III. By the light of reason; which is good, inasmuch as it is from God.

And first: It cannot be said we have an explicit word for that continuance of the power in the eldest, for it appears not: and having none, we might conclude it to be left to our liberty. For it agrees not with the goodness of God to leave us in a perpetual ignorance of his will in a matter of so great importance; nor to have suffered his own people, or any other, to persist, without the least reproof or admonition, in a perpetual opposition to it, if it had displeased him.

To the second: The dispensations of his providence, which are the emanations of his will, have gone contrary to this pretended law. There can therefore be no such thing; for God is constant to himself: his works do not contradict his word; and both of them do equally declare to us that which is good.

Thirdly: If there be any precept, that by the light of nature we can in matters of this kind look uponas certain, it is, that the government of a people should be given to him that can best perform the duties of it. No man has it for himself, or from himself; but for and from those, who, before he had it, were his equals, that he may do good to them. If there were a man, who in wisdom, valour, justice, and purity, surpassed all others, he might be called a king by nature; because he is best able to bear the

weight of so great a charge; and, like a good shepherd, to lead the people to good. "Detur digniori” is the voice of reason: and, that we may be sure "detur seniori" is not so, Solomon tells us, "that a wise child is better than an old and foolish king." But if this pretended right do not belong to him that is truly the eldest, nothing can be more absurd than a fantastical pretence to a right deduced from him that is not so. Now, lest I should be thought to follow my own inventions, and call them reason, or the light of God in us, I desire it may be observed, that God himself has ever taken this method. When he raised up Moses to be the leader of his people, he endowed him with the most admirable gifts of his Spirit that ever he bestowed upon a man: when he chose seventy men to assist him, he endowed them with the same Spirit. Joshua had no other title to succeed him than the like evidence of God's presence with him. When the people, through sin, fell into misery, he did not seek out their descendants, and such as boasted in a prerogative of birth; but shewed whom he designed for their deliverer, by bestowing such gifts upon him as were required for the performance of his work; and never failed of doing this, till that miserable, sinful people, rejecting God and his government, desired that which was in use amongst their accursed neighbours, that they might be as like to them in the most shameful slavery to man, as in the worship of idols set up against God.

But if this pretended right be grounded upon no

word or work of God, nor the reason of man, it is to be accounted a mere figment, that hath nothing of truth in it.

SECTION XIII.

IF THE PATERNAL RIGHT HAD INCLUDED DOMINION, AND WAS TO BE TRANSFERRED TO A SINGLE HEIR, IT MUST PERISH IF HE WERE NOT KNOWN; AND COULD BE APPLIED TO NO OTHER PERSON.

HAVING shewed that the first kings were not fathers, nor the first fathers kings; that all the kings of the Jews and Gentiles mentioned in scripture came in upon titles different from, and inconsistent with, that of paternity; and that we are not led by the word nor the works of God, nor the reason of man, or light of nature, to believe there is any such thing; we may safely conclude there never was any such thing, or that it never had any effect; which to us is the same. It is as ridiculous to think of retrieving that which from the beginning of the world was lost, as to create that which never was. But I may go farther, and affirm, that though there had been such a right to the first fathers of mankind, exercised by them, and for some ages individually

transmitted to their eldest sons, it must necessarily perish; since the generations of men are so confused, that no man knows his own original; and consequently this heir is no where to be found; for it is a folly for a man to pretend to an inheritance, who cannot prove himself to be the right heir. If this be not true, I desire to know from which of Noah's sons the kings of England, France, or Spain, do deduce their original; or what reason they can give, why the title to dominion, which is fancied to be in Noah, did rather belong to the first of their respective races that attained to the crowns they now enjoy, than to the meanest peasant of their kingdoms; or how that can be transmitted to them, which was not in the first. We know, that no man can give what he hath not; that if there be no giver, there is no gift; if there be no root, there can be no branch; and that the first point failing, all that should be derived from it must necessarily fail.

Our author, who is good at resolving difficulties, shews us an easy way out of this strait. "Tis true," says he, "all kings are not natural parents of their subjects; yet they either are, or are to be reputed, the next heirs to those first progenitors, who were at first the natural parents of the whole people, and in their right succeed to the exercise of the supreme jurisdiction: and such heirs are not only lords of their own children, but also of their brethren, and all those that were subject to their father, &c. By this means it comes to pass, that

many a child succeeding a king hath the right of a father over many a grey-headed multitude, and hath the title of pater patriæ.”

An assertion comprehending so many points, upon which the most important rights of all mankind do depend, might deserve some proof; but he, being of opinion we ought to take it upon his credit, doth not vouchsafe to give us so much as the shadow of any. Nevertheless, being unwilling either crudely to receive, or rashly to reject it, I shall take the liberty of examining the proposition, and hope I may be pardoned, if I dwell a little more than ordinary upon that which is the foundation of his work.

We are beholden to him for confessing modestly, that all kings are not the natural fathers of their people, and sparing us the pains of proving, that the kings of Persia, who reigned from the Indies to the Hellespont, did not beget all the men that lived in those countries; or that the kings of France and Spain, who began to reign before they were five years old, were not the natural fathers of the nations under them. But if all kings are not fathers, none are, as they are kings: if any one is, or ever was, the rights of paternity belong to him, and to no other who is not so also. This must be made evident; for matters of such importance require proof, and ought not to be taken upon supposition. If Filmer therefore will pretend, that the right of father belongs to any one

1