure basis, our author builds his mighty absolute monarchy, I expected, that in his Patriarcha, this his main supposition would have been proved, and established with all that evidence of arguments, that such a fundamental tenet required; and that this, on which the great stress of the business depends, would have been made out with reasons sufficient to justify the confidence with which it was assumed. But in all that treatise, I could find very little tending that way; the thing is there so taken for granted, without proof, that I could scarce believe myself, when, upon attentively reading that treatise, I found there so mighty a structure raised upon the bare supposition of this foundation for it is scarce credible, that in a discourse, where he pretends to confute the erroneous principle of man's natural freedom, he should do it by a bare supposition of Adam's authority, without offering any proof for that authority. Indeed he confidently says, that "Adam had royal autho

66

rity," p. 12 and 13; " absolute lordship and "dominion of life and death," p. 13; "an uni"versal monarchy," p. 33; "absolute power of "life and death," p. 35. He is very frequent in such assertions; but, what is strange, in all his whole Patriarcha I find not one pretence of

a reason to establish this his great foundation of government; not any thing that looks like an argument, but these words: "To confirm this "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, as if all power were ori

ginally in the father." And why may I not add as well, that in the Decalogue, the law that enjoins obedience to queens, is delivered in the terms of Honour thy mother, as if all power were originally in the mother? The 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 says in his first, or any of the following chapters, to prove the absolute power of Adam, which is his great principle: and yet, as if he had there settled it upon sure demonstration, he begins his second chapter with these words, "By conferring these proofs "and reasons, drawn from the authority of the "scripture." Where those proofs and reasons for Adam's sovereignty are, bating that of Honour thy father, above mentioned, I confess, I cannot find; unless what he says, p. 11, " In these "words we have an evident confession," viz. “ of "Bellarmine, that creation made man prince of "his posterity," must be taken for proofs and reasons drawn from scripture, or for any sort of proof at all: though from thence by a new way of inference, in the words immediately

following, he concludes, the royal authority of Adam sufficiently settled in him.

§. 13. If he has in that chapter, or any where in the whole treatise, given any other proofs of Adam's royal authority, other than by often repeating it, which among some men, goes for argument, I desire any body for him to shew me the place and page, that I may be convinced of my mistake, and acknowledge my oversight. If no such arguments are to be found, I beseech those mcn, who have so much cried up this book, to consider, whether they do not give the world cause to suspect, that it is not the force of reason and argument, that makes them for absolute monarchy, but some other by interest, and therefore are resolved to applaud any author, that writes in favour of this doctrine, whether he support it with reason or no. I hope they do not expect, that rational and indifferent men should be brought over to their opinion, because this their great doctor of it, in a discourse made on purpose, to set up the absolute monarchical power of Adam, in opposition to the natural freedom of mankind, has said so little to prove it, from whence it is rather naturally to be concluded, that there is little to be said.

But

§. 14. But that I might omit no care to inform myself in our author's full sense, I consulted his Observations on Aristotle, Hobbes, &c. to see whether in disputing with others he made use of any arguments for this his darling tenet

of Adam's sovereignty; since in his treatise of the Natural power of Kings, he hath been so sparing of them. In his Observations on Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, I think he has put, in short, all those arguments for it together, which in his writings I find him any where to make use of: his words are these: "If God created "only Adam, and of a piece of him made the woman, and if by generation from them two, "as parts of them, all mankind be propagated: "if also God gave to Adam, not only the domi"nion over the woman and the children that "should issue from them, but also over all the "earth to subdue it, and over all the creatures "on it, so that as long as Adam lived, no man "could claim or enjoy any thing but by dona

tion, assignation or permission from him, I "wonder," &c. Observations, p, 165. Here we have the sum of all his arguments, for Adam's sovereignty, and against natural freedom, which I find up and down in his other treatises: and they are these following; 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 shall particularly consider.

CHAPTER III.

Of Adam's Title to Sovereignty by Creation.

§. 15. Sir Robert, in his preface to his Observations on Aristotle's Politics, tells us, "A

"natural freedom of mankind cannot be supposed "without the denial of the creation of Adam :" but how Adam's being created, which was nothing but his receiving a being immediately from omnipotence and the hand of God, gave Adam a sovereignty over any thing, I cannot see, nor consequently understand, how a supposition of natural freedom is a denial of Adam's creation, and would be glad any body else (since our author did not vouchsafe us the favour) would make it out for him: for I find no difficulty to suppose the freedom of mankind, though I have always believed the creation of Adam. He was created, or began to exist by God's immediate power, without the intervention of parents or the pre-existence of any of the same species to beget him, when it pleased God he should; and so did the lion, the king of beasts, before him, by the same 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 ancienter. No! for Adam had his title by the appointment of God, says our author in another place. Then bare creation gave him not dominion, and one might have supposed mankind free without the denying the creation of Adam, since it was God's appointment made him monarch.

§. 16. But let us see, how he puts his crea