Sons of Esau and Ishmael are reckon'd as so many independant Princes or Dukes and Lords of distinct Territories without any Superiority in the eldest Son who ought by the Authours Principle to have been absolute Lord over the rest And if these could divide themselves into as many distinct Governments as there were Sons Why might not they do so in infinitum And then there could never be any common Prince or Monarch set over them all but by Force or Conquest or else by Election either of which destroys the notion of the Natural Right of Eldership And as for the places he brings to prove it 1. Gods words to Gain concerning Abel will not do it His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt rule over him For first this might be spoken only personally to Cain and not to give a Right to all Eldest Sons Secondly the words do not signifie an absolute Despotick Power but a ruling or governing by perswasion or fair means as when a man is ruled that is advised by another in his concerns Then as for the blessing upon Jacob by his Father Isaac Be Lord over thy Brethren and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee 't was never litterally fulfilled For Jacob was never Lord over Esau who was a Prince of Mount Seir in Jacob's life-time whilst Jacob was at best but Lord of his own family And as for bowing and other Rights of Superiority we read Gen. 33.3 that Jacob at his Interview with his Brother Esau called him Lord and bowed seven times to the ground before he came to him So that this Text is no more than a Prophecy to shew why the Jews or descendents of Jacob should have Right in After-times to rule over the Edomites or Posterity of Esau Lastly this Example makes against the Authour for it seems it is not the Eldest Son but whom the Father pleases to appoint is Heir after his death Since here Esau looses his Birth right by his own act but chiefly by his Fathers Will. Yet if after all some will urge from the Principles I have laid down that it seems more to conduce to the happiness and peace of Families and in that to the great end I have before laid down the common good of Mankinde rather to allow this absolute Power of Life and Death to Parents over their Children and an absolute Subjection to them as long as they live since Parents do usually take that care to breed up their Children and to have that tender Affection towards them that they will seldom take away their Lives or sell them for Slaves or keep them so themselves unless there be very great cause of which the Father only ought to be Judge since it being the nature of most Children to be apt to contradict and disobey their Fathers commands or perhaps resist them pretending they would kill them when they only go about to give them due correction And since most young people hate restraint and love to be gadding abroad they having a Right by these Principles to judge when they are able to shift for themselves would take any slight pretence to run away from their Father assoon as they were grown pretty big and so perhaps leave their Parents in their old Age when they had no body to take care of them whereby nothing but confusion and quarrels would happen in Families great mischief to the Parents and often ruine to the Children who being often opiniatred and self-will'd would think better of their own abilities than they really deserved And therefore divers Nations seeing these great Inconveniencies did by their Laws leave Parents the Power of Life and Death over their Children Such were those the Author instances in the Persians See Patriarcha p. 38. chap. 2. Gauls and many Nations in the West-Indies And the Romans even in their Popular State had this Law in force Which Power of Parents was ratified and amplified by the Laws of the XII Tables enabling of Parents to sell their Children three times And the Law of Moses gives full power to the Father to stone his disobedient Son so it be done in presence of a Magistrate And yet it did not belong to the Magistrate to inquire and examine the justness of the cause but it was so ordained lest the Father should in his Anger suddenly or secretly kill his Son To all which I answer that since this Argument quits the natural Power of a Father by Generation and only sticks to the acquired one of education and appeals to the common good of Mankinde I do acknowledge it is a better than any of the rest Yet I think it is not true that Parents in the state of Nature would more seldome abuse their power than Children would this Natural Liberty I here allow them of defending and providing for themselves in cases of extreme Danger and Necessity For this Temptation to do ill is greater on the Fathers side than that of the Children For they looking on themselves as having an absolute and unquestionable power over them and that they may deal with them as they please are apt to think themselves slighted and disobeyed by their Children perhaps on very light occasions and their Passion often rises to that height as not considering the Follies and Inconsiderateness of Youth that they may if Cholerick or Ill-natur'd strike them with that which may either kill them or else cripple or maim them and perhaps out of an immoderate Anger or being weary of them murder them on purpose And Fathers being more apt as having oftner occasion to be angry with their Children