them as best pleaseth themselves; and all our author's assertions concerning the absolute power of one man, fall to the ground: if by force, we are to examine how it can be possible or justifiable. This subduing by force we call conquest, but as he that forceth must be stronger than those that are forced, to talk of one man who in strength exceeds many millions of men, is to go beyond the extravagance of fables and romances. This wound is not cured by saying, that he first conquers one, and then more, and with their help others; for as to matter of fact, the first 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 possibly subdue. If they who chose one to be their head, did, under his conduct subdue 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 posterity. But if it were possible, 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 right can come by conquest, unless there were a right of making that conquest, which, by reason of the equality that our author confesses to have been amongst the heads of families, and as I have proved goes into infinity, can never be on the aggressor's side. No man can justly impose any thing upon those who owe him nothing. Our author, therefore, who ascribes the enlargement of Nimrod's

kingdom to "usurpation and tyranny," might as well have acknowledged the same in the beginning, as he says 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 slave to his fathers that overlived him. Whosoever therefore, like Nimrod, grounds his pretensions of right upon usurpation and tyranny, declares himself to be like Nimrod, an usurper 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 se," saith Grotius, "nullam habet vim effectricem."* He that persists in doing injustice, aggravates it, and takes upon himself all the guilt of his predecessors. But if there be a king in the world that claims a right by conquest, and would justify it, he might do well to tell whom he conquered, when, with what assistance, and upon what reason he undertook the war; for he can ground no title upon the obscurity of an unsearchable antiquity; and if he does it not, he ought to be looked upon as an usurping Nimrod.

* Lib. 2. c. 4. § 1. Duratio temporis naturam rei non immutat. Lib. 1. c. 3. § 11. n. 2.

SECTION XI.

THE PRETENDED PATERNAL RIGHT IS DIVISIBLE OR INDIVISIBLE: IF DIVISIBLE, IT IS EXTINGUISHED; IF INDIVISIBLE, UNIVERSAL.

THIS paternal right to regality, if there be any thing in it, is divisible or indivisible; if indivisible, as Adam hath but one heir, one man is rightly lord of the whole world, and neither Nimrod nor any of his successors could ever have been kings, nor the seventy-two that went from Babylon: Noah survived him near two hundred years: Shem continued one hundred and fifty years longer. The dominion must have been in him, and by him transmitted to his posterity forever. Those that call themselves kings in all other nations, set themselves 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 must come to him, and from him to Isaac, who was the first of his descendants that outlived him. It is pity that Jacob did not know this, and that the lord of all the earth, through ignorance of his title, should be forced to keep one of his subject's sheep for wages; and strange, that he who had wit enough to supplant his brother, did so little understand his own bargain, as not to know, that he had bought the perpetual em

pire of the world. If in conscience he could not take such a price for a dish of pottage, it must remain in Esau: however, our lord paramount must come from Isaac. If the deed of sale made by Esau be good, we must seek him amongst the Jews; if he could not easily divest himself of his right, it must remain amongst his descendants, who are Turks. We need not scruple the reception of either, since 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 succession." But I know not what we shall do, if we cannot find this man; for, de non apparentibus & non existentibus eadem est ratio." The right must 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 amongst all men, is that universal liberty which I assert. Wherefore I leave it to the choice of such 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 some other person, and to persuade all the princes and nations of the world to submit: if this be not done, it must be confessed this paternal right is a mere whimsical fiction, and that no man by birth hath a right over another, or can have any, unless by the concession of those who are concerned.

If this right to an universal empire be divisible, Noah did actually divide it among his three

sons: seventy-and-two absolute monarchs did at once arise out of the multitude that had assembled at Babel: Noah, nor his sons, nor any of the holy seed, nor probably any elder than Nim rod having been there, many other monarchs must necessarily have arisen from them. Abraharn, as our author says, was a king: Lot must have been so also; for they were equals: his sons, Ammon and Moab, had no dependance upon the descendants of Abraham. Ishmael and Esau set up for themselves, and great nations came of them: Abraham's sons by Keturah did so also; that is to say, every one, as soon as he came to be of age to provide for himself, did so, without retaining any dependance upon the stock from whence he came : those of that stock, or the head of it, pretended to no right over those who went from him. Nay, nearness in blood was so little regarded, that though Lot was Abraham's brother's son, Eliezer his servant had been his heir, if he had died childless. The like continued amongst Jacob's sons; no jurisdiction was given to one above the rest: an equal division of land was made amongst them: their judges and magistrates were of several tribes and families, without any other preference of one before another, than what did arise from the advantages God had given to any particular person. 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 delivered by God and nature to mankind; or that having