"ministration of this law was in common hands," that is, in the hands of every man, who had his own law, canon as well as statute, suited to his present occasion, convenience, or caprice. And what was this, but to be truly and properly destitute both of law and religion?

As this independent state of nature was a state of perfect liberty; and as they, who had the happiness to live under so pure and primitive a dispensation, were, doubtless, too sensible of their happiness to exchange it readily for government, always liable to degenerate into tyranny and oppression, it is obvious to think, that when the project for "calling in the "civil magistrate as an ally to religion" was first proposed, it would not fail to meet with a very vigorous opposition. "An inordinate self-love," we find, was in possession; and no possessor is with more difficulty ejected. Of the privilege enjoyed by every man, to do without control what was "right in his "own eyes," every man would be exceedingly tenacious; and no one who thought himself, by his superior strength of body or intellect, better entitled to an ox or an ass than his neighbour, could be presently made to see the propriety of his suffering for the good of the community.

"The free consent of every individual," we are told," is necessary to be obtained for the institution "of civil government." But upon what plan shall the universal assembly be convened? Or who, in a state of nature, hath authority to convene it? How shall the proceedings of this tumultuous congress of independents be regulated, or the votes of its mem

bers be collected? And when will all agree to invest some with a power of inflicting pains and penalties, which others cannot but be sensible they shall soon incur?

It is by no means reasonable to imagine, that each person would consent from thenceforth to be determined by a majority of the whole body, which might chance, upon questions of the utmost importance, tó exceed the minority only by a single vote. And that one half of the society should thus domineer over the other half, would be deemed an infringement on liberty, to which men, born free and equal, might, with great appearance of reason, scruple to subject themselves.

It is indeed sometimes asserted, that "no man 66 can submit himself to the absolute will of an"other" in which case he cannot submit himself to any government whatsoever; since the legislature, in every government, is absolute, having a power to repeal or dispense with its own laws, upon occasions of which itself is judge.

The reason assigned for the above assertion, "that 46 no man can submit himself to the absolute will of "another," is this, that "no man can give that of "which himself is not possessed, namely, the power 66 over his own life." But how then came any government to be invested with the power of life and death? And what would a government avail which was not invested with that power? If laws inflicting capital punishments are frequently broken, in what a state would the world be, if there were no such laws? Here, then is a dignus vindice nodus; and

therefore, DEUS intersit! For, without the interposition of some power superior to human, a system of civil polity calculated to answer, in any degree, the end of its institution, can neither be framed nor supported.

And the truth is, when we reflect a little farther upon the subject, we cannot but perceive our apprehensions greatly shocked at the supposition, that the wise and good Creator, who formed mankind for society in this world, and designed to train them, by a performance of its duties, for a more noble and exalted fellowship with angels in the world to come, should place them, at the beginning, in the abovementioned wild and disorderly state of independence, to roam in fields and forests, like the brutes that perish, and to search for law and government where they were not to be found; that he should give them no rulers, by whom or how they should be guided and directed, but leave them to choose for themselves, that is, to dispute and fight, and, in the end, to be governed by the strongest. One cannot think of multitudes in such a state of equality, with fierce and savage tempers and dispositions, prepared to contend for superiority, but it brings to mind that army, which, according to a pagan fiction, from the teeth of serpents sown in the earth, sprang up together, ready armed for battle, and destroyed each other.

But are these things so? Did God indeed, at the beginning, bring into being, at the same time, a number of human creatures independent of each other, and turn them uninstructed into the woods, to settle a civil polity by compact among themselves? We

know he did not. He who worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will," or that law which his wisdom prescribes to his power; he who appointed a regular subordination among the celestial hierarchies; he who "made a law for the rain, and gave his decree to the sea, that the waters should "not pass his commandment;" he who is the God of peace and order, provided for the establishment and continuation of these blessings among mankind, by ordaining, first in the case of Adam, and then again in that of Noah, that the human race should spring from one common parent.

Unless, therefore, some other origination of mankind be discovered, all equality and independence are at an end. The state of nature was a state of subordination; since, from the beginning some were born subject to others; and the power of the father, by whatever name it be called, must have been supreme at the first, when there was none superior to it. "To fathers within their private families," saith the judicious Hooker, "nature hath given a supreme power; for which cause we see throughout the world, even from the foundation thereof, all men "have ever been taken as lords and lawful kings, in "their own houses." And had children the power to choose for themselves, what could they wish for beyond the care and protection of a parent?

The creation of one pair, the institution of marriage, and the relations flowing from it, do so evidently show subordination at the beginning to have been natural, and not founded on compact between peers, that two of the ablest advocates for a different

hypothesis have, in fact, reduced the supposed compact at last to a probable or tacit consent of the children to be governed by their father. So that we may fairly look upon this point to be given up. Let us, therefore, go on to trace, as well as we can, the progress of society in the early ages of the world; to point out the manner in which a number of families became united under one civil polity, and governments arose, differing from each other no less in form than in extent.

As mankind multiplied, they necessarily found themselves obliged to separate and disperse; which they did accordingly, under their natural rulers, the chiefs of families and tribes, who, by reason of their longevity, saw themselves, in a course of years, at the head of a numerous train of descendants and dependents. By these means the earth became gradually filled with little governments; and as there was land sufficient for them all, in this state they continued, till, through the workings of corrupted nature, disputes were engendered, which terminating in war, victory at last declared for one of the parties, and the other was obliged to submit. Thus the larger governments arose by conquest, first swallowed up the lesser into themselves, and then contended with and overthrew each other.

In the tenth chapter of Genesis, we have an account of the families, tribes, or lesser governments, with which the earth was overspread by the progeny of the sons of Noah. And in the same chapter we read, that, very soon after, by means of Nimrod, a mighty one, a warrior, a conqueror, the kingdom, or