than their Children with them it is evident to me that in the state of Nature where there is no Magistrate to keep the Father in awe Fathers will be as apt to kill or maim their Children as Children their Parents And if the Fathers as I said before are intended for the good and preservation of their Child and that where their Right ceases the Childrens Right to preserve themselves takes place It seems to conduce more to the general good of Mankinde that the Children should make use of this last refuge of defending themselves when they cannot otherwise preserve their Lives and Members than that Fathers should have such an absolute Right to deal with them as they pleased without any power in the Children to resist or defend themselves So likewise Fathers being so much older understand their own advantage better than their Children and being somtimes more ill-natur'd and often by reason of their Age more covetous than they may be tempted to sell their Children for Slaves whereby they may fall into a condition worse than Death itself and may not the Son then endeavour to run away or use all lawful means possible to escape so great a misery Or if the Father will keep his Son as a Slave all the days of his life without any hopes of ever being free For when the Father dies the Son according to this
Geneva Discipline have built this perilous Conclusion That the People or Multitude have power to punish or deprive the Prince if he transgress the Laws of the Kingdom And for this quotes the Writings of divers Jesuits How far this Tenet deserves the Author's Censure and is liable to the Conclusions he says some have drawn from thence since the truth or falshood of Propositions does not depend upon the men that have made use of them I shall consider hereafter now confining my self onely to examine the Reasons he brings either in this or any other of his Treatises to overthrow this Opinion And if they prove weak and insufficient for the end the Author designed them some Friend of his or his Tenets had best finde out others which if they prove and appear evidently true I shall then rest satisfied and acknowledge my self absolutely convinced In the mean time I shall now give you the Author's Hypothesis all at once in his words that you may judge whether I deal fairly with him or no. P. 5. To pass over therefore his Cautions which are honest and sober I shall come to what he observes upon several passages of Bellarmine And though he does not quote the places from whence he took them yet I hope he hath dealt fairly with him Though I shall not take upon me to defend the contradictions or false consequences either of this or any other Author since I onely observe the onely Answer which p. 11. Sir R. F. gives Bellarmine's Argument for the natural Liberty of the People is out of Bellarmine himself whose words are these If many men had been created together out of the Earth they ought all to have been Princes over their Posterity In which words the Author says we have an evident confession that Creation made Man Prince of his Posterity And indeed not onely Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by right of Fatherhood Royal Authority over their Children Nor dares Bellarmine deny this That the Patriarchs saith he were endowed with Kingly power their deeds do testifie for as Adam was Lord of his Children so his Children under him had a Command and Power over their own Children but still with a subordination to the first Parent who was Lord Paramount over his Childrens Children to all Generations as being the Grandfather of his People Which conception of Bellarmine though it may destroy his Argument for natural Freedom yet I conceive that it does not destroy the necessity of supposing all the Kingdoms and Commonwealths now in being in the world to have had their beginning from Conquest or else from the Consent or Institution of the People who began it as I shall endeavour to prove more at large But from this concession of Bellarmine's the Author taking this as a yielded point proceeds thus P. 12. I do not see how the Children of Adam or any man else can be free from Subjection to their Parents And this Subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself it follows That Civil Power not onely in general is by Divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the eldest Parents Which quite takes away that new and common distinction which refers onely Power Vniversal and Absolute to God but Power Respective in regard of the special Form of Government to the Choice of the People P. 13. This Lordship which Adam by command had over the whole World and by right descending from him the Patriarchs did enjoy was as large and ample as the absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation For Power of Life and Death we finde that Judah the Father pronounced sentence of death against Thamar his Daughter-in-law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth saith he that she may be burnt Touching War we see that Abram commanded an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Family and Esau met his brother Jacob with 400 men at Arms. For matter of Peace Abraham made a League with Abimelech and ratified the Articles with an Oath These Acts of judging in capital Crimes of making War and concluding Peace are the chiefest Marks of Soveraignty