Page images
PDF
EPUB

do degenerate into a most unjust and detestable tyranny, so soon as the supreme lord begins to prefer his own interest or profit before the good of his subjects; what shall we say of those who pretend to a right of dominion over free nations, as inseparably united to their persons, without distinction of age or sex, or the least consideration of their infirmities and vices; as if they were not placed in the throne for the good of their people, but to enjoy the honours and pleasures that attend the highest fortune? What name can be fit for those, who have no other title to the places they possess, than the most unjust and violent usurpation, or being descended from those who for their virtues were, by the people's consent, duly advanced to the exercise of a legitimate power; and having sworn to administer it, according to the conditions upon which it was given, for the good of those who gave it, turn all to their own pleasure and profit, without any care of the public? These may be liable to hard censures; but those who use them most gently, must confess, that such an extreme deviation from the end of their institution, annuls it; and the wound thereby given to the natural and original rights of those nations cannot be cured, unless they resume the liberties, of which they have been deprived, and return to the ancient custom of choosing those to be magistrates, who for their virtues best deserve to be preferred before their brethren, and are endowed with those qualities that best enable men to perform the great end of providing for the public safety.

SECTION XVI.

GOD, HAVING GIVEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD TO NO ONE MAN, NOR DECLARED HOW IT SHOULD BE DIVIDED, LEFT IT TO THE WILL OF MAN.

OUR author's next inquiry is, "What becomes of the right of fatherhood in case the crown should escheat for want of an heir? Whether it doth not escheat to the people?' His answer is, 'It is but the negligence or ignorance of the people, to lose the knowledge of the true heir,' &c. And a little below, the power is not devolved to the multitude: no; the kingly power escheats on independent heads of families all such prime heads have power to consent in the uniting, or conferring their fatherly right of sovereign authority on whom they please; and he that is so elected claims not his power as a donative from the people, but as being substituted by God, from whom he receives his royal charter of universal father," &c.

In my opinion, before he had asked, what should be done in case the crown should escheat for want of an heir? He ought to have proved, there had been a man in the world, who had the right in himself, and telling who he was, have shewed how it had been transmitted for some generations, that we might know where to seek his heir; and before he accused

the multitude of ignorance or negligence, in not knowing this heir, he ought to have informed us, how it may be possible to know him, or what it would avail us if we did know him: for it is in vain to know to whom a right belongs, that never was, and never can be executed. But we may go farther, and affirm, that as the universal right must have been in Noah and Shem (if in any) who never exercised it, we have reason to believe there never was any such thing; and, having proved from scripture and human history, that the first kingdoms were set up in a direct opposition to this right, by Nimrod and others, he that should seek and find their heirs, would only find those, who, by a most accursed wickedness, had usurped and continued a dominion over their fathers, contrary to the laws of God and nature; and we should neither be more wise, nor more happier than we are, though our author should furnish us with certain and authentic genealogies by which we might know the true heirs of Nimrod, and the seventy-two kings that went from Babylon, who, as he supposes, gave beginning to all the kingdoms of the earth.

Moreover, if the right be universal, it must be in

for the universe being but one, the whole right of commanding it cannot at the same time be in many, and proceed from the ordinance of God, or of man. It cannot proceed from the ordinance of God; for he doth nothing in vain: he never gave a right that could not be executed: no man can govern that which he does not so much as know: no man

did ever know all the world; no man therefore did or could govern it: and none could be appointed by God to do that which is absolutely impossible to be done; for it could not consist with his wisdom. We find this in ourselves. It were a shame for one of us poor, weak, short-sighted creatures, in the disposal of our affairs, to appoint such a method, as were utterly ineffectual for the preservation of our families, or destructive to them; and the blasphemy of imputing to God such an ordinance, as would be a reproach to one of us, can suit only with the wicked and impudent fury of such as our author, who delights in monsters. This also shews us, that it cannot be from men; one, or a few, may commit follies; but mankind does not universally commit, and perpetually persist in any; they cannot therefore, by a general and permanent authority, enact that which is utterly absurd and impossible; or if they do, they destroy their own nature, and can no longer deserve the name of reasonable creatures. There can be therefore no such man, and the folly of seeking him, or his heir that never was, may be left to the disciples of Filmer.

The difficulties are as great, if it be said, the world might be divided into parcels, and we are to seek the heirs of the first possessors; for besides that no man can be obliged to seek that which cannot be found (all men knowing, that "caliginosa nocte hæc premit Deus),"* and that the genealogies

* Hor. od. I. III. xxix. 30.

of mankind are so confused, that, unless possibly among Jews, we have reason to believe that there is not a man in the world who knows his own original: it could be of no advantage to us, though we knew that of every one; for the division would be of no value, unless it were at the first rightly made by him who had all authority in himself, (which does no where appear) and rightly deduced to him, who according to that division, claims a right to the parcel he enjoys: and I fear our author would terribly shake the crowns, in which the nations of Europe are concerned, if they should be persuaded to search into the genealogies of their princes, and to judge of their rights according to the proofs they should give of titles rightly deduced by succession of blood from the seventy-two first kings, from whom our author fancies all the kingdoms of the world to be derived.

Besides, though this were done, it would be to no purpose; for the seventy-two were not sent out by Noah; nor was he, or his sons, of that number; but they went or were sent from Babylon, where Nimrod reigned, who, as has been already proved, neither had nor could have any right at all, but was a mighty hunter, even a proud and cruel tyrant, usurping a power to which he had no right, and which was perpetually exercised by him and his successors against God and his people; from whence I may safely conclude, that no right can ever be derived; and may justly presume, it will be denied by none who are of better morals, and of more

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »