his Parents Commands pretending they are mad or drunk when really they are not he is without doubt doubly guilty both of Hypocrisie and Disobedience But this does not hinder Children in the state of Nature from judging of the reasonableness or lawfulness of their Parents Commands and of the condition they are in when they gave them for otherwise a Child ought to be of his Fathers Religion though it were Idolatry if he commanded it or were obliged to break any of the Laws of Nature if this Obedience were absolute And it is a lesser evil that the Commands of Parents should be disobeyed nay sometimes their persons resisted than that they should make a Right to command or do unreasonable and unlawful things in a fit of madness drunkenness or passion destroy either themselves or others But it may be replied that though Fathers in the state of Nature have no Right to act unjustly or cruelly toward their Children or to command such unlawful or unreasonable things yet however they are onely answerable to God for so doing and there is out of a Commonwealth no superiour power that can question the Fathers actions for since his Children are committed by God to his care he onely is answerable for them and for his actions towards them since no other man hath any interest or concern in them but himself So that if he kill maim abuse or sell his Son there is no man that hath Right to revenge punish or call him to an account for so doing and if no others that are his equals much less his Wife and Children who are so much his Inferiours and who ought in all things to be obedient to his Will Therefore this Power though it be not absolute in respect of God yet is so in respect of his Wife and Children and so in all cases where the Children cannot yield an active Obedience to their Fathers commands they are notwithstanding obliged by the Law of God See Ephes 6.1 Colos 3.20 to a passive one and patiently to submit to whatever evils or punishments he pleases to inflict though it were to the loss of Life itself To which I answer That though it is true a Father in the state of Nature and considered as the head of a separate Family hath no Superiour but God and consequently no other person whatsoever hath any Authority or Right to call him to an account and punish him for this abuse of his paternal Power yet it doth not follow that such absolute submission is therefore due from the Children as does oblige them either to an active or a passive Obedience in all cases to the Fathers Will so that they neither may nor ought to defend themselves in any circumstance whatsoever There is a great deal of difference in the state of Nature between calling a man to an account as a Superiour and defending a mans self as an equal For a man in this state hath a right to this latter against all men that assault him by the principle of Self-preservation But no man hath a right to the former but onely in respect of those over whom he hath an Authority either granted him by God or conferr'd upon him by the consent of other men So that the evils which an Aggressor or Wrong-doer suffers from him he injured though in respect of God the Supreme Lawgiver they may be natural Punishments ordained by him to deter men from violating the Laws of Nature yet they are not so in regard of the Person who inflicts them For God may sometimes appoint those for the Instruments of his Justice who otherwise do injury to the person punished as in the case of Absalom's Rebellion against his Father David So that in this case the evils the wrong-doer suffers are not properly Punishments but necessary Consequences of his Violence and Injustice and in respect of the Inflicter are but necessary means of his preservation So that if a Son have any Right to defend himself in what belongs to him from the unjust violence of his Father he doth not act as his Superiour but in this case as his Equal as he is indeed in all the Rights of Nature considered only as a Man Such as are a Right to live and to preserve himself and to use all lawful means for that end Therefore since as I have already shown that a Father hath no higher Right or Authority from God over the person of his Child but as it tends to his good and preservation or as it conduces to the great end of Nature the common Good and preservation of Mankinde So when the Father transgresses this Authority his Right ceases and when that ceases the Sons Right to preserve himself and in that to pursue that great end begins to take place Therefore out of a Civil state if a Father will endeavour evidently without any just cause to take away his Sons Life I think the Son may in this case if he cannot otherwise escape nor avoid it and that his Father will not be pacified neither with his submission nor entreaty defend himself against his Father not with a design to kill him but purely to preserve his own Life and if in this case the Father happen to be kill'd I think his Blood is upon his own head But if any object to me the Example of Isaac's submission to his Father when he intended to sacrisice him To this I answer that as this act of Abraham's is not to be taken as an Example for other Fathers so neither does the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons For as Abraham had no right to offer up his Son but by God's express Will so it is rational to suppose that Isaac being then as Chronologers make him about nineteen or twenty years of Age and able to carry wood enough upon his back to consume the Sacrifice and of years to ask where the Lamb was for the Offering was also instructed by his Father of the cause of his dealing so with him and then the submission was not paid to his Father's but to God's Will whom he was perswaded would have it so But if any man yet doubts whether resistance in such a case were lawful I leave it to his own Conscience whether if his Father and he were out of any civil estate whose assistance he might implore he would lie still and suffer his Father to cut his throat only because he had a minde to it or pretended revelation for it So likewise if a Father in this state should go about to violate his Sons Wife in his presence or to kill her or his Grandchildren I suppose he may as lawfully use the same means for their preservation if he cannot otherwise obtain it as he might for his own since they are delivered to his charge and that he only is answerable for them For since the Father doth not acquire any property in the Sons person either by begetting or educating him much less ought he to have it over those the Son hath begotten But though Children may have this Right of defending their own Lives or those of their Wives and Children from their Fathers unjust
violence when they can by no means else be preserved Yet I would not be here understood to give Children this right of resisting upon any less occasion as if the Father should only go about to correct his Son though without just cause it were therefore lawful for him to resist or beat his Father For we are obliged by the Law of Christ to bear smaller Injuries from others much more from a Father neither yet would I give them any right to continue this state of War and to revenge upon their Parents the Injuries they have formerly received at their hands For all Revenge taken in this sence as a satisfaction of the minde in returning of an evil or injury already received without any respect to a mans own preservation or the good of the person that did the wrong is unlawful even in the state of Nature Therefore this returning Evil for Evil which some improperly call Revenge is only justifiable for one or both of these ends either to make the party that hath done the Injury sensible of his Errour and seeing the Follies and Inconveniences of it to alter his minde and resolve to do so no more or as it may conduce to a mans own preservation for the future and be a warning to others not to injure him in like manner since they see he will not take injuries tamely But all this is still left to a mans own prudence how far he will pass them by And he is certainly obliged to leave off returning them assoon as he can be safe without it since otherwise quarrels would be perpetual Neither ought one who hath been highly obliged to a man perhaps for his life to return him evil for evil since scarce any Injury being great enough to cancel so great an Obligation Therefore since a Father who hath truely performed his Duty is the greatest Benefactor we can imagine in this life so no man ought to revenge an Injury though never so great upon him since it is not only undutiful but ungrateful and cannot serve either of those two ends for which alone this returning evil for evil is allowable For first it cannot make the Father see his fault since this correction being from a Son whom he looks upon as one highly obliged to him and so much his inferior will rather serve to exasperate than amend him Secondly Neither can this bearing of the Injury encourage others to attempt doing the like since all that know the case will likewise consider the person that did the wrong So that Patience alone is the only lawful means to make the Father see his Errour and be reconciled to his Child who ought to embrace it assoon as the Father offers it But as for the places of Scripture brought for absolute Obedience to Parents viz. the fourth Commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother Children obey your Parents in the Lord Ephes 6.1,2 and Children obey your Parents in all things Col. 3.20 God did not intend here to give us any new Law or Precept concerning this Duty but to confirm and explain the fifth Commandment as that was but a confirmation of the Law of Nature by which men were obliged to reverence and obey their Parents long before that Law was given Therefore since the Laws of Nature which are but Rules of right Reason for the good of Mankinde are the foundation of this Commandment and of all those commands in the New Testament they are still to be interpreted according to that Rule Neither are other places of Scripture understood in any other sence such as are those of turning the right Cheek of giving away a mans Coat to him that would go to Law and the like all which we are not to Interpret Literally See Grotius and. Dr. Hammond's Annot. upon these places but according to Reason And so are likewise these words of St. Paul to be understood Children obey your Parents in all things that is in all things reasonable and lawful And this sence must be allowed of or else Children were bound to obey all commands of their Parents whether unlawful or lawful being comprehended under this general word All. Nor will the distinction of an active or passive Obedience help in this case for passive Obedience cannot be the end of the Fathers command and consequently his will is not performed in suffering since no Father can be so unreasonably cruel as to command a thing meerly because he would have occasion to punish his Son whom he thinks must not resist him Neither do these places appoint a Son when an infant a man of full age and perhaps an old man of threescore to be all governed the same way or that the same Obedience is required of them all And this brings me to a fuller Answer to the Author's Argument and to shew that though Children are indeed always bound in Gratitude to please their Parents as far as they are able without ruining themselves and to pay a great reverence to them yet that this submission is not an absolute subjection but is to be limited according to the Rules of right Reason or Prudence And to prove this I will produce instances from the case of Adam's Children since the Author allows no Father to have had a larger authority than himself We will therefore consider in the first place Adam's power as a Father in respect of his Sons marriage Suppose then that he had commanded one of his Sons never to marry at all certainly this command would have been yoid since then it had been in Adam's power to have frustrated Gods Command to mankind of increase and multiply and replenish the Earth which was not spoken to Adam and Eve alone since they could not do it in their persons but to all mankind represented in them And likewise Adam had been the occasion of his Sons incontinency if he had lain with any of his Sisters before marriage Secondly Suppose Adam had commanded Abel to marry one of his Sisters that being the onely means then appointed to propagate mankind which he could not love can any man think that he had been obliged to do it Certainly no for it would have been a greater sin to marry a wife he knew before-hand he could not live with than to disobey his Father for else how could this be true Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife Since then Adam could not force his Sons affections but onely recommend such of his Sisters as he thought would best suit with his humour therefore if the Son could not live without marriage and that Adam could not force a Wife upon him it was most reasonable that he should chuse a Wife for himself And to come to that other great point that the Son can never separate himself from his Fathers Family nor subjection
in the Fatherhood Vid. Mezeray Abregé Chron. An. 1318. and that the first Kings were Fathers of Families which if granted yet will not prove that this proceeded from that natural perpetual subjection which Children owe their Parents or that because they are Parents they are therefore Lords and Kings over them So that this being the Groundwork of whatever he says in this Discourse p. 67. if this be faulty as I hope I have proved it to be all that he builds upon this foundation signifies nothing Secondly he assumes that this Paternal power cannot be lost it may be transferr'd or usurped but never lost or ceaseth But as the power of the Father may be lawfully transferred or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped and in Vsurpation the Title of the Vsurper is before and better than the Title of any other than him that had a former Right for he hath a possession by the permissive Will of God which permission how long it will last no man ordinarily knows every man is to preserve his own life for the service of God and of his King or Father and is so far to obey an Vsurper as may tend not onely to the preservation of his King and Father but sometimes even of the Vsurper himself when probably he may he thereby preserved to the correction or mercy of his true Superiour And though by humane Law a long Prescription may take away a Right yet divine Right never dies nor can be lost or taken away The same he says p. 70. That in Grants and Gifts that have their original from God or Nature as the power of the Father hath no inferiour power of man can limit nor make any Prescription against them Vpon this ground is built that Maxime That Nullum tempus occurrit Regi no time bars a King Which second assumption is likewise false for I have already proved that all Fatherly power ceases with the life of the Father as Motherly power with the life of the Mother or else in the state of Nature a man must be left like other Cattle to be pickt up and markt by whoever can first seize him And secondly that it is false that this power and authority of a Father can be transferred to or usurped by another or that the Son owes the person to whom his Father transfers or sells him any other duty than as his Assignee performs the Office of a Father towards him Much less that an Usurper acquires any Right over the person of the Son in the state of Nature for otherwise if a Thief should procure strength enough to drive a Master of a separate Family out of doors and so this Rogue could subdue the whole House and set up for Lord and Master of it that then the Wife and Children and Servants were immediately bound to obey him because he hath a possession and is in by the permissive Will of God and so hath a better Right than any body else but the Master himself It is true indeed in this case every Member of this Family is bound to preserve his own life and may yield a passive Obedience to this Rogue for fear of his power and as far as he thinks it will conduce to his preservation but I do not see any obligation he hath from Conscience or Reason to obey this Robber farther than as he cannot help it but may take the first opportunity to drive him out of the House and call in his true Father or Master unless he hath made him any promise to be quiet and not assault him for then he is in the same state with a Prisoner upon parol for all Writers on this subject hold that nothing but a lawful War can give any man a Right over the person of another unless he become his Servant by some voluntary act of his own or otherwise the Slaves taken by the Argter-Pyrates were in a sad case for they were bound in Conscience never to escape without the consent of their Masters Nor upon the Authors principles is there any difference between a Father of a Family in the state of Nature and a Prince since he tells us more than once that a Kingdom is but a large Family And consequently no difference between an Usurper of the Fatherly power and that of a Monarch onely the Rogue that usurped the one could call himself but Master of the Family but the other would stile himself King Emperour o◠Protector Nor will the place of St. Paul Rom. 13. v. 1. oblige any man in this case for though it is said that St. Paul wrote this Epistle Nero an Usurper being Emperour of Rome I deny that Nero was an Usurper for though it is true that Claudius left a Son yet since by the Roman Law a man might make whom he pleased his Son by Adoption which Son so adopted was in all respects looked upon as the true Heir of the adopting Father and Nero was so adopted by Claudius and so being elder than his own Son Germanicus would succeed before him Tacit Annal. 