that are found in any Monarchy And not onely until the Flood but after it this Patriarchal power did continue as the very name Patriarch doth in part prove The three Sons of Noah had the whole World divided amongst them by their Father for of them was the whole World overspread according to the Benediction given to him and his Sons Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth Then he proceeds upon a vulgar Opinion p. 14 15. That at the Confusion of Tongues there were 72 distinct Nations erected not as confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it appears that even in the Confusion God was careful to preserve Paternal Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families And for this he quotes the Text Gen. 10. v. 5. Speaking of the division of the Isles of the Gentiles among the Sons of Japhet it follows v. 5. These are the Families of the Sons of Noah after their Generations in their Nations and by these were these Nations divided in the Earth after the Flood So that though the manner of this Division be uncertain yet it is most certain the Division it self was by Families from Noah and his Children P. 16. As for Nimrod's being King over his own Family by Right and over other Families by Usurpation and Conquest and not by Election of the People or Multitude he gives us Sir Walter Rawleigh's opinion that it was so which I think is no better a proof than if he had given us his own but if it were true it proves no more than that this Patriarchal Right could not long continue since it was usurped in the Grandchild of Ham the fourth discent from Noah But he proceeds thus As this Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham Isaac and Jacob even unto the Egyptian Bondage so we finde it amongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau it is said These are the Sons of Ismael and these are their names by their Castles and Towns Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families c. P. 18. He owns this Paternal Government was intermitted during their Bondage in Egypt because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince But after the return of the Israelites out of bondage God out of a special care of them chose Moses and Josuah successively to govern as Princes instead of the supream Fathers And after them God raised up Judges to defend his People But when God gave them Kings he re-established the ancient and prime Right of Lineal-succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have the benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently in the person of the Father although the Father
have survived his Father If he say that Adam might leave it to Seth by Will this is gratis dictum and it lies upon him to prove that Adam made a Will or if he did how it could bind his true Heir If he say that Seth ought to succeed and govern his Brethren as being nearer in bloud to Adam what reason was there that the eldest Son's son should be punished and lose his Birthright for that which was not his fault but misfortune viz. that his Father was murdered before his Grandfather died Nor could Seth claim being elder and consequently wiser than his Nephew for his Nephew must be older since Seth was not born until after Abel was killed But if it be affirmed that the eldest Son of Abel ought to succeed and represent his Father I ask by what Law If it be replied that it is to be supposed that Adam if he had made a Will would rather have had his Grandson succeed him than his younger Son this is gratis dictum and were to affirm that the Right of governing is bequeathable which I have already confuted But if it be said that this Son of Abels should succeed because he represents his Father I would ask them by what Law this Right of Representation should take place before propinquity of Bloud or how could the Fathers expectation onely confer a Right to his Son in that which the Father was never possessed of So that there being equal Reasons on both sides and neither Law nor Precedent in the case there remained no way to decide this Controversie but either Combate or the Judgment or Arbitration of the rest of Adam's Descendants I suppose the Author will not allow the former sufficient to confer a good Title since the best Title might have the worst success in that Appeal to the Sword If he allows the latter then this hereditary Monarchy of Adam became Elective and depended upon the Will of all the Heads of the Families which descended from Adam For it is not likely in so doubtful and material a point as who should govern any of them would lose the priviledge of giving his Vote And if so this Right of Succession depended upon their Wills which might give it to which of the two Competitors they liked best and this being once done might for quietness pass into a Custom or Law for the future And that this Right of Representation where the Son dies before his Father cannot be decided by the Law of Nature or Reason alone is evident in that divers Nations or distinct Tribes of People have had different Customs about it and have established this Right of Succession divers ways For though the Roman or Civil Law allow of this Right of Representation yet the Germans and all Nations descended from them did not admit it until very lately See Grotius de J. B. Li. cap. 7. which shews there is nothing but Custom