Lapas attēli

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 attentive 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 authority, p. 12 and 13. Absolute "lordship and dominion of life and death, p. 13. "universal 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 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 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 A. says, in this 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 show 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 men, 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. But 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.

§. 14. But that I might omit no care to inform myself in our author's full sense, I consulted his "Obser"vations 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 propa"gated: if also God gave to Adam not only the do"minion 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 donation, assignation, or permission from him, "I wonder, &c." Obs. 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 crea"tion 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.





Of Adam's title to sovereignty by creation.

§. 15. SIR Robert, in his preface to his Observations tells us, "A natural

on Aristotle's "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 omnipotency, 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 A. 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 A. 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 A. 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 himn monarch.

[ocr errors]


§. 16. But let us see how he puts his creation and this appointment together. By the appointment of "God," says sir Robert, "as soon as Adam was created, "he was monarch of the world, though he had no sub

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

jects; for though there could not be actual govern"ment till there were subjects, yet by the right of na"ture it was due to Adam to be governor of his pos terity: 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 A. here confesses. Monarch of the world is also differently used by our A. for sometimes he means by it a proprietor of all the world, exslusive 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 subdue it, and having dominion given him "over all creatures, was thereby the monarch of the "whole world; none of his posterity had any right to possess any thing but by his grant or permission, or by


"by succession 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 falshoods. 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 A. 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" ар

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

pointed 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 man"kind, for by right of nature it was due to Adam to



« iepriekšējāTurpināt »