12. c. 25 26. And besides the Adoption being confirmed and passed into a Law by the Senate Nero was as truly Claudius's Son by the Roman Law as Britannicus himself So that an Usurper hath at first no better Right than another For Gods permitting a wicked act to be done as a Banditi or Pyrate to take a man Prisoner does not therefore confer on this Thief or Pyrate any Right over a mans person So that the instance the Author gives p. 73. will not hold That Vsurpers have such a qualified Right to govern as is in Thieves who have stolen Goods and during the time they are possessed of them have a Title in Law against all others but the true Owners and so such Vsurpers to divers intents and purposes may be obeyed For first this is no Law of Nature or Reason but onely a positive Law of England where for the avoiding of perpetual violence and strife and for the better securing of Property they have made possession even in Thieves to confer a Temporary Right against all but the true Proprietor Whereas in the state of Nature a Thief by invading another mans Goods unjustly and taking them away by violence becomes an Enemy to all Mankind and so may lawfully be killed or have what he hath so possessed taken from him by any other Secondly Neither does the parallel between the possession of Goods and that of a Kingdom hold for Goods may be possessed by the first Occupant but Government which is an Authority over the person of a man can never be seized since a man without his own act or consent can never lawfully fall into the power or possession of another as I have already proved So that I know not to what purpose this Treatise of the Authors could serve but to make all men obliged in Conscience to yield not onely a passive but an active Obedience to all the Commands of Cromwel and the
whilst they are well used which if they come to be depraved by those that are in power the same things are counted wicked and unprofitable So likewise p. 73. he makes the Multitude or People of Rome to have elected Nero Heliogabalus Otho and Vitellius for Emperours and to have murdered Pertinax Alexander Severus Gordiun and the rest there named whereas whoever reads the Historians of those times will find it was not the People or Senate but the Army that either elected or murdered Emperours And as for Nero the Senate had never dared to have declared him a publick Enemy had he not become so odious and intolerable that nobody would take Arms for him and that the Army under Galba which had revolted and chosen him Emperour was then marching to Rome So that indeed these Emperours were torn in pieces by the Dogs they themselves fed and kept constantly in pay to prevent the People who had not yet quite forgot their former Liberty from recovering it again And the People of Rome had just as great a hand in the setting up and putting down Emperours as those of Stambola have had in the deposing or setting up those Grand Seigniors which the Janizaries their Guards have strangled of late years setting up their Uncles or Brothers in their rooms or as the People of England had in setting up either Oliver or his Son Richard for Protectors But leaving these lesser Mistakes which I look upon onely as the Transports of the Author's Resentments against Popular Government in which I shall not contradict him in the main onely I would fain lay the Saddle upon the right Horse and not blame them for the faults committed by a standing Army which in those times domineer'd over both Emperour and the People of Rome and imposed upon them what Emperour they pleas'd though never so base and unworthy I shall therefore in the last place come to the second point I before proposed whether the person on whom the Fathers of Families upon this Escheat of the Crown confers their Authority owe the same to them or else immediately to God The Author in the passage before cited will by no means grant That the person so elected claims his Power from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an universal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People Which Assertion is built upon grounds altogether false and precarious as I have already proved For first he here supposes That God hath given by divine grant all Fathers in the state of Nature an absolute despotick power over the persons of their Sons so that they may sell or otherwise transfer this Fatherly power to whom they please And secondly That the Children are as much obliged to obey those to whom the Fathers transfer this Right as they were their Fathers themselves Thirdly That this Power so transferred does not properly derive it self from the Fathers who so pass over their Fatherly power but to God who conferred it on them at first In which Hypothesis every one of the Propositions are false For first I have proved that no Father hath by any divine Grant or Charter an absolute despotick power over the person of his Son Or secondly that God hath given Fathers a power to bequeath or transfer their Authority to another so that the Grantee should by this Assignement succeed to all the Rights of a Father and therefore the two former being false the last of Princes receiving their power immediately from God which is built upon them must be so too And besides it is evident that these Fathers do not onely here pass over a Fatherly power of governing of their Wives and Children but likewise that of governing themselves not as Fathers but as men since they must transfer this power whether they had Wives or Children or not else they might onely pass over to this new Monarch their power over their Wives and Children and reserve the power of governing themselves still So that it is plain there is a power different from that of a Father to be transferred But if it may be replyed They may chuse themselves a Father if they please indeed I have heard of a mans adopting of a Son which still must be by this Son 's own consent yet I never heard of a Son 's adopting himself a Father or that a Father which is a natural Relation can be created at mans pleasure it is true a Lord or Master may but he cannot thereby challenge that natural Reverence and Gratitude due onely to a Father So that if Fathers have a power of governing themselves and their actions in the state of Nature and that they can confer this Right on any other it is evident they do not confer this as a Paternal power on their Monarch which the Author supposes to be granted by God to all Fathers We shall now come to the second Head at first proposed and examine what power a Master of a separate Family hath over his Slaves or Servants in the state of Nature First As for hired Servants though it is true they may submit themselves to the will and disposal of another what Diet they shall eat and what Clothes they shall wear what work they shall do and what hours of rest or sleep they shall have to themselves and that the Master may beat or correct him if he do amiss and through wilfulness or negligence disobey his Masters commands and that these are the Conditions that most hired Servants being part of their Masters Family do serve upon yet is this not so properly an absolute Obedience as a duty of Truth and Honesty in the Servant since as he is bound to perform his part of the Contract so likewise is the Master to perform what he hath promised them since this service is neither absolute nor perpetual so that when his time is out he is free of course And if in the mean time the Master does not allow him sufficient Food Clothes or hours of rest so that he may be able to perform his work this Servant in the state of Nature if he cannot perswade his Master to use him better may without doubt quit his service as soon as he can since he was to yield his Master his Labour upon certain Conditions which not performed on the Masters part the Servant is not obliged any longer to perform his part of the Bargain in living with him or serving him And as for those that have sold or yielded themselves up as absolute perpetual Servants or Slaves to the government of another I see no reason why they may not in this state of Nature make certain Conditions with their Master before they will give themselves up to him since if a man may covenant with another upon what condition he will serve him for seven years why may he not do the same for his whole life So that upon the non-performance of these
these Patriarchs â—ere For this will serve toward the solving those â—xamples he puts of Abram's power of Peace and â—ar and of Judah's power of Life and Death over 〈◊〉 Daughter-in-law Thamar We will first then conâ—er the power of a Father by the Law of Nature â—er his Children and then that of a Master of a Faâ—ly over his Wife Servants or Slaves To begin â—…th that of a Father as the most worthy I shall deavour to search into the Original of the Father's â—wer over the persons of his Children and how far extends It is evident that this Power of Fathers over their â—ildren can only take place in the state of Wedlock 〈◊〉 as to Children got out of Marriage it is uncertain â—o is their Father who can only be known by the declaration of the Mother and she sometimes cannot certainly tell her self So that no man is obliged to take care of or breed up a Bastard because the Mother if she had her liberty of keeping what company she pleased can never morally assure him that the Child is his therefore unless he take upon him the care and education of this Child it belongs to the Mother and not to him to provide for it So that the Right of the Father over his Child commences by vertue 〈◊〉 the Marriage which is a mutual Compact between a Man and a Woman for their Cohabitation the generation of Children and their joint care and provision for them So that though by the Law of Nature which is confirm'd by the Law of God the Woman as the weaker vessel is to be subject to the Man as the stronger stouter and commonly the wiser creature 〈◊〉 whose care and courage she must owe the greatest parâ— of her provision and protection yet she is not without an Interest in the Children since she is under 〈◊〉 obligation to perform her part and that the most 〈◊〉 borious and troublesome in their Education thougâ— her Power and Right in them be still subordinate 〈◊〉 that of the Man to whom by force of the Marriage shâ— hath already subjected herself Some Writers therâ— fore think they have done sufficiently when they 〈◊〉 us that the Father hath an absolute Dominion ovâ— his Child because he got it and is the cause of it being By this Argument the Mother hath greatâ— Right over the person of the Child since all Natâ— ralists hold the Child partakes more of her than of 〈◊〉 Father and she is besides at greater pain and troubâ— both in the bearing bringing it forth nursing anâ— breeding it up But if it be answered that the Maâ— being Master of his Wife is by the Contract so likâ— wise of her Issue Then it follows that this power 〈◊〉 the Father does not commence barely from Geneâ—… tion but is acquired from the Contract of Marriage which till I meet with some reason to the contrary I see not why it might not be so agreed by the Contracts that the Father should not dispose of the Children without the Mothers consent Since we see it often so agreed in the Marriages of Soveraign Princes Vid. Articles of Marriage between King Philip and Queen Mary in Godwin's Annals An. 1554. Thuanus Lib. IX So likewise where a Subject marries his Queen as the Lord Darnley's Marriage with Mary Qu. of Scotland the Soveraignty and consequently the Power over the Children to be born remained entirely in Her who are always supposed to be in the state of Nature in respect to each other Yet though I will not deny but some Gratitude and Acknwledgment is due from Children to Parents even for this that they did enter into the state of Marriage for their generation and were the occasion of their Being Yet I do not see how by this alone a Father acquires an absolute power and dominion over the person of the Child to dispose of it as he thinks fit Since Parents acting here only as Natural and not Moral Agents they are not the voluntary Causes of its generation Therefore I cannot found so great a Right as that of an absolute perpetual Dominion over the Children upon so slight a foundation We must therefore trace this Right of Fathers over his Children to a more true original than any of these Since then all the Laws of Nature or Reason are intended for one end or effect viz. the common good and preservation of Mankinde and that Marriage is no otherwise a Duty than as by the propagation of our Species it conduces to without the help and assistance of others and that the Parents entred into this state of Marriage for the procreation of Children both the Instinct of Nature and Law of Reason dictate that they are obliged to take care of and provide for that Child which they as subordinate Causes have produced as being those on whom God hath imposed this Duty which is much greater than that of Generation for now the world is sufficiently peopled it may be doubted whether any person is obliged to Marry further than it may consist with their conveniency or course of Life But Parents when they are Married are tyed by the Laws of Nature to take care of the Children Therefore I suppose the highest Right of Parents in their Children doth arise merely from their discharge of this great Duty of Education as may appear from this Instance Suppose the Parents not being willing to undertake the trouble of breeding up the Child do either expose it or pass over their Right in it to another assoon as it is born I desire to know if the person that finds this Child or he to whom it is assigned breed it up until it come to have the use of Reason what Duty this Child can owe his Parents if they are made known to him Certainly all the obligation he can have to them must be upon the score of their begetting him which how small that is you may observe from what hath been said before nor can the Parents claim any further Right in this Child since by their exposing and granting it away they renounced all the Interest they could have in it so that the Duty and Gratitude he should have owed them had they taken upon them the care and trouble of breeding him up is now due to his Foster-Father or Mother who took care of him until he was able to shift for himself From whence it is evident that the highest Right which Parents can have in their Children is not meerly natural from generation but acquir'd by their performance of that nobler part of their Duty And so the highest Obedience which Children owe their Patents proceeds from that Gratitude and Sense they ought to have of the great obligation they owe their Parents for the trouble and care they put them to in their Education Having now I hope found out the Original of Parents Right and Interest in their Children and the chief ground of their Gratitude and Duty to their Parents we will now proceed to