in the case And upon this pretence the League in France admitted the Cardinal of Bourbon King by the name of Charles the X before his Nephew the King of Navar his elder Brothers Son who died before him And that this difficulty who shall succeed the Uncle or the Nephew hath still perplext mankind in all Countries where the Succession hath not been settled by positive Laws or long Custom which is but the continued Will of the People may appear by those different Judgments that have been in all Ages made on this matter for when there arose a Controversie between Areus Son of Acrotatus eldest Son to Cleomenes King of Lacedaemon and Cleomenes the second Son of the said Cleomenes the Senate adjudged the Royalty for Areus against Clomenes But in Spain Mariani l. 13. c. 3. after the death of Alphonso the V King of Castile the States of Spain acknowledged his younger Son Sancho to be King and put by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grandson to the late King by his eldest Son though he had the Crown left him by his Grandfathers Will. And when Charles the II King of Sicily died Vicerius in Vita Henry 7. and left a Grandson behind him by his eldest Son surnamed Martel and a younger Son called Robert the matter being referred to Pope Clement V he gave judgment for Robert the younger Son of Charles who was thereupon proclaimed King of Sicily And it seems Glanvil who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry II makes it a great Question who should be preferred to the Crown the Uncle or the Nephew So that it was no strange thing for King John to make himself King before his Nephew Arthur since it was a moot point among the Lawyers of that Age who ought to succeed And where no Power could intervene it was decided by War and sometimes single Combats which Historians mention to have been waged between Uncles and Nephews contending for the Principality and not onely in this case but in all others where the Succession of the Empire is not settled by such Laws or Customs it lies continually liable to be disputed between the Sons or Grandsons of the last Prince nor can ever be decided but by the Sword Of which there is an Example in one of the greatest and most absolute Monarchies in the world viz. the Empire of the Mogul where for want of settling the Succession at first by a positive Law See Bernier's Travels 1 part and Tavernier Lib. Sir Tho. Row's Embassie Purchas part Terrey's Relation of Indostan and making the Raias Omrahs or great Lords give their consent to it and swear to observe it and so have made and ascertained it as an inviolable Custom as it is in the Ottoman Empire now upon the death of an Emperour though he declare by his Will who shall be his Successor yet the Grandees who are so many petty Princes and lead the People under their Command after them as they please do not think themselves at all obliged to observe it much less to set the Crown upon the eldest Sons head but every man is for that Son of the last Mogul whom they like best that is him they conceive will suit best with their interests and designes Nor do the Brothers think themselves at all obliged to yield to their eldest Brother whom they are assured will put them to death or make them perpetual Prisoners So that every one provides for himself and makes his Party as strong as he can by Gifts and Promises among the Grandees against his Fathers death Nay lately this prize hath been played among the Sons even in their Fathers life-time as in the case of the late Sha-Jehan who lived to see all his Sons killed and his person made a prisoner by his youngest Son Aureng Zebe who is for ought I know Mogul at this day And if any man thinks this onely an Evil peculiar to this Empire and not to others let him but read the Histories of the several Revolutions and Changes in all Moorish and Eastern Monarchies
no more to be said And as for the places out of St. Paul and Peter it not being my designe to write Divinity-Lectures I shall refer the Reader to the learned Commentators onely I shall take notice that his Assertion That these Apostles wrote their Epistles when the name of the Authority and People of Rome was still in being though the Emperours had usurped a Military Power and yet though the Government was for a long time in most things in the Senate and People of Rome yet for all this neither of the two Apostles take notice of any such Popular Government and our Saviour himself divides all between God and Caesar and â—llows nothing to the People All which though but a Negative Argument against Popular Government and â—o not conclusive yet the foundation of it is not true For though in Rome there remained a shadow of the Power in the Senate yet it was onely in such cases as â—he then Emperours committed to their judgment as â—he Kings of France do now make use of the Parliament of Paris onely to ease themselves of divers troublesome Causes or to take off the odium from themselves as in the condemnation of Sejanus and divers other Conspirators against them and yet they reserved the last Appeal to themselves in Cases both Civil and Capital as may be observed in St. Paul's appeal to Caesar and it is certain that the Roman Emperours in those times put men to death as often as they had a mind to it by their own power made what Edicts they pleased and appointed Proconsuls and