344 
Filmer accordingly maintained that God, at the crea- 
tion of Adam, endowed him with a right of fatherhood, 
(as he termed it), absolute and unlimited; or, in other 
words, with a right of arbitrary: dominion over all his 
offspring. _ Second, That he was endowed in like man- 
ner with a right of absolute dominion over.Eve: “ Thy 
desire shall be unto thy husband, and he shall rule over 
thee :”—-in which text he seriously assures us we have 
very expressly, the original grant of monarchical go- 
vernment. Third, That the whole material globe, with all 
the brute creation, was his property by right of donation 
from the same Almighty Being. And, fourth, That these 
rights, upon Adam’s death, descended to his next heir ; 
that thence they descended, in direct succession, to the 
patriarchs; and from them, in similar succession, to mo- 
dern kings. These principles he partly asserted, and 
partly endeavoured to prove, sometimes by producing 
garbled passages of scripture, and sometimes by giving 
to other passages an unlimited, or, as it would seem, a 
sophisticated meaning. 
It would be frivolous to occupy much time in exa- 
mining a theory so ridiculous... It could scarcely, one 
would think, have drawn the attention of the Sidneys 
and the Lockes to its refutation. Yet however easy 
. the task, it will not appear unworthy even of such men, 
when we consider the bias of the times, and the im-~ 
pression which Filmer’s book a ‘to have made 
upon the public mind. The philosopher and the pa- 
triot felt alike indignant at the insult which had been 
offered to their country ; and the employment of their 
talents upon a subject so far beneath their powers, they 
deemed a sacrifice well due to public virtue. 
As Filmer had found it expedient to have recourse 
to the standard of public faith: for the arguments by 
which he had supported. his system, so the writers to 
whom we have just alluded, found it necessary to resort 
to the same standard for the arguments by which they 
were to overturn it.. They denied that there was any 
text of scripture that asserted a right of absolute father- 
hood, or-unlimited paternal jurisdiction in Adam ; but, 
on the contrary, maintained, that neither Adam, nor any 
other man, ever had a right to any further paternal ju- 
risdiction than was necessary for the protection, im- 
provement, and welfare of his children, during those 
years of minority when they were unable to protect, 
improve, or provide for themselves ; and that this pa- 
ternal jurisdiction was more properly termed parental, 
since it implied duties that belonged equally to Eve, 
and_every other mother, as to Adam, and every other 
father,—the nature of the duties requiring such com- 
mon jurisdiction. Second, The jurisdiction granted to 
Adam over Eve, could not be understood to mean a po- 
litical.juvisdietion, or the right of life and death; but 
merely such a right of control as, in matters regarding 
their common interest and-property, would enable the 
husband, in the event of opposite opinions, to decide, 
and so prevent that) endless contention which would 
arise had no superior authority been conferred upon 
either. | Third, As the donation which God is said to 
have given to Adam of the earth, with all the animals 
upon It, is nowhere to be found in scripture, so, had it 
been given, it could not have been absolutely and 
GOVERNMENT. | . 
exclusively, but only so far as his own use might re« 
prep rf tert absurd to supose that God would 
give to one man an exclusive right to what, from its ex 
tent, was infinitely beyond his er ofenjoyment, and 
would, at the same time, call other ‘rational: ae 
existence, who should be at this favoured person’s mer- 
cy for a foot of round to stand upon, or a morsel of 
food to support life. But fourth, Although Filmer had 
succeeded in establishing these premises, it did not fol- 
low that such absolute rights were to descend to his neat 
heir. If it did so follow, who was his next heir? for God ; 
has neither by scripture, nor by human reason, cose Pe 
out a natural and invariable line of succession in theper= _ 
son of any individual. however this also, it was _ 
still incumbent on Filmer to shew, not only that the pa- 
triarchs possessed this absolute authority; and that they _ 
possessed it from Adam through this invariable line, but 
that it has also come down from them to modern:kin 
through the same invariable line,—an. attempt, whic 
only requires to be stated to evince its e * 
But still granting even this extravagance, there must _ 
be only one legitimate monarch in the world, only.one 
king a eigenen divino derived in this direct line _ 
from Adam, and all, the rest must:be | and-ins 
terlopers, against whom every honest man and sound _ 
Christian should raise his arm, never to be pacified tilk — 
all the nations of the globe should be reduced tothe ars — 
bitrary and exclusive dominion of this lineal descend« 
ant, and true heir of Adam ! ec 
. - Ww way 
These writers having thus demonstrated. the absurdi-- 
ty of this theory. jure iuino-of Sin/Robert Filmer, they 
conceived it necessary to substitute another, more 
ly to liberty, and more consistent with truth. » They 
proceeded, accordingly, to point out what they 1 ' P 
as the only foundation and just limits of legitimate go- 
vernment ; and this; they maintained, was the consent 
air re 
Otek e consent of the people, they contended, is ne- 
cessary to all legitimate government, seems not to admit 
of argument; for the very notion of such a government 
implies the notion of a contract between those that go- 
vern and those that obey. By what other right, or upon 
what other foundation, can any form of government. 
which is to be regarded as) legitimate, that is, bindit 
upon the sera preserve and obey’ it, poeitnease 
ginally established; or afterwards exercised 2 Various 
other foundations of legitimate government indeed, have 
been pointed out and detended ; but all ofthem appear 
to be sufficiently irrational. The doctrine of the mght — 
of conquest, where such conquest has been occasioned 
by the repeated and rs og hostility of the part 
conquered, is perhaps the least exceptionable. But be 
sides that the arbitrary form of government } 
in consequence of conquest, invelves the innocent with 
the guilty, it is a punishment disproportionate’to the 
crime. The victor, in such a ease, has no- other right 
than to indemnify himself sufficiently for the injury he 
may have sustained, either by former provocations, ox 
the actual war. He’ can only demand compensation for — 
the past, and security for the future. And this he may, 
in most instances, sutliciently obtain, by making it a lo- — 
sing bargain to his enemies to offer him injury. This 
« ( ' , . 
. ™* As Filmer appears to have been the first, if not to suggest the doctrine of absolute monarchy jure divino, at least the 
systematically to explain and argue it 
government, seems to have been the fi 
bratetl Discourses of Al 
to the public by Mr Toland till atter Locke’s Treatise 
first. avowedly and 
3.80 Mr Locke, if not the first to suggest the consent of the people, as the only foundation of ae 
rst who entered, at any length, into a deve-opement and defence of the principle. For although the 
ge'non Sidney were written previously to Mr Locke's Treatises, and embrace the same principle, yet they were not 
s had appeared, and accordingly do not seem to have been known to that phi . 
| We may here observe, that the opinions of the Tories approximated tothe extravagance of Vilmer’s system 3 those of the: Whigs tonsis eda 
it would seem, of most, of the reasonings and inferences of Mr Locke’s. —We may add, that, by the people, Locke and his followers evidently 
meant the nation at large, 
class of men, who, in every 
industrious, and fortunate, 
in con(radistinction to the sovereign magistracy, of whatever nature that may be ;—not that needy and di te 
country, and most of all under the freest constitutions of government, are always — opposed to the orderly, 