reason why these distinctions of Grotius may not be well enough defended against all the Reasons which the Authour gives us to the contrary For he only tells us He cannot conceive how in any case Children can ever naturally have any power or moral faculty of doing what they please without their Fathers leave and that naturally the Power of Parents never ceaseth by any separation c. but gives us no other reason than that they are always bound to study to please them As if this obligation of Gratitude and Complacency did likewise comprehend a full and perfect propriety of all Fathers in the persons of their Children and an absolute power over them in all cases whatsoever so that Children shall have no Right left to consult their own good or preservation in any case whatsoever Vid. Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 4. farther than the Father pleases As for Bodin and divers others that have writ on this subject they do no more than follow others who have asserted this Absolute Power upon no other grounds than the Jewish or Roman Municipal Laws but have never troubled themselves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial Subjection according to the Laws of Nature or Reason And most Treatises of this subject being commonly written by Fathers they have been very full in setting forth their own Power and Authority over their Children but have said little or nothing of the Rights of Children in the state of Nature towards their Parents Loc. sup laudat Therefore Bodin thinks he hath done enough in supposing that if a Father is wise and not mad he will never kill his Son without cause since he will never correct him without he deserve it and that therefore the Civil Law supposes that the Will of the Parents in managing the concerns of their Children is void of all Fraud and that they will rather violate all Divine and Humane Laws than not endeavour to make their Children both rich and honourable And from those instances out of the Roman Law supposes that Parents cannot so much as will any thing to their Childrens prejudice or so much as abuse this Fatherly Power of Life and Death And therefore thinks he hath sufficiently answered the Objection he makes that there have been some Parents who have abused this power so far as to put their Children to Death without cause He says They give us no Examples to the contrary And supposing this to have sometimes fallen out must therefore Legislators alter a wholsome Law because some persons may abuse it But if we consider what Bodin hath here said we shall finde every one of his Suppositions false For 1. he supposes it to be the Right of all Fathers by the Law of Nature to have an absolute power over the lives and persons of their Children 2. That the Jewish and Roman Law are most agreeable to the Laws of Nature in this point 3. That Fathers do seldom or never abuse this power 4. That if they do abuse it yet it is better to leave it in their hands than to abrogate it or retrench it The falseness of all which Assertions I either have already or else shall hereafter make manifest Only I shall remark thus much at present That upon Bodin's principle women that murder their Bastards would have a good time on 't because having no Husbands they have full power over the Life of their Children and there is no reason that it should be retrencht by any positive Laws because some offend against it But however this Argument of Bodin's would do our Author's cause no good for if Parents are to be trusted with this absolute power over their Children because of the natural affection they are always supposed to bear them then Princes ought not to be trusted with it since none but Parents themselves can have this natural affection towards their Children Princes as the Author grants having this power onely as representing these Parents Whereas Parentage is a natural Relation and neither can be created nor assigned farther than the Civil Laws of the Country have appointed and therefore there can be no adopted Son by the Law of Nature since Adoption arises chiefly from the promise and consent of the person adopted and partly from the Authority of the Civil Law or Municipal Law of the Commonwealth So that in relation to Princes upon this Reason of Bodin's cessante causa cessat effectus But indeed Bodin never dreamt of this fine Notion of our Author's that all Monarchs were not onely Heads but Fathers of their people or else certainly we should have had this as the chief Argument to prove his French Monarchy to be Jure Divino But I shall trouble my self no farther with him at present but shall proceed to consider this point of absolute Obedience a little farther I suppose the Author as any sober man else would grant that Children are not obliged so much as to attempt to perform the commands of their Parents in case they evidently appear impossible or extravagant such as a Father may give when he is in a fit of drunkenness madness or sudden rage which is all one with madness and of this who can judge but the Children who are to perform these Commands And in this case no man will deny but it is lawful for the Children to hold nay binde their mad or drunken Parents in case they cannot otherwise hinder them from doing mischief or killing either themselves their Mothers or Brethren So that though they may do this from that natural love charity which all men in the state of nature ought to shew toward each other yet they may likewise justifie the doing of it as Children who ought to have a greater concern for the good and preservation of their Parents than meer strangers and have therefore an higher obligation to prevent their doing any mischief either to themselves or neer Relations this being for the Fathers good and preservation and that for which he hath cause to thank them when he comes to himself And if it be said that the Son may then refuse his Fathers Commands or resist them pretending he is mad drunk or in a rage when he really is not and thereby take occasion to obey his Father no farther than he pleases to this I answer That the Son is either really perswaded that his Father is in some of those evil circumstances before mentioned or else onely pretends that he thinks so when really he does not If in the first case he erre in his judgment and the ignorance did not proceed from his own fault either of passion prejudice or too slight an esteem of his Fathers understanding he is not culpable though he make such a false judgment of his Fathers actions for God considering onely the sincerity of the heart does not require of any man more than he is able to perform But if on the other side the Son play the Hypocrite and refuse
Anno 125. But to return to our Author from whom I have a little degressed I think he is mistaken in affirming all Power which enables in some cases a Man to resist or oppose his Governors must be Authoritative and Civil Therefore I shall put the same case again which I did about the beginning of these Observations concerning the Natural Power of Fathers Suppose a Son cannot otherwise preserve his own Life or that of his Mother or Brothers from the rage of his mad or drunken Father but by holding him or binding him if need be I suppose no reasonable Man will deny the lawfullness of this action and yet this Power over his Fathers Person is not Authoritative or Civil but Moral and which the Son does exercise not as Superior to his Father but as a Rational Creature obliged by the Laws of Nature to preserve his own being and to endeavour the good preservation of his Parents and Relations not against Paternal Authority which is always Rational and for the good of the Family but Brutish Irrational force Which God gives every Man a right to judg of so likewise if a Prince prove either a Madman or a stark Fool the power which their Subjects exercise in the ordering him or confining him and appointing Regents or Protectors to Govern for him and in his Name is not Authoritative or Civil since the Prince himself who is the Fountain of all Authority gave them no such power and therefore must be Natural or Moral or residing in them as reasonable Creatures And of this we have had divers examples Thus the French were forced to confine their Mad King Charles VI. and appoint his Queen to be Regent during his Distraction So likewise Joan Queen of Castile falling Distracted upon the Death of Her Husband King Philip I. Her Father Ferdinand governed in Her right and after His decease Her Son Charles afterwards Emperor she continuing bereft of her understanding was admitted King of Castile And what hath been done lately in Portugal is so notorious that it needs not a particular Recital So then Mr. Hs. expression That this is a Moral Judgment residing in reasonable Creatures and lawful for them to execute may not seem so absurd as to imply what our Author endeavours to draw from thence that Authoritative and Civil Judgment does not reside in reasonable Creatures nor can be Lawfully executed since a Reasonable Creature may be endued with another Power of acting precedent to that of the Civil So I shall likewise leave it to the Judgment of the impartial Reader whether this conclusion fits so well with Anarchy as the Author will have it As also whether Mr. H. take away all Government by leaving every Man to his own Conscience to judg when the Prince oppresses him for else how could he sue for relief to the Prince himself and so all actions a Prince did or commanded would be just and lawful though never so contrary to Reason or positive Law And so there would be truly as Mr. Hobs asserts no other measure of good and evil right or wrong but the Princes will But as I have no where maintained with Mr. H. in his Treatise which our Author writes against that ours is a mixt Monarchy though limited by Law and therefore shall not maintain as he does the King to be one of the Three Estates according to the Opinions held during the late Wars So on the other side that there is and ever hath been such a Government as a mixt Monarchy in some Countreys I hope I have made out notwithstanding what this Author says to the contrary and that these might more properly be called a mixt Monarchy then mixt Aristocracy or mixt Democracy Since all Governments of this kind take their denomination from the most Honourable and Predominant part in it in whom the Executive or Authoritative part resides And though perhaps some of these Governments may not seem so firm so regular and well constituted as others it does not therefore follow that they are meer Anarchies or that all mixtures and limitations of Monarchy are vain or unlawful as our Author imagines For a further proof of which I will not give you may own sence alone but likewise of that eminent Civil Lawyer Mr. Pufendorf now or very lately Gretian Professor in the University of Vpsal in his excellent work De Jure Naturae Gentium Dedicated to Charles the 10th now King of Sweden and certainly holding a place of such profit and Credit in his Dominions he would be too prudent to speak any thing prejudicial to Monarchy or contrary to the Government of Sweden in particular But to return to the matter in the above-mentioned Treatise which for the benefit of those that cannot easily procure the Latine Original Lib. 7. Cap. 5. where speaking before of the several kinds of mixt Governments or Common-wealths § 14. He expresses himself to this purpose as near as I can Translate it Yet however as I will not envy the commendation of constancy in any that will obstinately maintain the name of a mixt Common-wealth to those sorts of Government he had before recited So it seems to us more ready and easie for the demonstrating divers Phaenomena in certain Common-wealths if we rather call those irregular Common-wealths in which neither one alone of the three irregular Forms is found neither an absolute Disease or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 takes place and which yet cannot be strictly referred to distinct confederate States Concerning which it is generally to be observed that they depart in this from a regular Common-wealth whilst in them all things do not seem to proceed as it were from one Soul and will neither to be governed by one Common Authority Yet they diffor from the confederate State in that they are not compounded of distinct and perfect Common-wealths as these are Yet they are far from those things that they count Diseases in a Common-wealth because a Disease that always carries with it as it were a shameful and unallowable pretence since it proceeds from â—he evil administration of a good Form of Government or from Laws and Institutions ill contrived and put together Whereas this irregularity does not only intrinsically affect the very Form it self but also being publickly and lawfully establish'd dares shew it self openly and without shame So that a Disease ought to be supposed as not intended by those who first Instituted this Common-wealth since the irregularity arose or was Confirmed from the will or approbation of those of whom the Government was at first Constituted as a building is one thing whose design agrees with the Rules of Architectture but either its materials are naught or else thorough the carelesness of the Dwellers the Roof gapes and the Walls are ready to fall and another thing where a Model though differing from the common Rules of Building is dedesigned by the Owner or Architect himself Lastly some of these irregularities may have continued from the
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