Governours of Provinces as often as they saw it convenient and had all Money coined with their Image or Superscription and received and disposed of all Tributes publick Taxes And yet this Author doubts whether Tiberius Claudius or Nero were absolute Monarchs when they had all the Prerogatives that a Monarch could have I come now to the Author's Observations on Aristotle's Politicks It will be easie to prove that he makes use of him in all places that make for his Hypothesis but takes no notice of those that make against it a usual course among Writers especially in Politicks or Divinity Nor does he onely do this but likewise oftentimes perverts Aristotle's sence to make it subservient to his own of which I shall produce these instances In his first Quotation p. 3. he renders these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the eldest in every house is King Whereas 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not here signifie to be an absolute Monarch but to govern as a Master of a Family or chief Ruler a power faâ— short of that of an absolute Monarch And so Lambinus hath rendered it in his Version So likewise he hath misplaced these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and makes them to come in as a reason of what he says before concerning a perfect Monarchy whereas this sentence precedes the former and there are three or four sentences between them and therefore it cannot serve for a Consequent where it is really an Antecedent Nor is this sentence truely rendered by the Author For a King according to Law makes no kind of Government whereas he should have said No distinct species of Government for so are these last words to be rendered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or else he would make Aristotle contradict himself if after he had spoke so much in other * Vid. 3 Pol. c. 14. Speaking of the ancient Heroical Kingdoms places of a King according to Law he should make it no kind of Government at all So likewise p. 4. he misrenders these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That of all Governments Monarchy is the best and a Popular State the worst Whereas any one but meanly skill'd in Greek knows that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 does not signifie Monarchy but Kingship and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not a Popular Estate but an Aristocratical Commonwealth and in the same Chapter put in opposition to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shall not trouble my self to inquire whether Aristotle distinguishes well between an Aristocracy and an Oligarchy or between an Oligarchy and a Democracy or whether he do well to exclude Artificers from any Vote in the Government These I shall leave to be defended by those that are greater admirers of him than my self onely I will see that if I can he have fair play and not that sence put upon him that he never meant And therefore I shall turn over to p. 12. where he quotes another place out of Aristotle's fourth Book cap. 13. That the first Commonwealth among the Grecians after Kingdoms was made of those that waged War From whence he would infer That the Grecians after they left off to be governed by Kings fell to be governed by an Army So that any Nation or Kingdom that is not charged with the keeping of a King must perpetually be at the charge of paying and keeping of an Army Which though it happened true during the corrupt Oligarchy of the Rump which was â—ut an armed Faction contrary to the sense of this Nation yet is not a necessary Consequent of all Commonwealths Neither is it the Author's sence in this place as may appear by what he says before and what â—ollows these words That he meant no such thing a standing Army in constant Pay being a thing unknown among the Greek Commonwealths where every Freeman served in person as a Horseman or on foot according to his ability as any that reads those Histories may easily observe and a Guard of Strangers or a constant standing Army was ever held the Body of Tyranny as it still continues in all absolute Monarâ—hies from France to China But to return to Aristle in the place before cited by the Author where speaking just before of the Government of the Maleans and other Greek Commonwealths he says That their Government consisted not onely of those Footmen that bore Arms but of those that had served in the Army And then follows these words quoted by the Author 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are not well rendered by those that waged War since they should rather be rendered by those that went to the Wars this Force not being to defend them from their own Citizens but Neighbours with whom they were still at Wars for it appears that not onely those had a share in the Government who were actually in Arms but those also that had served in the Army for Aristotle says immediately after That their Strength consisted chiefly at first of Horsemen and that as the Common-wealths increased in the strength and number of them that were of ability or substance to bear Arms the Administration of the Commonwealth was communicated to more From whence it appears that as also at first among the Romans they onely had a Voice in their Councils or Assemblies who were able to maintain themselves in the Wars at their own charge As amongst us none have a