in Seth, or any of the posterity of Adam

from Cain.

77. The same inconvenience he mus three sons of Noah," who, as he says 7. world divided amongst them by their in which of the three shall we find " regal power" after Noah's death? : author there seems to say, then it is founded in property of land an ion," and not in "paternal powe and so there is an end of of regal authority, and the sc quite vanishes. If the "reg eldest and heir to his fathe world by lot to his sons -Mediterranean to appoint author tells of (p. 2c) world to them was to Iz: Cham and Japhet was this grant, as soon as them. Or, if this

their assigned tem distinct sorts of with all those

power

of the seme

in his own w "All power fatherly po of any po

two sors IEP

the othe

be supem for wo power De

hath a right next heir to tance" is the al power to er derived or All kings that thers of their rs of the right "inheritance" s come by this rly empire, as it by patent and den here inheriand, last of all, +), "It skills not ether by election, s, for it is still the power that makes s of obtaining their ver to all his whole n's royal authority as were to derive theirs ; of speaking so much and inheritance, if to ds no more but "governatters not by what means

author may make Oliver as e he could think of, and had der Massanelio's government, rule have forborne to have done King, live for ever!" since the nt by supreme power made him as, but the day before, properly a on Quixote had taught his squire to authority, our author, no doubt, could loyal subject in Sancho Pancha's island, ave deserved some preferment in such ince I think he is the first politician who, O settle government upon its true basis, and to he thrones of lawful princes, ever told the world

66

66

66

that he was "properly a king whose manner of government was by supreme power by what means soever he obtained it," which, in plain English, is to say that regal and supreme power is properly and truly his who can, by any means, seize upon it, and if this be to be "properly a king," I wonder how he came to think of, or where he will find, an "usurper." 80. This is so strange a doctrine, that the surprise of it hath made me pass by, without their due reflection, the contradictions he runs into by making sometimes “inheritance” alone, sometimes only "grant" or "inheritance," sometimes "inheritance" or only 'usurpation," sometimes all these three, and, at last, election" or any other means" added to them, the ways whereby Adam's royal "authority," that is, his right to supreme rule, could be conveyed down to future kings and governors, so as to give them a title to the obedience and subjection of the people; but these contradictions lie so open, that the very reading of our author's own words will discover them to any ordinary understanding, and though what I have quoted out of him, with abundance more of the same strain and coherence which might be found in him, might well excuse me from any further trouble in this argument, yet having proposed to myself to examine the main parts of his doctrine, I shall a little more particularly consider how "inheritance," "grant," "usurpation," or election" can any way make out government in the world upon his principles or derive any lawful title to any one's obedience from this regal authority of Adam, had it been never so well proved that he had been absolute monarch and lord of the whole world.

66

CHAPTER IX.

Of Monarchy by Inheritance from Adam.

81. THOUGH it be never so plain that there ought to be government in the world; nay, should all men be of our author's mind that Divine appointment had ordained it to be "monarchical," yet, since men cannot obey any thing that cannot command, and ideas of government in the fancy, though never so perfect, never so right, cannot give laws nor prescribe rules to the actions of men, it would be of no behoof for the settling of order and establishment of government in its exercise and use amongst men, unless there were a way also taught how to know the person to whom it belonged to have this power, and exercise this dominion over others. It is in vain, then, to talk of subjection and obedience without telling us whom we are to obey; for were I never so fully persuaded that there ought to be magistracy and rule in the world, yet I am nevertheless at liberty still, till it appears who is the person that hath right to my obedience; since if there be no marks to know him by, and distinguish him that hath right to rule from other men, it may be myself as well as any other; and, therefore, though submission to government be every one's duty, yet since that signifies nothing but submitting to the direction and laws of such men as have authority to command, it is not enough to make a man a subject to convince him that there is "regal power" in the world, but there must be ways of designing, and knowing the person to whom this "regal power" of right belongs; and a man can never be obliged in conscience to submit to any power, unless he can be satisfied who is the person who has a right to exercise that power over him. If this were not so, there would be no distinction between pirates and lawful princes; he that has force is without any more ado to be obeyed, and crowns and sceptres would become the inheritance only of violence and rapine; men, too, might as often and as innocently change their governors as they do their

physicians, if the person cannot be known who has a right to direct me, and whose prescriptions I am bound to follow. To settle, therefore, men's consciences under an obligation to obedience, it is necessary that they know not only that there is a power somewhere in the world, but the person who, by right, is vested with this power over them.

82. How successful our author has been in his attempts to set up a "monarchical absolute power" in Adam, the reader may judge by what has been already said, but were that "absolute monarchy" as clear as our author would desire it, as I presume it is the contrary, yet it could be of no use to the government of mankind now in the world, unless he also make out these two things:

Firstly, that this "power of Adam" was not to end with him, but was upon his decease conveyed entire to some other person, and so on to posterity.

Secondly, that the princes and rulers now on earth are possessed of this "power of Adam," by a right way of conveyance derived to them.

83. If the first of these fail, the "power of Adam," were it never so great, never so certain, will signify nothing to the present government and societies in the world; but we must seek out some other original of power for the government of polities than this of Adam, or else there will be none at all in the world. If the latter fail, it will destroy the authority of the present governors, and absolve the people from subjection to them, since they having no better a claim than others to that power, which is alone the fountain of all authority, can have no title to rule over them.

84. Our author having fancied an absolute sovereignty in Adam, mentions several ways of its conveyance to princes that were to be his successors, but that which he chiefly insists on is that of "inheritance," which occurs so often in his several discourses, and I having in the foregoing chapter quoted several of these passages, I shall not need here again to repeat them. This sovereignty he erects, as had been said, upon a double foundation-viz., that of "property" and that of "fatherhood;" one was the right he was supposed to have in all creatures-a right to possess the earth, with the beasts, and other inferior ranks of things, in it, for his private use, exclusive of all other men; the other was the

right he was supposed to have to rule and govern men, all the rest of mankind.

85. In both these rights, there being supposed an exclusion of all other men, it must be upon some reason peculiar to Adam that they must both be founded.

That of his "property," our author supposes, to arise from God's immediate "donation" (Gen. i. 28), and that of "fatherhood" from the act of "begetting." Now in all inheritance, if the heir succeed not to the reason upon which his father's right was founded, he cannot succeed to the right which followed from it; for example: Adam had a right of property in the creatures upon the "donation" and "grant" of God Almighty, who was Lord and Proprietor of them all; let this be so as our author tells us; yet, upon his death, his heir can have no title to them, no such right of" property" in them, unless the same reason-viz., God's "donation"-vested a right in the heir too; for if Adam could have had no property in, nor use of, the creatures without this positive "donation" from God, and this "donation" were only personally to Adam, his "heir" could have no right by it, but upon his death it must revert to God the Lord and Owner again; for positive grants give no title farther than the express words convey it, and by which only it is held, and thus if, as our author himself contends, that "donation" (Gen. i. 28) were made only to Adam personally, his heir could not succeed to his property in the creatures, and if it were a donation to any but Adam, let it be shown that it was to his heir in our author's sense-i.e., to one of his children exclusive of all the rest.

86. But not to follow our author too far out of the way, the plain of the case is this: God having made man, and planted in him, as in all other animals, a strong desire of self-preservation, and furnished the world with things fit for food and raiment and other necessaries of life, subservient to His design that man should live and abide for some time upon the face of the earth, and not that so curious and wonderful a piece of workmanship by its own negligence or want of necessaries should perish again presently, after a few moments' continuance-God, I say, having made man and the world, thus spoke to him-that is, directed him by his senses and reason (as He did the inferior animals