ler. This mode of government is defined by Godwin, a learned writer of the last century, to consist "in the fathers' of families, and their first born after them, exercising all kinds of civil and ecclesiastical authority in their respective housholds." To throw light on this subject, we will briefly investigate the origin and progress of civil government in the early ages.

The natural dependence of children on their parents, and their early habits of reverence and subjection to their wisdom and authority, would of course give rise, in the first instance, to the parental government. The first man especially, who was the father of all mankind, would be naturally regarded by his descendants as their common Head, and have peculiar influence over their counsels and actions, so long as his life and understanding continued. For the same reason, when mankind had lost their common progenitor, and had branched out into several distinct families, each of these would become a little community, and would naturally look up to its immediate founder, as its sovereign ruler or prince. These distinct sovereignties would in time be greatly multiplied. In some instances those, who at first were kings of their own housholds only, would insensibly grow up into monarchs of larger societies by extending their authority over their remoter descendants. As disputes would also in time arise among small domestic communities, these contests would naturally urge them to form one common bond of union, and to elect a common and efficient sovereign. As larger societies would thus be constituted by an assemblage of smaller associations; so the frequent occasions and existence of controversies between neighbouring communities thus formed, would give rise to mutual and forcible opposition; in which cas e each community would naturally choose for its mili

tary leader some one person distinguished for his wisdom and courage, his eloquence and virtue, his reputation and success in public or private concerns. These circumstances of preeminence, attending one man, would not only raise him to the chief command in war, but probably introduce him to permanent and perhaps supreme authority in the state. In these and similar methods we easily account for the establishment not only of civil government, but of small kingdoms or monarchies, which evidently existed in the early ages. Indeed, some kind of civil polity is so natural and even necessary to man, that many of the antients, particularly Aristotle and Plato, call him ZNON HOAITIKON, a political animal. For as the wants, faculties, and affections of men would early and forcibly urge them to associate; so their imperfections and vices would compel their resort to civil government for their common protection and prosperity. Perhaps if man had not fallen from virtue, or if a society were generally and even universally honest and benevolent; some kind of political rule might be expedient; because good men, who are united in the same object, may be ignorant, erroneous, or divided respecting the means of attaining it. In this case nature and reason would direct the society to commit the regulation of its common concerns to some persons of superior penetration and more enlarged views, whose wisdom should safely guide the actions of the multitude. But the ear. ly defection of man from his primitive rectitude, and the consequent reign of selfish ambition, avarice and injustice, would oblige the human race not only to adopt political institutions, but to arm them with sufficient force to guard the innocent, and to punish the injurious. It cannot however be supposed that any society of men would

subject themselves to the dominion of one or more persons, however respectable or beloved, without some equivalent protection of that liberty, property, and life, which are most dear to their hearts. To imagine therefore with some writers, that civil power, in the first instance, was forced upon mankind by violence or conquest is very incredible; because no one man could possess sufficient strength to compel considerable numbers into that servitude, which they naturally hate and resist; and because if one bold adventurer were assisted by others in this business, these latter must have been previously united with him in a political confederation; that is, civil government must have existed by express or implied compact before a subjugating force could be successfully exerted. Political authority therefore must in fact, as well as by right, have originated primarily from mutual agreement between rulers and subjects. Perhaps we may even assert, that where power has been directly obtained by artifice or by violence, there must be an ultimate and implied compact between the victor and the vanquished, to constitute a civil community; for till this take place, it is not a state of political order, but of anarchy and war. Suppose, for example, that Cromwell, the protector of England, and Bonaparte, the present chief consul of France, were in the first instance usurp ers; yet if their subjects finally submitted to their authority from a belief or experience of public utility or expediency; this submission seems to be a virtual consent on their part to the existing form and administration of government. On these principles Dr. Hutcheson, though a most benevolent and able assertor of rational liberty and equality, yet declares that states may be justly formed without the previous consent of the people. He

says that " if a prudent and efficient Legislator can settle a plan of polity, effectual for the general good, among a stupid or prejudiced people at present unwilling to receive it; and can reasonably conclude that upon a short trial they will heartily consent to it; he acts with perfect justice, though in an extraordinary manner.' But he justly adds " that absolute hereditary monarchy can never be settled upon this pretence; as it can never tend to good to have all the interests of millions subjected to the will of one of their equals, as much, yea more subject to vice and folly than any of them."

On

This leads us to apply the preceding observations more directly to the object of this discourse. Some writers in favor of absolute and hereditary power, have insisted that the first founders of families and tribes not only possessed this power, but transmitted it entire to their first born. This authority, according to them, was first vested in Adam, who had the absolute disposal both of the persons and estates of all his descendants. his death it devolved upon Seth, his eldest son next to Cain, who had been disinherited for the murder of Abel. From Seth it was conveyed by lineal succession to Noah, the father of the new world; who, by divine direction, divided the earth after the flood among seventy of his posterity, who were made absolute sovereigns of so many nations. From them the right of sovereignty has been handed down to the present day; and every reigning prince of every country is to be presumed to inherit this right, unless some other person can prove his hereditary title. This extravagant scheme was eagerly supported in Great Britain during the arbitrary reigns of the Steuarts. For opposing this doctrine the immortal Algernon Sidney fell a victim under the government of Charles the second.

If we examine the scripture history, on which this system pretends to be founded, we find no evidence that even our first father was clothed with absolute sovereignty. His relation to his posterity, as their original parent, by no means gave him unlimited dominion.. The grant

made to him of the whole animal and vegetable creation for his service did not rest the property and jurisdiction of it in him only, but was intended as a common grant to the human race. But if we admitted that Adam possessed such authority, this would not prove its hereditary descent to his eldest son. Those words of God to Cain, "Unto thee shall be his (that is Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him," may prove some preeminence in the first born over his brother; but can never establish an absolute power during life over him and all his posterity. The distribution of mankind after the deluge into seventy independent kingdoms not only contradicts the right of primogeniture, but it has no foundation in the sacred history. Besides, this history informs us that God often passed by the first born, and advanced younger sons to special dignity, privilege, and power.

Dismissing therefore this plan of hereditary unqualified sovereignty, as equally unsupported by scripture and reason, we proceed to observe that the patriarchal government, in the sense limited above, subsisted among God's visible people for a series of ages. We have some vestiges of it in the antediluvian world. The existence of some civil authority is intimated in the story of Cain, who was not only banished from the community, but was apprehensive of capital punishment for his unnatural fratricide. "And Cain said unto the Lord, my punishment is greater than I can bear. Behold thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth,"