onely was named in the Grant P. 19. The Author proceeds to obviate an Objection that he sees may be made to his Hypothesis That it may seem absurd that Kings now are Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true says he all Kings are not the natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the natural Parents of the whole People and so in their right succeed to the exercise of Supream Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not onely Lords of their own Children but of their Brethren and all others that were Subjects to their Fathers And therefore we finde that God told Cain of his brother Abel His desires shall be toward thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Jacob bought his brothers Birthright Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy brethren and let the sons of thy mother bow before thee P. 20. As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarch did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and onely the right of the Father descended upon the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more significant to express the power of him who succeeds onely to the right of Fatherhood which his Ancestors did naturally enjoy By this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath a right of a Father over many a gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae It may be demanded What becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in case the Crown does escheat for want of an Heir whether doth it not then devolve to the People The Answer is It is but the negligence or ignorance of the People to lose the knowledge of the true Heir for an Heir there is always If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die it is certain that there is one man and but one in the world who is next Heir although the knowledge who should be that one man be quite lost P. 21. This ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supream Power is devolved to the Multitude or that they have power to rule and chuse what Rulers they please No the Kingly power in such cases escheats to the Princes and independent Heads of Families for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made By the uniting of great Families or petty Kingdoms we finde the greater Monarchies were at first erected and into such again as into their first matter many times they return again And because the dependancy of ancient Families is oft an obsure and worn-out knowledge there the wisdom of many Princes have thought fit to adopt those for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enabled them or made them fit and capable of such Royal Favours All such prime Heads and Fathers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Soveraign Authority on whom they please And he that is so elected claims not his power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an Vniversal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People P. 22. In all Kingdoms or Commonwealths in the world whether the Prince be the Supreame Father of the People or but the true Heir of such a Father p. 23. or whether he come to the Crown by usurpation of the Nobles or of the People or by any other way whatsoever or whether some few or a multitude govern the Commonwealth yet still the Authority that is in any one or in many or in all these is the onely Right and natural Authority of a Supream Father There is and always shall be continued to the end of the world a natural Right of a Supream Father over a multitude although by the secret Will of God many do at first most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it To confirm this natural Right of Regal Power we finde in the Decalogue that the Law which enjoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the Terms of Honour thy Father and thy Mother as if all Power were originally in the Father If Obedience to Parents be due immediately by a natural Law and Subjection to Princes but by the mediation of an humane Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men as we see the power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate P. 24. If we compare Rights of a Father with those of a King we finde them all one without any difference at all but onely in the latitude or extent of them As the Father over one Family so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve feed clothe instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth His War his Peace his Courts of Justice and all his Acts of Soveraignty tend onely to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father and to their Children their Rights and Priviledges so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Vniversal Fatherly Care of his People I have been so just to the Author as to transcribe as much of his first Chapter as tends to prove the original power of Kings as well that you might see the Hypothesis which he builds his Divine Right of Absolute Monarchy in his own words and so be the better able to judge whether I understand and answer him or not as because it contains the substance and strength of all that the Author had to say in defence of it So that I shall now fall to examine whether his Foundations will bear so weighty a Structure as he hath raised upon it His first Argument against the natural Freedom of Mankinde is drawn from Scripture and from Bellarmine's own Concession That Adam was and consequently every other Father ought to be a Prince over his Posterity And as Adam was Lord over his Children so his Children under him had a power over their own Children suberdinately to the first Parent who was Lord Paramount over his Childrens Children to all Generations as being the Grandfather of his People So that neither the Children of Adam or any else can be free from subjection to their Parents and this subjection to Parents being the foundation of all Legal Authority by the Ordination of God himself therefore no man can be born in a state of Freedom or Equality In answer to which I shall not concern my self what Bellarmine or any other have granted but would be glad to know where and how God hath given this Absolute power to Fathers over their Children and by what Law Children are tyed to an Absolute Subjection or Servitude to
the Second Point proposed and consider what kinde of Right this is and how far it extends Since therefore the Father's greatest interest in his Child proceeds from his having bred it up and taken care of it and that this Duty is founded on that great Law of Nature that every Man ought to endeavour the common good of Mankinde which he performs as far as lies in his power in breeding up and taking care of his Child it follows that this right in the Child or power over it extends no farther than as it conduces to this end that is the good and preservation thereof and when this Rule is transgressed the Right ceases For God hath not delivered one man into the power of another merely to be tyrannized over at his pleasure but that the person who hath this Authority may use it for the good of those he governs And herein lies the difference between the Interest which a Father hath in his Children and that property which he hath in his Horses or Slaves since his right to the former extends only to those things that conduce to their Good and Benefit but in the other he hath no other consideration but the profit he may reap from their labour and service being under no other obligation but that of Humanity and of using them as becomes a good-natur'd and merciful man yet still considering and intending his own advantage as the principal end of his keeping of them Whereas in his Children he is chiefly to design their good and advantage as far as lies in his power without ruining himself and though he justly may make use of their labour and service while they continue as part of his Family yet it is not for the same end alone that he uses his Horses or Slaves but that his Children being bred up in a constant course of Industry may be the better able either to get their own living or else to spend their time as they ought to do without falling into the Vices of Idleness or Debauchery So that it is evident the Father has no more right over the Life of his Child than another man being as much answerable to God if he abuse this Right of a Father in killing his innocent Son as if another had done it Neither hath he from the same Principles any right to maim or castrate his Child as this Author allows him to do in his Directions for Obedience much less sell him for a Slave Therefore it is no part of the Law of Nature unless he cannot otherwise provide for it but of the Roman or Civil-Law that a Father should have power to sell his Son three times For the Father is appointed by God to meliorate the condition of his Child but not to make it worse since it is not himself but God that properly gave him his being So that I hope I have sufficiently proved there is a great difference between a Child and a Slave or a Servant for Life though this Authour will have them in the state of Nature to be all one But for the better clearing of this point how far the power of Parents over their Children extends I think we may very well divide as Grotius does the life of the Child into three periods or ages De J.B. l. 2. c. 5. § 2. The first is the time of imperfect judgment or before the Child comes to be able to exercise his Reason The second is the period of perfect Judgment yet whilst the Child still continues part of his Fathers Family The third is after he hath left his Father's and either enters into another Family or sets up a Family himself In the first Period all the actions of Children are under the absolute dominion of their Parents for since they have not the use of Reason nor are able to judge what is good or bad for themselves they could not grow up nor be preserved unless their Parents judged for them what means conduced to this end yet this power is still to be directed for the principal end the good and preservation of the Child In the second Period when they are of mature Judgment yet continue part of their Fathers Family they are still under their Fathers command and ought to be obedient to it in all actions which tend to the good of their Fathers Family and concerns and in both these Ages the Father hath a power to set his Children to work as well to enable them to get their own Living as to recompence himself for the pains and care he hath taken and the charge he may have bin at in their Education For though he were obliged by the Law of Nature to breed up his Children yet there is no reason but he may make use of their labour as a natural recompence for his trouble And in this Period the Father hath power to correct his Son if he prove negligent or disobedient since this Correction is for his advantage to make him more careful and diligent another time and to subdue the stubbornness of his Will But in other actions the Children have a power of acting freely yet still with respect of gratifying and pleasing their Parents to whom they are obliged for their Being and Education since without their care they could not have attained to that age But since this Duty is not by force of any absolute Subjection but only of Piety Gratitude and Observance it does not make void any act though done contrary to those Duties as Marriage and the like for the gift of a thing is not therefore void though made contrary to the Rule of Prudence and Frugality In the third Period they are in all actions free and at their own dispose yet still under those obligations of Gratitude Piety and Observance toward their Parents as their greatest Benefactors since if that they have well discharged their Duty toward their Children they can never in their whole lives sufficiently recompence so great benefits as they have received from them But it seems the Authour is not satisfied with these distinctions Observations on Grotius de J. B. p. 62. but saies He cannot conceive how in any case Children can ever naturally have any power or moral Faculty of doing what they please without their Parents leave since they are always bound to study to please them And though by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of discretion have Power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by positive humane Laws only which are made by the Supreme Fatherly Power of Princes who regulate limit or assume the Authority of Inferiour Fathers for the publick benefit of the Commonwealth So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceaseth by any separation but only by the permission of the transcendent Fatherly Power of the Supreme Prince Children may be dispensed with or priviledged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents For my part I see no
as his Lord and Master without his consent Suppose then that Adam had been so cruel and unnatural as some Fathers are and being sensible of the profit he received from his Sons labours would never have given them leave to have left his Family and have set up for themselves nor to have had any thing of their own but onely allowing them and their Wives a bare subsistance have kept them like slaves as long as they lived the Author I suppose would reply That he might have done so if he had pleased and that the Sons had no lawful means to help themselves since he onely was Judge when or whether ever it was fit to set them free or no. But I desire to know whether Adam had this power by a natural Right or an acquired not by the latter for I have already proved that neither Generation nor Possession can confer an absolute Right over the person of another Nor yet could he have it by the Sons consent for they would never give their consent to such an absolute slavish subjection Nor yet could he have any such Right by the revealed Will of God since I have also proved that such an absolute subjection is nowhere requir'd by him in Scripture But now to return to the acquired Right of Education neither can that confer so absolute a power over any mans person as that therefore he should be a slave to his Fosterer as long as he liv'd since admitting that the Father or other person that takes upon him that care may perhaps justly claim a Right in the service or labour of the Childe to satisfie them for their trouble and charge in bringing him up Yet it does not therefore follow that this service is due as long as the Childe lives but rather until such time as they can make his labour satisfie them for their charge and trouble in keeping him which may very well be by that time the Child attains to twenty five years of age at farthest And there are those that have offered to breed up and maintain all the Foundlings and Bastard-children in England if they may be bound to serve them until about that age So that I see no reason why a few years Education should give any man a Right over another person as long as he lived But if it be urged that the Childe owed his life to his Father or Fosterer since without his assistance he must have perisht and therefore the service of the Child 's whole life is but little enough to recompence it to this I answer That the Parents are under an absolute obligation by the Laws of God and Nature to breed up their Childe and they sin if they do not perform it as they ought the end of a Father not being chiefly for the breeding up and preservation of the Child and therefore there is no reason he should acquire such a property in him meerly because he did his duty and the intent of a Father being to better the condition of his Son and not to make it worse I doubt whether an absolute or perpetual Servitude or Death it self were the better bargain and if this Right will not hold for the Father himself much less will it for a Fosterer since he is likewise obliged by the Laws of Nature and Humanity if he be able to breed up the Child he finds and not to let it perish So that the advantage he may make of the Child ought not to be the principal end of his