the domination of any other, as the feventy-two that went from Babel were. It is hard to comprehend how one man can come to be mafter of many, equal to himself in right, unless it be by confent, or by force. If by confent, we are at an end of our controverfies: governments, and the magiftrates that execute them, are created by man. They who give a being to them, cannot but have a right of regulating, limiting, and directing them as best pleaseth themselves; and all our author's affertions concerning the abfolute power of one man, fall to the ground if by force,we are to examine how it can be poffible or justifiable. This fubduing by force we call conqueft, but as he that forceth must be ftronger than those that are forced, to talk of one man who in ftrength exceeds many millions of men, is to go beyond the extravagance of fables and romances. This wound is not cured by faying, that he first conquers one, and then more, and with their help others; for as to matter of fact, the firft news we hear of Nimrod is, that he reigned over a great multitude, and built vast cities; and we know of no kingdom in the world, that did not begin with a greater number than one man could poffibly subdue. If they who chofe one to be their head, did, under his conduct fubdue others, they were fellow-conquerors with him; and nothing can be more brutish, than to think, that by their virtue and valour they had purchased perpetual slavery to themselves, and their pofterity. But if it were poffible, it could not be justifiable; and whilst our dispute is concerning right, that which ought not to be is no more to be received, than if it could not be. No

Fight can come by conqueft, unless there were a right of making that conqueft, which, by reafon of the equality that our author confeffes to have been amongst the heads of families, and as I have proved goes into infinity, can never be on the aggreffor's fide. No man can justly impofe any thing upon thofe who owe him nothing. Our author therefore, who afcribes the enlargement of Nimrod's kingdom to " ufurpation and tyranny," might as well have acknowledged the fame in the beginning, as he fays all other authors have done. However, he ought not to have imputed to Sir Walter Raleigh an approbation of his right, as lord or king over his family; for he could never think him to be a lord by the right of a father, who, by that rule must have lived and died a flave to his fathers that over-lived him. Whofoever therefore, like Nimrod, grounds his pretenfions of right upon ufurpation and tyranny, declares himself to be like Nimrod, an ufurper and a tyrant, that is, an enemy to God and man, and to have no right at all. That which was unjust in its beginning, can of itself never change its nature.

Tempus in fe," faith Grotius, "nullam habet vim ef"fectricem." He that perfifts in doing injuftice, aggravates it, and takes upon himself all the guilt of his predeceffors. But if there be a king in the world, that claims a right by conqueft, and would justify it, he might do well to tell whom he conquered, when, with what affiftance, and upon what reafon he undertook the war; for he can ground no title upon the obfcurity of

* Lib. 2. c. 4. 1. Duratio temporis naturam rei non immutat, Lib.

1. c. 3. 11. n. 2.

an

an unfearchable antiquity; and if he does it not, Le ougie to be looked upon as an ufurping Nimrod.

SECT. XII.

The pretended paternal right is divisible or indivisible: divifible, it is extinguished; if indivisible, univerfal.

THIS paternal right to regality, if there be any thing in it, is divifible or indivifible; if indivifible, as Adam hath but one heir, one man is rightly lord of the whole world, and neither Nimrod nor any of his fucceffors could ever have been kings, nor the feventy-two that went from Babylon: Noah furvived him near two hundred years: Shem continued one hundred and fifty years longer. The dominion must have been in him, and by him tranfmitted to his poftericy for ever. Thofe that call themfelves kings in all other nations, fet themfeives up against the law of God and nature: this is the man we are to seek out, that we may yield obedience to him. I know not where to find him; but he must be of the race of Abraham. Shem was preferred before his brethren: the inheritance that could not be divided muft come to him, and from him to Ifaac, who was the first of his defcendents that outlived him. It is pity that Jacob did not know this, and that the lord of all the carth, through ignorance of his title should be forced to keep one of his fubject's sheep for wages; and strange, that he who had wit enough to fupplant his brother, did fo little under

ftand

ftand his own bargain, as not to know, that he had bought the perpetual empire of the world. If in confcience, he could not take fuch a price for a difh of pottage, it must remain in Efau: however, our lord paramount must come from Ifaac. If the deed of fale made by Efau be good, we muft feek him amongst the Jews; if he could not eafily diveft himself of his right, it must remain amongst his descendants, who are Turks. We need not fcruple the reception of either, fince the late Scots act tells us,

that kings derive their royal power from God alone; "and no difference of religion, &c. can divert the " right of fucceffion." But I know not what we fhall do, if we cannot find this man; for "de non "apparentibus & non exiftentibus eadem eft ratio." The right muft fall if there be none to inherit: if we do not know who he is that hath the right, we do not know who is near to him: all mankind must inherit the right, to which every one hath an equal title; and that which is dominion, if in one, when it is equally divided among all men, is that univerfal liberty which I affert. Wherefore I leave it to the choice of fuch as have inherited our author's opinions, to produce this Jew or Turk that ought to be lord of the whole earth, or to prove a better title in fome other perfon, and to perfuade all the princes and nations of the world to fubmit: if this be not done, it must be confeffed this paternal right is a mere whimsical fiction, and that no man by birth hath a right above another, or can have any, unless by the confeffion of those who are concerned.

If this right to an univerfal empire be divifible, Noah

id actually divide it among his three fons: feventy-andtwo abfolute monarchs did at once arife out of the multitude that had affembled at Babel: Noah, nor his fons, nor any of the holy feed, nor probably any elder than Nimrod having been there, many other monarchs must neceffarily have arifen from them. Abraham, as our author fays, was a king: Lot must have been fo alfo; for they were equals: his fons, Ammon and Moab, had no dependence upon the defcendents of Abraham. Ifinael and Efau fet up for themfelves, and great nations came of them: Abraham's fons by Keturah did fo alfo, that is to Tay, every one, as foon as he came to be of age to provide for himself, did fo, without retaining any dependence upon the stock from whence he came: thofe of that stock, or the head of it, pretended to no right over thofe who went from him. Nay, nearnefs in blood was fo little regarded, that though Lot was Abraham's brother's fon, Eliezer his fervant had been his heir, if he had died childlefs. The like continued amongst Jacob's fons; no jurifdiction was given to one above the reft: an equal di-. vifion of land was made amongst them: their judges and magifirates were of feveral tribes and families, without any other preference of one before another, than what did arife from the advantages God had given to any particular perfon. This I take to be a proof of the utmost extent and certainty, that the equality amongst mankind was then perfect: he therefore that will deny it to be so now, ought to prove, that neither the prophets, patriarchs, or any other men, did ever understand or regard the law deRivered by God and nature to mankind; or that having

been