Page images
PDF
EPUB

as gave him "sovereign" jurisdiction over mankind; so like wise his sovereignty built upon either of these titles, if he had any such, could not have descended to his heir, but must have ended with him. Adam, therefore, as has been proved, being neither monarch, nor his imaginary monarchy hereditable, the power which is now in the world is not that which was Adam's; since all that Adam could have, upon our author's grounds, either of "property" or 'fatherhood," necessarily died with him, and could not be conveyed to posterity by inheritance. In the next place we will consider whether Adam had any such heir to inherit his power as our author talks of.

CHAPTER X.

Of the Heir to Monarchical Power of Adam.

104. OUR author tells us (O., 253), "That it is a truth undeniable that there cannot be any multitude of men whatsoever, either great or small, though gathered together from the several corners and remotest regions of the world, but that in the same multitude, considered by itself, there is one man amongst them that in Nature hath a right to be king of all the rest, as being the next heir to Adam and all the other subject to him ; every man by nature is a king or a subject." And again (p. 20), "If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die, it is certain that there is one man, and but one in the world, who is next heir." Let this "multitude of men" be if our author pleases, all the princes upon the earth, there will then be, by our author's rule, one amongst them that in nature hath a right to be king of all the rest, as being the right heir to Adam." An excellent way to establish the titles of princes, and settle the obedience of their subjects, by setting up an hundred or perhaps a thousand titles, if

[ocr errors]

there be so many princes in the world, against any king now reigning, upon our author's grounds, as good as his Own. If this right of "heir" carry any weight with it, if it be the "ordinance of God" as our author seems to tell us (O., 244), must not all be subject to it, from the highest to the lowest ? Can those who wear the name of princes, without having the right of being "heirs to Adam,” demand obedience from their subjects by this title, and not be bound to pay it by the same law? Either governments in the world are not to be claimed and held by this title of Adam's heir, and then the starting of it is to no purpose, the being or not being Adam's heir signifies nothing as to the title of dominion, or if it really be, as our author says, the true title to government and sovereignty, the first thing to be done is to find out this true heir of Adam, seat him in his throne, and then all the kings and princes of the world come and resign up their crowns and sceptres to him, as things that belong no more to them than to any of their subjects.

105. For either this right in nature of Adam's heir to be king over all the race of men (for altogether they make one "multitude") is a right not necessary to the making of a lawful king, and so there may be lawful kings without it, and then kings, titles, and power depend not on it; or else all the kings in the world but one are not lawful kings, and so have no right to obedience; either this title of heir to Adam is that whereby kings hold their crowns and have a right to subjection from their subjects, and then one only can have it, and the rest, being subjects, can require no obedience from other men, who are but their fellow-subjects, or else it is not the title whereby kings rule and have a right to obedience from their subjects, and then kings are kings without it. And this dream of the natural sovereingty of Adam's heir is of no use to obedience and government; for if kings have a right to dominion and the obedience of their subjects who are not, nor can possibly be, heirs to Adam, what use is there of such a title when we are obliged to obey without it? If they have not, we are discharged of our obedience to them, for he that has no right to command, I am under no obligation to obey; and we are all free till our author, or anybody for him, will show us Adam's right heir. If there be but one heir of Adam, there can be but one lawful king in the world, and nobody

in conscience can be obliged to obedience till it be resolved who that is, for it may be any one who is not known to be of a younger house, and all others have equal titles. If there be more than one heir of Adam, every one is his heir, and so every one has regal power; for if two sons can be heirs together, then all the sons are equally heirs, and so all are heirs, being all sons, or sons' sons of Adam ; betwixt these two the right of heir cannot stand, for by it either but one only man, or all men are kings, and, take which you please, it dissolves the bonds of government and obedience, since if all men are heirs, they can owe obedience to nobody; if only one, nobody can be obliged to pay obedience to him till he be known and his title made out.

CHAPTER XI.

Who Heir?

106. THE great question which, in all ages, has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those mischiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and disordered the peace of the world, has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who ✯ should have it. The settling of this, therefore, being of no smaller moment than the security of princes, and the peace and welfare of their estates and kingdoms, a writer of politics, one would think, should take great care in settling this' point, and be very clear in it; for if this remain disputable, all the rest will be to very little purpose. And by dressing up power with all the splendour and temptation absoluteness can add to it, without showing who has a right to have it, is only to give a greater edge to man's natural ambition, which, of itself, is but too apt to be intemperate, and to set men on the more eagerly to scramble, and so lay a sure and

lasting foundation of endless contention and disorder, instead of that peace and tranquillity, which is the business of government and the end of human society.

107. This our author is more than ordinarily obliged to do, because he affirming that "the assignment of civil power is by Divine institution," hath made the conveyance, as well as the power itself, sacred; so that no power, no consideration, can divert it from that person to whom, by this Divine right, it is assigned; no necessity or contrivance can substitute another person in his room. For if "the assignment of civil power be by Divine institution," and Adam's "heir," he to whom it is thus "assigned"-as we see in the foregoing chapter—our author tells us it would be as much sacrilege for any one to be king who was not Adam's heir, as it would have been amongst the Jews for any one to have been "priest" who had not been of Aaron's posterity; for "not only" the priesthood "in general being by Divine institution, but the assignment of it" to the sole line and posterity of Aaron made it impossible to be enjoyed or exercised by any one but those persons who are the offspring of Aaron, whose succession therefore was carefully observed, and by that the persons who had a right to the priesthood certainly known.

66

108. Let us see, then, what care our author has taken to make us know who is this "heir," who, "by Divine institution, has a right to be king over all men. "The first account of him we meet with is (p. 12) in these words :-“ This subjection of children, being the fountain of all regal authority, by the ordination of God himself, it follows that civil power, not only in general, is by Divine institution, but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest parents." Matters of such consequence as this is should be in plain words, as little liable as might be to doubt or equivocation; and I think, if language be capable of expressing anything distinctly and clearly that of kindred, and the several degrees of nearness of blood, is one. It were, therefore, to be wished that our author had used a little more intelligible expressions here, that we might have better known who it is to whom "the assignment of civil power" is made by "Divine institution," or at least would have told us what he meant by "eldest parent;" for, I believe, if land had been assigned or granted to him, and the "eldest parents" of his family, he would

have thought it had needed an interpreter, and it would scarce have been known to whom next it belonged.

109. In propriety of speech-and certainly propriety of speech is necessary in a discourse of this nature"eldest parents" signifies either the eldest men and women that have had children, or those who have longest had issue, and then our author's assertion will be that those fathers and mothers who have been longest in the world, or longest fruitful, have, by "Divine institution," a right to "civil power;" if there be any absurdity in this, our author must answer for it; and if his meaning be different from my explication, he is to be blamed that he would not speak it plainly. This I am sure, "parents" cannot signify heirs male, nor eldest parents," an infant child, who yet may sometimes be the true heir, if there can be but one. And we are hereby still as much at a loss who civil power belongs to, notwithstanding this "assignment by Divine institution," as if there had been no such assignment at all, or our author had said nothing of it. This of "eldest parents" leaving us more in the dark who, by "Divine institution," has a right to "civil power" than those who never heard anything at all of heir or descent, of which our author is so full; and though the chief matter of his writings be to teach obedience to those who have a right to it, which, he tells us, is conveyed by descent, yet who those are to whom this right by descent belongs, he leaves, like the philosopher's stone in politics, out of the reach of any one to discover from his writings.

110. This obscurity cannot be imputed to want of language in so great a master of style as Sir Robert is, when he is resolved with himself what he would say, and therefore I fear, finding how hard it would be to settle rules of descent by Divine institution, and how little it would be to his purpose, or conduce to the clearing and establishing the titles of princes if such rules of descent were settled, he chose rather to content himself with doubtful and general terms, which might make no ill sound in men's ears, who were willing to be pleased with them, rather than offer any clear rules of descent of this "fatherhood" of Adam, by which men's consciences might be satisfied to whom it descended, and know the persons who had a right to regal power, and with it to their obedience.

« PreviousContinue »