undertaking but the doing of good to mankind and the advantage is to be considered onely as an encouragement not as the onely motive to his duty since he is obliged to do the same thing though he were sure the Childe would either die or be taken away from him before it could be with him half long enough to satisfie him Neither does this reason hold true according to the Scripture-rules of Gratitude that a man hath Right to exact of one to whom he hath done a Courtesie or bestowed a Benefit a Return as great as the Benefit bestowed since this were not beneficence but meer bartering or exchange And a man who had his life saved by anothers assistance suppose by pulling him out of the water was obliged by this principle to leave his life at his disposal ever after Therefore I see no reason from all that hath yet been said why a Son when he comes to be a man able to shift for himself may not in the state of nature marry and separate himself from his fathers Family even without his Fathers consent if he cannot otherwise obtain his liberty by his entreaty and all fair means Not but that the Father may if he please disinherit his Son for so doing or for marrying without his consent since every man is free to dispose of his own upon what conditions he thinks fit And the Son was to have considered before-hand which he valued most his own Liberty or his Fathers kindness and the hopes of his share of his Estate after his death But I now come to the Author 's main Argument from Scripture-Examples That the Patriarchs by a Right derived from Adam did exercise as Heads of their respective Families a dominion as absolute as that of any Monarch And so instances in Thamar brought out to be burnt by her Father-in-law Judah Touching War Abram 's commanding an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Family Esau 's meeting his Brother with 400 men at Arms For matter of Peace Abram 's making a League with Abimelech And that these acts of judging in capital Crimes of making War and Peace are the chiefest marks of Soveraignty that are found in a Monarchy All which I shall endeavour to answer First The instance of Judah rather makes against him for he confines this power before to the chief Father of the Family and will never have Children to be free from subjection to their Fathers whereas in this case Judah as Head of his own Family exercised an absolute power of Life and Death and so was free from subjection to his Father Jacob who was then living And suppose as the Text Gen. 38. expresses Judah went down from his Brethren to a certain Adullamite and there married and set up a distinct Family yet this will not help the Author since p. 33. he will not allow the Fatherly Authority to be confined to one Family if the Families were at such a distance as they might receive their fathers commands which lies upon him to prove And therefore this subjection was not perpetual Secondly I shall shew by another Example that the Head of a Family hath not absolute power of the lives of his Children and Grandchildren and that is from Reuben's pathetical Speech Gen. 42. to his Father Jacob when he refused to send Benjamin with him into Egypt Slay my two sons says he if I bring him not unto thee Now if Jacob had this absolute power as a Father it had been impertinent
in Reuben to have spoke thus since he knew his Father had power to slay his Sons if he thought fit whether he gave him such an authority or not But if it be replied that Jacob when his Sons married might set them at liberty and so give them power of Life and Death that is make them absolute in their respective Families This is gratis dictum and no proof brought of it out of Scripture and therefore may as well be otherwise Nor is it likely that Jacob should thus manumit his Sons since it is apparent they did not then set up distinct Families for we finde Jacob still commanding them as Head of the Family to go down and buy Corn in Egypt saying Go down and buy us that is the whole Family whereof they were Members a little food And yet these Sons did not think their Fathers command so absolute but that they tell him plainly they will not go down unless he send Benjamin with them As for the other Examples of Abram's exercising the full power of a Prince in making War and Peace I will not deny that the Heads of separate Families being out of Commonwealths have many things analogous to them though they are not Commonwealths themselves And the reason why I do not allow them to be so is because the ends of a Family and a Commonwealth are divers and so many parts of a Monarchical Empire are not to be found in Families yet the Heads of such Families may notwithstanding exercise a power of Life and Death in great Offences and also of making War and Peace And this being for the good of the Family they govern and by their implyed consents no body will contradict him in the exercise of this power But this being matter of fact does not prove an absolute and unquestionable Right in the Father of such a Family of doing whatsoever he please and that no Member of the Family hath power in any case to contradict his will for it is rational to conceive that this Father of a Family having had an authority over his Children and Servants born perhaps in his house from their very Infancy and if he be a wise and a good man and hath carried himself as a good Father or Master ought to do toward them should even by their consents as knowing none more worthy than himself retain the exercise of that Authority after they are gown up to be men in which he cannot be contradicted without disorder and mischief to the whole Family So that indeed this submission of the Children and Servants is by a tacite consent to obey the Father or Master in all things tending to the common good of the Family But this proves not this absolute despotick power the Author contends for but onely the most reasonable way of acting for the Families good and whilst the Father exercises this Authority onely for that end which when he transgresses his Right to govern ceases for if this Author would have but considered the state of some parts of Africa he should have found that where the Father will exercise this absolute power and sell his Children for slaves the Children make as little scruple where they are strong enough to put the same trick upon their Fathers Nor can they be justly blamed for so doing until any man can shew me that the Father hath some better Right than meer Custom or Power I shall now proceed to the consideration of those other places he produces out of Scripture for the natural Right of Fathers to be Kings over their Descendants Patriarcha p. 16. First As for the example of Nimrod that makes against him for here the Grandson of Ham who ought to have been a Servant to the Children of Shem and Japhet interrupting this Paternal Empire domineers and tyrannizes not onely over his own Family but the Descendants of the elder Brethren But Sir Walter Rawleigh of which opinion the Author himself is will have him to be Lord over his own Family by Right of Succession but to enlarge his Empire against Right by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families But however after the confusion of Tongues the Author will have it revive again and the distinct Nations thereupon erected were not confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at liberty to chuse what Governours they pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it plainly appears that even in this confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families For so it appears by the Text Gen. 10.5.20.22 But these places will not prove what the Author quotes them for viz. the Monarchical or Kingly power of Fathers for neither does the Scripture or Josephus mention that this division of the World by Noah's Posterity was performed by the Fathers of these Families as absolute Monarchs but it rather seems that their Children and Descendants followed them as Volunteers as retaining a Reverence and Affection to their persons for their great age experience and care of their Families Which * Sir Will. Temple's Essay of Government p. 67. an ingenious modern Author conceives to be the natural original of all Governments springing from a tacite deference to the Authority of one single person And of this opinion is excellent Pufendorf And of this kind were those first Kings which Aristotle calls Heroical whom the People did obey of their own accord because they deserved well of them and either by teaching them Arts or by warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands among them Secondly If it were true that these Fathers of Families were so many absolute Kings yet it quite destroys the Author's Hypothesis who will have but one true Heir to Adam who if he could be known had a natural Right to be Monarch of the whole world And though Kings now Patriarch p. 19. are not the natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first natural Parents of the People and in their right succeed to the exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers Whereas we see here no such right of Eldership observed neither among the Sons of Noah nor their descendants but every one as appears from the words of the Text was an independant Head Leader of his own Family by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided c. and by these viz. the descendants of Shem were the Nations divided c. So likewise the other places he brings concerning the Sons of Ishmael and Esau do destroy the Authours notion of an Heir to the Authority of the Father or that any Son is more Lord of his Brethren than another For all the
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
Scripture do best serve his turn So that I believe he did not either negligently or ignorantly avoid settling this point because he might still have a hole left to creep out at or else because he could do it no better than the Instances he brings would permit He says Direct for Obedience pag. 68. A Son is always to live under the subjection of his Father unless by Gods immediate appointment or by the Grant or Death of his Father he become himself possess'd of that Power to which he was subject By which words he seems to imply that this Power is to descend to the Eldest Son when his Father dies So likewise in this Treatise we are now upon P. 12. he says Civil Power not only in general is by Divine Institution but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest Parents By which words I suppose he means if any thing eldest Sons though I know not why he should limit it to Parents for methinks it were very hard the eldest Son should forfeit his Right in case he were not a Parent when his Father died So likewise he tells us P. 19. That these Heirs of this Fatherly Power are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Father Yet tells us not plainly which of the Sons is Heir only says a little before That when God made choice of any special Person to be King he always intended that the Issue also should have the benefit thereof Though this general Rule was false in the case of Saul whose Children were disinherited by God to establish the Crown upon David and his Line So uncertain things are Instances drawn from Scripture without any due consideration of the Reason of them But to return to the subject I grant that it is not impossible but from the command of a Father of a Family who hath divers other Families under him there may spring a Civil Government though the Fatherly Authority doth properly regard the Education of the Children and the Masterly Power to encrease Riches And though it is not changed barely by the great number of Children or Servants yet the difference between them is not so wide that there can be no transition from one to the other unless a new Right of Soveraign Majesty be produced by God For if a Father of a Family being provided of a great stock of Children and Slaves will by way of Manumission permit them to enjoy their own Goods and Families apart on that condition that they submit to his Government for their common Security I do not see what is wanting to the making him a Prince if he have strength sufficient to perform the ends of a Commonwealth But he dying and nominating a Successour if his Sons will consent to him and confirm his Will they may if they please if not all of them as in an Interregnum may appoint what sort of Government they will have for the future Nor will the Law of Nature be violated if the youngest Son having most Votes should be elected in his Fathers stead I should be glad any man could demonstrate to me from the Laws of God and Nature that Adam's eldest Son was by the Right of Eldership to be Lord over his Brethren without their Election or Consent when their Father died Indeed the Jewish Law allow'd a preheminence to the Elder Brother and that he should have a double portion and be reverenced by all his Brethren exprest by this Phrase of Let thy Mothers Sons bow before thee But this proves not that as Eldest Son he had therefore a Right of exercising all that Authority upon the Death of their Father over his Brethren which his Father had before Neither had Jacob any such Right over Esau though he sold his Birthright or the eldest or any other Son of Jacob any such Right over his Brethren for certainly God would not have abrogated it if they had So that Jacob's Authority as a Father ended with his Life and for any Despotick Propriety or Dominion over them I have already proved that the Father has none in the state of Nature Yet admitting he had the Children notwithstanding would have been free at his Death For Servitude being a mere personal Duty due only to the person of him that acquired this Slave when the person dies to whom he owed this subjection the Slave is free in the state of Nature unless the Lord of this Slave transferr'd his Right in him to another in his life-time a mans Person not being like a brute beast to be seiz'd by whoever can lay hold of him he hath no longer any obligation to serve his Children unless he will make himself their Slave of his own accord But if it be answered that the Father may bequeath this Right of Dominion over his Children at his Death by his Will to which of his Sons he pleased and that he that is so constituted by their Father is Lord over all the rest of his Brethren and endeavour to prove this from Genesis the 9. vers 25 26 27. where Noah cursing Canaan because Ham his Father had derided his nakedness says He shall be a Servant unto his Brethren I desire you would take notice that this Answer quite gives up the Natural Right of the Heir or Eldest Son 2. I suppose this rather was a Prediction or Curse to be fulfilled in Canaan's Posterity than upon himself For first this Right was not given as it ought to have been over the Person of Ham the Offender Observat on Grotius p. 49 50. whom this Authour allows to have had an equal share with his Brethren in the division of the World and so to have been in all Prerogatives equal with them Neither doth he give this Right to one of them bâ—… to both alike saying both of Shem and Japhet that Canaan should be their Servant which could not be meant of his person since that could not be divided by them both who were like to live at so great a distance therefore it can onely signifie that his Descendants should be slaves to the others And several Commentators upon this place do suppose that Moses related this Curse of Noah upon Ham onely to shew the Jews the Right they had to make slaves of the Canaanites because they were descended from Canaan And as for the Right of bequeathing slaves by Testament it is much disputed whether by the Law of Nature Testaments have any force in this case those that have written of it being much divided about it in the state of Nature since all Propriety in that state being but Occupancy or Possession which ceases with the life of the Occupant Therefore since a Testament commences onely from the Testators death who as soon as he died lost his Right in the Goods bequeathed since the dead can have no interest in any thing neither can the Legatee sustain the person of the Testator since this
