dark covering of antiquity, and trace them to their firſt riſe, that we ſhould find the firſt of them nothing better than the principal Ruffian of ſome reſtleſs Gang, whoſe ſavage manners or pre-eminence in ſubtilty obtained him the title of Chief among Plunderers; and who by increaſing in power, and extending his depredations, overawed the quiet and defenceleſs to purchaſe their ſafety by frequent contributions. Yet his electors could have no idea of giving hereditary right to his deſcendents, becauſe ſuch a perpetual excluſion of themſelves was incompatible with the free and unreſtrained principles they profeſſed to live by. Wherefore hereditary ſucceſſion, in the early ages of Monarchy, could not take place as a matter of claim, but as ſomething caſual or complimental; but as few or no records were extant in thoſe days, and traditionary hiſtory ſtuffed with fables, it was very eaſy, after the lapſe of a few generations, to trump up ſome ſuperſtitious tale, conveniently timed, Mahomet-like, to cram hereditary right down the throats of the vulgar. Perhaps the diſorders which threatened, or ſeemed to threaten, on the deceaſe of a leader, and the choice of a new one (for elections among ruffians could not be very orderly) induced many at firſt to favour hereditary pretenſions; by which means it happened, as it hath happened ſince, that what at firſt was ſubmitted to as a convenience, was afterwards claimed as a right.
England ſince the conqueſt hath known ſome few good Monarchs, but groaned beneath a much larger number of bad ones; yet no man in his ſenſes can ſay, that their claim under William the Conqueror is a very honorable one. A French Baſtard landing with an armed banditti, and eſtabliſhing himſelf King of England againſt the conſent of the natives, is in plain terms a very paltry raſcally original.—It certainly hath no divinity in it. However it is needleſs to ſpend much time in expoſing the folly of hereditary right; if there are any ſo weak as to believe it, let them promiſcuouſly worſhip the Aſs and the Lion and welcome. I ſhall neither copy their humility, nor diſturb their devotion.
Yet I ſhould be glad to aſk how they ſuppoſe Kings came at firſt? The queſtion admits but of three anſwers, viz. either by lot, by election, or by uſurpation. If the firſt King was taken by lot, it eſtabliſhes a precedent for the next, which excludes hereditary ſucceſſion. Saul was by lot, yet the ſucceſſion was not hereditary, neither does it appear from the tranſaction there was any intention it ever ſhould. If the firſt King of any country was by election, that likewiſe eſtabliſhes a precedent for the next; for to ſay, that the right of all future generations is taken away by the act of the firſt electors, in their choice not only of a King, but of a family of Kings for ever, hath no parallel in or out of ſcripture but the doctrine of original ſin, which ſuppoſes the free-will of all men loſt in Adam: And from ſuch compariſon, and it will admit of no other, hereditary ſucceſſion can derive no glory. For as in Adam all ſinned, and as in the firſt electors all men obeyed; as in the one all mankind
