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. An 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 enjoyns 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 enjoyns obedience to queens, is delivered in the terms of Honour thy mother, as if all power were originally in the mother? Theargument,