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
to acknowledge these usurped Powers as lawful I do less understand the force of another distinction he makes use of p. 155. That an Vsurper is so far to be obeyed as may tend to the preservation of a mans King and Father nay sometimes even to the preservation of the Vsurper himself when probably he may thereby be reserved to the correction or mercy of his true Superiour For how Obedience to an Usurper can tend to the preservation of the lawful Prince I understand not And as for the other instance of preserving the person of the Usurper for the mercy or correction of the true Superiour it had been a very good pretence for Obedience to Cromwel and the Rump nay to fight for them since this was but to preserve them for his Majesties mercy or correction another time though their Power might have continued until now since they had a Possession by the permissive Will of God which how long it would endure no body could tell Such untoward things are Arguments drawn from false Principles that they flie in the faces of those that make use of them and will either reduce them to absurdities or else prove weapons against themselves But I shall now come to his last Refuge when he can no longer evade but that by the Peoples ignorance of Adam's right Heir or of the Heirs to the last Prince the supreme Power is devolved upon the People who may chuse what kind of Government they please Patriarch p. 21. This he denies saying That in such cases the Kingly Power escheats to the Fathers or independent Heads of Families The same Answer he gives to this Objection in his Anarchy of a limited Monarchy p. 272. where he replies very pleasantly That no King can die without an Heir as long as there is one man living in the world it may be the Heir may be unknown to the People but that is no fault in Nature but the negligence of the People whom it concerns So that it seems the next Heir being often not to be known any man when the Prince dies may step into the Throne and if he have Power enough is next Heir for a King can never die without an Heir as long as any one man is left alive in the world and who can disprove him that he is not the man So that the power he hath given to his Masters of Families to chuse an Heir or one to ease them of their Fatherly Power signifies nothing For this Usurper that can first seize it may be right Heir to Adam for ought any body knows And certainly having Possession which is the permissive will of God he hath a better Right than any other as we have often heard before And are told farther in the Anarchy of a limited Monarchy p. 273. That if the true Heir of the Crown come to be dispossessed in such cases the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along and wait upon Gods Providence who onely hath Right to give and take away Kingdoms and thereby adopt Subjects into the Obedience of another Fatherly Power So that Man is not onely a Creature who is his Goods that can first catch him but according to this Author is in a worse condition than Brutes for whereas if a Dog be taken up by a Stranger and a Collar clapt about his neck and so led away it is left to Jowler's discretion how far he will obey his new Master and as he may either stay with him if he likes his Quarters finds himself well used so surely he may without any sin knaw his halter nay bite the fingers of this Usurper of his Liberty and run away But poor Man does not onely fall to the first Occupant whom he may not either obey or disobey as he finds it most conduce to his interest and preservation but is peg'd down to an absolute Obedience and obliged in Conscience to obey this Usurper let him use him well or ill with the same respect and duty as if he were his Father Which I think God was a better friend to Mankind than ever to intend But to return to the subject from whence we digressed our Author for fear he should seem by admission of a Power in Fathers of Families to chuse a Head or Prince over them Anarchy of limited Monarchy p. 272. and to have granted it to them as the whole People he distinguishes saying It does not escheat to the whole People but onely to the supream Heads and Fathers of Families not as they are the People but quatenus Fathers of the People over whom they have a supreaem Power devolved unto them after the death of their Soveraign Chief Fathers in Scripture are accounted all the People as all the Children of Israel as all the Congregation as the Text plainly expounds it self 2 Chron. 1.2 where Solomon speaks to all Israel that is to the Captains the Judges and to every Governour the chief of the Fathers and so the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel 1 King 8.1 and 2 Chron. 5.2 By all which it appears that the Author allows in this case the Government escheats to part but not to all the People or whole multitude of Men Women and Children taken together to chuse what Government they please And indeed in this sence there was never any Democracy or Government of the People in nature for though a Democracy may be defined to be that kind of Government where the supream Power is in a Council or Assembly consisting of all the Citizens And although it does not less concern the Women and Children in that kind of Government to be happier than in others yet who ever thought it a new sort of Commonwealth and not a perfect Democracy though Women Children and Slaves were excluded the publick Councils and Assemblies And therefore if it be esteemed a perfect Democracy and was so at Athens which all must grant to have been so where onely Free men or at their own dispose and such who were supposed at first to have by their meeting together instituted this Government which is likewise continued by those who have succeeded into their Places and Rights I see no reason why these should not be looked upon as representing the whole promiscuous body of the People to whom the Power devolves upon the want of a Successour For it is likely that Commonwealths were first instituted by Fathers of Families having Wives Children and Slaves under their Domestick Government whom nevertheless they would neither equal with themselves by admitting them to a Vote in the Government neither yet would abdicate their power over them But then the Author urges Anarchy of a limited Monarchy p. 270 271. If Infants and Children be concluded by the Votes of their Parents this destroys the whole Cause for if it be allowed that the Acts of Parents bind their Children then farewel the Doctrine of the natural freedom of
Mankind Where subjection of Children to Parents is natural there can be no natural freedom and if any reply that all Children shall not be bound by their Parents consents but onely those that are under age it must be considered that in Nature there is no Nonage If a man be not born free she doth not assigne him any othere time when he shall attain his freedom or if she did then Children attaining that age should be discharged of their Parents contract So that in conclusion if it be imagined that the People were but once free from subjection by Nature it will prove a meer impossibility ever lawfully to introduce any kind of Government whatsoever without apparent wrong to a multitude of People It is farther observable that ordinarily Children and Servants are a far greater number than Parents and Masters and for the major part of these to be able to vote and appoint what Government or Governours their Fathers and Masters shall be subject to is most unnatural and in effect to give the Children the government over their Parents To which Objection I reply 1. That the Author is here mistaken and that there is really an Age of Nonage in nature as hath been already proved in which though the Child be indeed free yet by reason of his own want of strength and discretion to judge what is necessary for his own good and preservation is obliged to submit himself to his Parents judgment in all things conducing to that end 2. That Children neither Infants or others are obliged to the Acts or Agreements of their Ancestors in the state of Nature farther than it conduces to their benefit or preservation So that if a married man out of a Common-wealth should sell or yield himself to a Master of a Family for a Slave upon condition that his Master should provide him all the necessaries of life without which such a grant or sale of a mans self cannot be supposed good certainly if he had then no Children this could not bind his Issue that was to be born so that they should be perpetual Slaves to all Generations since natural Equity and the favour of Liberty will interpret that the Aliment which the Master affords the Children of this Slave are understood to be contained under that provision which the Master is obliged to make for him and his by vertue of their Contract Or admit that there was no express provision made in the Conditions for the maintenance of the Children yet in this case I see no Right the Master can claim in the persons of these Children longer than 'till he hath satisfied himself out of their labour for the charges he hath been at in feeding and providing for them which may very well be by twenty five years of age as I have already proved So that about that time I see no reason why such Children may not lawfully shift for themselves if they do not like their Master And if any Friend of theirs undertake to satisfie their Master before that time I think they are free though he should refuse to accept it since it was lawfully tendered Indeed for Slaves taken in a just War there may be some appearance of reason why their Children should also be Slaves since the Parents accepted of their lives upon that condition that they should live in perpetual servitude and their Master undertook to maintain them upon no other consideration So that these Children do implicitely owe their lives to their Master since he might by the Laws of War have slain their Parents and so they could never have been born But I will not assert that even this slavery is perpetual in relation to the Children But as for Subjects though they are not directly or expresly bound by the Acts or Consents of their Ancestors who first instituted the Government yet indirectly or consequentially they are obliged to stand to what their Ancestors have done For since as I said before no man will deny to accept of the Promise or Conditions of his Ancestor if it be for his advantage and since the Institution of Government was for the common good of mankind in general so this or that particular Government being for the preservation and security of every Subject that enjoys the priviledges thereof no man can believe that the Posterity of those that first instituted this Government will go about to undo what their Ancestors have done so much for their benefit and reduce all things to the state of Nature again So that as long as they submit to and enjoy the benefits of the Government which was first establisht by the consent of their Forefathers they are supposed to yield a tacite Assent to those Compacts which they long since made and implicitely become Subjects to that Government under which they were born So that those that first instituted Government in any Country have no necessity expresly to promise or engage for the Subjection and Obedience of their Children or those who should succeed them And if any private persons will not own this Government and so take upon to resist it pretending they are not obliged by the Compacts of their Forefathers to obey it as established by them such persons if they enter into a state of War or make Confederacies to that end may justly be looked upon as Enemies to the Government and punished accordingly since they will go about to disturb the common Peace and Tranquility of the Nation for their own private Discontents or Advantage for the People being once entred into Society can never be supposed to alter their Judgments all at once without very good cause much less to die though the particular persons that constituted it do for as a River is still esteemed the same as long as the water runs in the same Channel though the same individual water never stays in the same place but one part still pushes out another so those are not less to be esteemed in the politick capacity of a Civil State the same people than those by whom the Commonwealth was at first founded And though it is true that Governments may have been at first begun by Fathers of Families and other Freemen who first submitted their Wills to that of one person or more and so the Women Children and Servants who had had no Votes in its Institution might be supposed as represented by their Husbands Fathers and Masters And since they enjoy all the common benefits of the Commonwealth and are likewise capable of enjoying all those priviledges and advantages which are proper and peculiar to Free Subjects whenever they come to be at their own disposal and that they owe their breeding up and preservation to its protection they may well be lookt upon as under an higher Obligation in Conscience and Gratitude to this Government than Strangers of another Country who onely staying there for a time to pursue their own Occasions and having no Right to the same priviledges and advantages of the
