31.To consider the whole paragraph (with its appendage)together,something,it may be seen our Author struggles to over throw,and something to establish.
But how it is he would overthrow,or what it is he would establish,are questions I must confess myself unable to resolve.`The preservation of mankind',he observes,`was effected by single families.'This is what upon the authority of the Holy Scriptures,he assumes;and from this it is that he would have us conclude the notion of an original contract (the same notion which he afterwards adopts)to be ridiculous.The force of this conclusion,I must own,I do not see.Mankind was preserved by single families Be it so.What is there in this to hinder `individuals'of those families,or of families descended from those families,from meeting together `afterwards,in a large plain',or any where else,`entering into an original contract',or any other contract,`and choosing the tallest man',or any other man,`present',or absent,to be their Governor?The `flat contradiction'our Author finds between this supposed transaction and the `preservation of mankind by single families',is what I must own myself unable to discover.
As to the `actually existing unconnected state of nature'he speaks of,`the notion of which',he says,`is too wild to be seriously admitted',whether this be the case with it,is what,as he has given us no notion of it at all,I cannot judge of.
32.Something positive,however,in one place,we seem to have.These `single families,'by which the preservation of mankind was effected;these single families,he gives us to understand,`formed the first society.'