Commonwealth do onely owe a passive obedience to its Laws But to let you see more plainly that upon such a devolution of the Government as the Author grants not onely the Masters of Families as Fathers ought to have Votes but all others that are at their own dispose I will ask any of his opinion what he thinks of a single man living in a house alone or with a Wife without either Children or Servants or perhaps boarding in another mans house for their money why they should not have Votes as well as those that are his independant Fathers and Masters I can see no reason nor I believe they neither So though the Author by the words Supream and Independant Heads of Families seems to exclude all Sons from having Votes whilst their Fathers are alive although they are married and have separated into distinct Families yet since I have proved that neither Paternal Authority nor Filial Subjection is absolute or perpetual in the state of Nature into which the Commonwealth is by the death of the Prince now supposed to be resolved and if it were otherwise yet unless they will void all those Laws and Constitutions that have been before settled both for descent of Inheritances and the distinguishing of Property So that if these Laws stand in force during this interregnum unless they will fall to absolute confusion these Sons so making divers Families and having Estates distinct from their Fathers ought likewise to have Votes in the Government upon the Authours own principles since the Laws of the Country have set them free from all Paternal subjection more than what the Rules of Piety and Gratitude oblige them to And as for such Sons as though of mature age yet remain as Servants in their Fathers Families and so are under a greater subjection than those that are separated from it I see no reason why they may not appoint their Father as him they could best trust to vote for them and represent them in the choice of a Governour and then they are as much obliged as any man can be by the act of a person whom he hath impowered to act for him or as these Fathers of Families would be by Representatives of their own chusing it being morally impossible if this devolution of the Government should happen in a populous Country for all the Authors independent Heads or Fathers of Families ever to meet in Person to chuse a King these being vastly numerous and divided from each other at great distances Anarchy of a mixt Monarch p. 269 So that all the Author's Objections against a mixt Popular Election will prove as strong against this of Fathers alone For how except by some secret miraculous instinct should they all meet at one time and place What one Head of a Family or Company less than the whole Body of these Fathers of the People can have power to appoint either time or place of Election where they are all free and independant by Nature and without a lawful Summons it is most unjust to binde those that are absent So neither can the whole Body of the Fathers of Families summon it self One man is sick another is lame a third is aged and a fourth though a Father of a Family may be under years of discretion or not in his right senses and many more may have business of their own which they cannot leave to run two or three hundred miles up to the chief City to chuse a King So that either the People may elect or else his Fathers of Families cannot for the same reasons And if the major part of these Fathers should agree to chuse Representatives how can this Agreement of the major part bind the minor that did not consent Patriarcha pag. 44. Where the Arguments against Elections by a major part are proposed at large since according to the Authors principles in Assemblies that take their original from the Law of Nature no one man or multitude can give away the Right of another So that though the Author seems to have been so good-natured as to have given these independent Fathers of Families a Power in this case of Escheat to chuse a Governour yet all this signifies nothing since they can never all meet or agree to chuse Representatives They are still like to be his Slaves who can make a Party strong enough to seize the Government and usurp an Authority over them Whom yet they must obey since he either is or represents the right Heir of Adam and so no body hath a better Right than himself who is in by the permissive Will of God which how long it will last no body can tell And God does but adopt Subjects into the obedience of another Fatherly Power or else they must fall into a down-right Anarchy and every Father of a Family may set up for an absolute Prince But to return whither we have digressed for I have said this onely to shew that this Authors principles as well as those of others contradict themselves in this subject and either these Fathers of Families are the People and consequently cannot according to this Authour ever meet or agree to chuse a Prince or else the whole People may as well But since it may be objected that it does not serve to find out truth or settle the Question in hand barely to recriminate and shew the same flaws in his Principles as he finds in those of others Patriarcha p. 41. let us see if his Objections against Bellarmine and Suarez and all those who place Supream Power in the People be such terrible things that the poor Jesuits are absolutely run down in this Dispute He therefore first asks If their meaning be that there is but one and the same Power in all the People of the World so that no Power can be granted except all the men upon the Earth meet and agree to chuse a Governour To which Suarez answers That it is scarce possible nor yet expedient that all the men in the world should be gathered together into one Community It is likelier that either never or for a very short time this Power was in this manner in the whole Multitude of men collected together but a little after the Creation men began to be divided into several Commonwealths and this distinct Power was in each of them To which our Author replies That this Answer of scarce possible nor yet expedient c. begets a new doubt how this distinct Power comes to each particular Community when God gave it to the whole Multitude onely and not to any particular Assembly Can they shew or prove that ever the whole Multitude met and divided this Power which God gave them in gross by breaking it into parcels and by appointing a distinct Power to each Commonwealth Without such a Compact I cannot see according to their own Principles how there can be an Election of a Magistrate in any Common-wealth but a meer Vsurpation upon the Priviledge of
Nature and constitute one Politick Body all the Members of it are obliged in Conscience to maintain this Government according to its first Institution But if it be to be constituted anew as upon his Escheat of the Crown among the Fathers of Families Who are to chuse one who must take upon him this Fatherly Power over them The inconvenience will be the same upon his own Principles For all Cities Towns and Families consting of so many independant Heads of Families if the major part of an Assembly cannot conclude the minor as this Author supposes then though all the Fathers of Families in a Nation should agree in the choice of a King and but those of one Town or Family dissent these Dissenters if they do not like the Prince the rest have elected may certainly if they are able divide from them and set up a distinct Government of their own since all these Fathers of Families being alike free and independant can in the state of Nature claim no Superiority over each other So that the Author from his own Principles falls into the same inconveniencies which he finds fault with in those of others whereas indeed there is no absurdity in this Supposition I shall now consider in the last place that part of his Hypothesis Patriarch p. 21. where he supposes That all such prime Heads and Fathers of Families have power to consent in the uniting or conferring their Fatherly Right of Soveraign Authority on whom they please and he that is so elected claims not his Power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an universal Father though testified by the ministry of the Heads of the People I have already pull'd up the foundations of this Notion in the beginning of these Observations by shewing that God hath not ordain'd or conferred any such Power on any particular Father or other Relation and therefore neither on all the Fathers of Nations or Countries taken together they not having any Ownership or Property in their Childrens persons but a Right to govern and direct them for their benefit and preservation which Fatherly Right cannot be transferred to another much less survive his person as I have already proved Yet to render this as clear as may be granting him what he contends for that this Fatherly Power may be transferred to another I should be glad to know though the Monarch so nominated by them may have a supreme Power over all their Children and Servants yet whence does he derive this Right of commanding absolutely over the Persons and Estates of these Fathers of Families themselves Not from succession from Adam for his right Heir cannot now be known nor from their transferring the power of governing their own persons upon him for then this Right commences from their own Act or Election and not from the Fatherly power supposed to be at first conferred on Adam And if they transfer onely their Fatherly or Masterly Authority upon this new Monarch then he hath onely a Right to govern their Children and Servants the Persons and Estates of these Father 's not being included in this Grant And again if this Election in the state of Nature could confer a Right then this Monarch must owe his Power to these Fathers of Families and so these being as I have already proved the representative Body of the People he must receive his Authority as a Donative from them which he will by no means admit of But since he will have him properly and immediately substituted by God from whom he receives his Power of an universal Father then these Fathers of Families do not create or constitute the Monarch but onely are Instruments or Ministers to put him in possession and if so it is the possession of the Crown and not their Election that gives him this Right But as the Author words it He receives from God this Charter of an universal Father Upon which Principle see not to what purpose this Nomination or Election â—rves for if any body during this interregnum can by â—rce or fraud slip into the Throne he is more proâ—rly Gods Substitute and to be obeyed accordingly â—an if he had come in by their Nomination or Eleâ—ion since he is in possession by the immediate Will 〈◊〉 God and declared by the success So that these â—athers are in a fine case after all their Priviledge to â—ect since whoever can usurp this Authority over â—…em must immediately be their Father and Master â—hether they ever give their consents or not For â—is Author says Obedience to Government p. 66 67. Paternal Power cannot 〈◊〉 lost it may be either transferred or uâ—rped but never lost But I have sufâ—…ciently exposed the absurdity of this â—otion before in what I have said about Obedience 〈◊〉 Usurpers and shall lay it more open when I come 〈◊〉 shew in what sence Princes owe their Authority to God Therefore since these Fathers of Families had in the â—ate of Nature an absolute Power of governing themselves I shall now enquire in the next place Whether â—…ey may not pass over this Power upon some certain Conditions and reserving some Rights and Priviledges 〈◊〉 themselves and Children upon the making of the Compact with their new Prince Secondly How the perâ—n so elected owes his Authority to them and in what â—ense to God As to the first I see no reason but that â—hese Fathers of Families may if their number be not â—oo great agree to govern all alike together and that whoever is a Master of a distinct Family or a single â—…an at his own dispose and not a Servant shall have 〈◊〉 Vote in the Government and that the major part of â—he Votes shall conclude all the rest and then it will be â—s perfect a Democracy as ever was since as I have granted already there was never such a Governmenâ— where all Women and Children promiscuously haâ— Votes with their Husbands Fathers or Brothers Sâ— that if ever there was any such thing as a Democracâ— in the world this would be one Or lastly if they maâ— all govern themselves they may as well agree to chusâ— a certain number of their own Body to represent them and to meet in a common Council or Assembly anâ— to govern them either for life or yearly as they shaâ—… make the Conditions with them and then this Government will become an Aristocracy where a few oâ— those that are reputed the best do govern though by aâ— Power derived from these Fathers of Families Anâ— if they may bestow this Power upon more than one under certain Conditions I see no reason why they may not do the same if they confer it upon one man after the same manner either by making a Compact with him upon his accepting the Government how much 〈◊〉 this Power he shall exercise and how much they wilâ— reserve to themselves If they agree that he shall have no more but a Presidency
may be mark him with the sharp Tooth of a Beast they call an Agoutye which is the disgracefullest punishment any man can suffer so that one of the main ends of a supreme power among us viz. to decide Controversies about Property and punish Thieves are there of no use And as for other Injuries such as Maims Adultery and the like they have no certain Judges for any of these things every man that is injured in any of these cases being his own Judge and Executioner observing that Law of an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth onely in Adultery the man hath power to kill both his Wife and the Adulterer if taken in the act and in Murder and great Hurts or Maims where the party injured is not able to revenge himself his neer Relations will not fail to do it and if they should omit they would be looked upon as Cowards or infamous so that being naturally loving to each other and having no words of disgrace to quarrel about and other Quarrels happening but seldom and no man maintaining or taking the part of the wrong-doer or revenging the death of a Murderer or Adulterer they have lived many Ages without any common Power to keep them at peace among themselves and yet they have much fewer Crimes committed amongst them than us It is true they have Captains or Cacicks among them but they have no power but in time of War and when the Expedition is ended though they pay them reverence and respect and make them preside in all their Councils and Assemblies yet they have no Authority in time of Peace to punish or question any man So that if they lived in Islands which were either far distant from others or else were inaccessible and would make no forein Expeditions they would not need so much as this Cacick and so could live together without any other Government than that of the Fathers of Families over their Wives and Children But perhaps it will be said these are Man-eaters and barbarous People and so are not to be quoted as Examples for the rest of mankind It is true the Brasilians eat their Enemies taken in War but the Caribbes do not But as for the Observation of the other Laws of Nature I will leave it to any man to judge which part of mankind observe them best those that can live peaceably together without either Judge or Gallows or we that can scarce be at quiet though we have them But I have done this onely to shew an intelligent Reader what are the true reasons of the necessity of a Civil Power amongst us that have a full propriety in all Lands and Goods by the particular Laws of our Countries Having now I hope dispatcht the first part of my intended Task which was to prove that the Author's Hypothesis concerning the Monarchical Despotick Power of Adam over his Wife Children or Descendants is altogether vain and without just grounds either from Scripture or Reason and consequently that neither any Fathers of Families nor the Princes as representing them can from divine Grant deduce any such absolute Power or Right over their Children or Subjects I shall not trouble my self with the answering of the rest of this Treatise having gone a good way in the second Chapter and answered his most material Objections about the Peoples conferring Soveraignty so that the rest is of small consequence I shall not need to examine whether the Jews chose the King or God since that Government being purely Theocratical it concerns other Nations not at all much less shall I vindicate the Form of the Roman Commonwealth or dispute whether they were more happy under Kings or Emperours or whether Democracies or Tyrannies are best or affirm that the People can correct their King or that there e're have been any Tyrants in England since the Conquest since they are all either foreign to this purpose or else signifie nothing when his foundations are pulled up As for what he says concerning a limited or mixt Monarchy I shall reserve all that is needful to be observed upon that subject until I come to consider the Author's Treatise called The Anarchy of a limited Monarchy where all or the greatest part of what he hath here written is there repeated As for â—his third Chapter since Divinity is not my Profession and that the Texts of S. S. he there quotes have been debated by so many Expositors both in English and Latine I count needless to repeat out of others what sense they may bear though I do not approve of the Author's interpretation who would have them applied alike to all Princes whether good or bad lawful or unlawful since upon those Principles there can be no difference between a just Prince and a Tyrant or between a lawful Monarch and an Usurper Nor shall I meddle with what he says concerning the Kings Power and Prerogative though I think there are divers things which he there says that are false and of very ill consequence yet since I confine my self purely to the Laws of Nature and Reason I shall leave it to other more able Pens and better skill'd in the Laws and Customs of this Kingdom to give him such an answer as they deserve Neither would I be thought to encourage Princes to stretch their Power to the utmost limits nor yet to stir up Subjects to take Arms as soon as ever they think themselves injured since the Populace is but too apt where they are left to be their own Judges to pronounce Sentence in ther own favour Therefore quitting all these as unnecessary Disputes I shall now proceed to take a short view of the rest of those Errors and Mistakes which remain yet to be observed in his other Miscellany-Treatises first published CHAP. III. I Desire the Reader in the first place to take notice that I wholly pass by the first Treatise called The Freeholders Grand Inquest since I confess my self no Lawyer verst enough in the learning of Records to answer him in his own way I shall therefore leave him to those that have made it their business And as for great part of it concerning the Antiquity and Power of the Commons in Parliament distinct from that of the Peers or Inheritable Nobility I shall refer the Reader to Mr. Petyts learned Treatise of the Rights of the Commons of England See likewise a late Treatise intituled Jani Anglorum facies nova written by a young Gentleman of great Learning and Ingenuity where all Objections against it are in my opinion fully answered Therefore I shall begin with his Observations upon Aristotle's Politicks which I shall not dwell long upon since I look upon that as one of the confusedest Pieces he hath written Nor is it my business as that great Author said once in the case of Plato to defend Aristotle but Truth I shall likewise pass by the Preface since it contains nothing considerable but his Hypothesis of Adam's Monarchy of which there needs
Vote to chuse Parliament-men but Freeholders or as in old times none but those who served in the Wars in person had Votes in the Withena Gemote or Great Council And yet this was no standing Army no more than those in Greece So likewise neither are these words fairly rendered in the same page 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and that in a Popular State The Soveraign Power is in the Sword and those that are possessed of the Arms but are thus to be rendered In this kind of Government i. e. Popular those govern and have greatest Power who bear Arms and fight for the rest which is but reasonable I shall not trouble my self with the rest of those Contradictions and Faults he find◠with Aristotle since I look upon this Treatise of Politicks as the most confused he hath writ onely it seems this Author did but skim over Aristotle when he so confidently asserts That the natural Right of the People to found or elect their own kind of Government is not once disputed by him which whether he asserts or no let these words judge lib. 5. Pol. cap. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may be thus Englished But of Kingdoms by discent this may be supposed the cause of their dissolution besides those al◠ready mentioned viz. when it happens to many of them who not being endued with the power of a Tyrant but onely with a Kingly Authority become contemned whilst they will unjustly abuse their Subjects for then there is an easie dissolution of the Government for he is not a true King over those that like not his Government but a Tyrant P. 20 21. He finds fault with Aristotle for making the main distinction between right Forms of Government and those that are imperfect or corrupt to consist solely in this That where the profit of the governed is respected there is a right Government but where the profit of the Governours is onely regarded there is a corruption or transgression of Government By this it is supposed by Aristotle that there may be a Government which he calls a Tyranny onely for the benefit of the Governour That this Supposition is false may be proved from Aristotle himself to instance in the point of Tyranny And therefore the Author endeavours to make him contradict himself thus Tyranny saith Aristotle lib. 3. cap. 7. is a Despotical or Masterly Monarchy Now he confesseth l. 3. c. 6. That in truth the Masterly Government is profitable both to the Servant by nature and the Master by nature And he yields a solid reason for it viz. It is not possible if the Servant be destroyed the Mastership can be saved Whence it may be inferred That if the Masterly Government of Tyrants cannot be safe without the preservation of them whom they govern it will follow That a Tyrant cannot govern for his own profit onely And thus his main definition of Tyranny fails as being grounded on an impossible Supposition By his own confession no Example can be shewn of any such Government that ever was in the world as Aristotle describes Tyranny to be for under the worst of Kings though many particular men have unjustly suffered yet the Multitude or People in general have found benefit and profit by the Government If Aristotle were alive I doubt he would say this Author plaid the Sophister with him and did not onely misquote his words but pervert his meaning For first Aristotle does not say in that place he quotes or in any other that I know of That Tyranny is a Despotical or Masterly Monarchy And therefore all he builds upon this Concession is false It is true indeed Aristotle says That the Government of the Master is profitable both to the Servant by nature and the Master by nature that is upon his supposition that they are either so by nature But the Author omits what immediately follows because it would vindicate Aristotle's true meaning for his next words are Nevertheless it i. e. the Masterly power regards chiefly the profit of the Master and of the Servant but by accident but Oecumenical Government or that of a Master over the Wife Children and Servants is for their sakes whom he governs and for the common good of them all Hence it appears plainly that Aristotle when he says that a Tyranny is for the benefit of the Governour alone he does not mean that the Subjects can have no benefit at all by it since it is the Tyrants interest they should live and get Children or else he would quickly want Subjects Thus the Children of Israel under the Tyranny of Pharaoh had Meat Drink and Cloaths and were not so low kept but they got Children apace and yet we find God thought them opprest and heard their cry But Aristotle clears the point when he distinguishes an absolute Masterly power over a Slave from that of a Father of a Family the Master in the former considering onely his own profit and the preservation of the Slave but by accident and so an ill-natured brutish Master takes care of the life of his Slave that works in the Mines or Sugar-works in the Indies not out of any love to the person of the Slave but because he cannot subsist without him So a Grasier or Butcher takes care of his Cattel that they thrive and do well as they call it yet every body knows that they take this care onely for their Carcasses which yield them so much ready money at the Market So that indeed a Tyrant onely considers his own good in the welfare of his Subjects and looks upon them as no better than brute Beasts in which he hath an absolute property to shear or kill as he thinks it most conduces to his own profit without considering to what end he is set over them As the Grand Seignior makes use of the bodies of his poor Christian-slaves for Subjects I cannot call them to fill up Ditches and to blunt the edge of his Enemies Swords But that all Kings are bound to preserve the Lands Goods and Lives of their Subjects the Author himself confesses Patriarcha p. 94. Though not by any municipal Law so much as the natural Law of a Father which binds them to ratifie the Acts of their Forefathers and Predecessors in things necessary for the publick good of their Subjects So then I hope there is some difference between the Government of a Father over his Children and that of an absolute Lord over his Slaves notwithstanding our Author's Quotation out of Aristotle whereby he would make them all one viz. That a Kingdom will be a Fatherly Government Which is true if you take it in the best sence for that affection that Kings like Fathers should have for their Subjects And so it is plain Aristotle intended it by the words immediately foregoing thus For the Society of a Father with his Sons has an appearance of a Kingdom not that it is so indeed But to make an end with Aristotle I will give you one
to prove that Cain when he ran away for his brothers murder enjoyed the land of Nod where he built a City by his fathers settlement But though Mr. Selden and the Author agree very well about the distinct Dominion of Adam yet they do not so concerning that of Noah and his Sons whom Mr. Selden and I think with very good reason from Gen. IX 2. Will have to be joynt Commonors with their Father in the dominion of the world and all its creatures but the Author says that the Text doth not warrant it ' For though the Sons are mentioned in the blessing yet it may be best understood with a subordination or benediction in succession the blessing might be fulfilled if the Sons either under or after their Father enjoyed a private dominion It is apparent that the words rather warrant the contrary For the Text does not mention any blessing in subordination but is alike in present to Noah and his Sons for God spake to Noah and to his Sons and so is their power over the creatures as appears v. 3. Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you even as the green herb that is the fruits granted to Adam before have I given you in the plural number all things As for this Authors other argument from the private dominion of Adam it might be good against Mr. Selden who had admitted it before but is none against those that do not believe any such grant As for Noah's being sole heir of the world he takes that for granted which is no law of nature that in the state of nature one man is more an heir to his Father or any other relation than another but having confuted that opinion already I need say no more of it here Mr. Seldens account of the original of Propriety ' After Noah is that in distributing Territories the consent of Mankind passing their promise or compact which did also bind their Posterity did intervene so that men departed from their common right of Communion of those things which were so distributed to particular Lords and Masters But the Author replys that this distribution by the consent of Mankind we must take upon trust for there is not the least proof of it out of Antiquity If by Antiquity he means prophane Authors all of them both Historians and Poets that have writ of this subject are for a primitive Community of all things necessary for the life of Man As any man that considers what the Poets say concerning the golden Age whose cheif happiness they place in mens enjoyment of the fruits of the earth in Common nor does Lactantius Li. V. Inst Cap. 5. one of the learnedst of the Fathers interpret those passages otherwise If by antiquity he means proof out of Scripture that neither makes for or against this opinion the Scriptures not being written to shew us the originals either of Government or Propriety any more than to teach men Chymistry or Astronomy though there be some so sottish to think they thus find some grounds for their Fancies in those studies yet it appears that the land of Canaan was all or most of it in Common in Abrahams time or else he could never have lived and kept his flocks upon it as a separate Master of a Family without becoming subject to any other Prince But however I look upon this Tradition delivered by the Greek and Latin Authors every whit as good as that Jewish one which Mr. Selden quotes out of Eusebius and Cednenus though he does not lay any stress upon it But our Author admits it as an undeniable Record That Noah himself as Lord of all was Author of the distribution of the world and of all private dominion and that by an appointment of an oracle from God he did confirm this Distribution by ' his last Will and Testament which at his death he left in the hands of Shem his eldest Son and also warned all his Sons that none of them should invade any of their brothers dominions or injure one another because from thence discord and civil war would ensue It s not likely that the Antient Jews should know any thing of this Will of Noahs for if they had so diligent an Author and so well versed in the Jewish Antiquities as Josephus would not have omitted so famous a piece of history 2. The Rahbins themselves and consequently our Fathers of the Church are not agreed whether Shem or Japhet were the eldest For though it is true that St. Austin and those Fathers that follow the vulgar translation made Shem the eldest yet St. Chrysostom and all the Fathers of the Greek Church who therein follow the LXX Versior as of greater Antiquity and Authority are for Japhets being the eldest brother So that this Testament being left in Shems hands is a meer Rabinical invention it being much to be doubted whether Letters much more Wills in writing were in fashion in Noah's days and if Noah left no Will which no Jury can now decide then the world was left to Noahs Sons Grand-children in Common to be divided according to their several occasions since they all three had equal right to it But it seems a weak Hypothesis if it serve the Authors present purpose shall be received though it contradict his other Principles For in his Patriarcha and other of his treatises he makes Adam sole Monarch of the World and that this right descended wholy and entirely to Adam's right heir But here we find Noah turns the Propriety and Dominion of the world into an absolute gavel-kind and distributing the Earth among his three Sons makes them all Heirs and Monarchs alike so that Shem the elder is here disinhereted not only of his entire Dominion in the world but also of his natural right of Lording it over the rest of his bretheren so that whereas the whole world should have been his if his Father had not made this unlucky Will he is fain to be content with a third part I shall pass by other impossibilities in this fancy of Noah's Will as how Noah should by revelation make a distribution of the Earth among his Sons when he never had discovered a hundreth part of it Josephus and the Fathers not supposing him ever to have descended from the Mountains of Ararat into the Plains all his life time But to pass over such Romantick fancies let us come to the Authors more solid Arguments Why Dominion and Property could not be introduced by the voluntary consent of Men and therefore must needs P. 70. have begun from Noahs appointment Toward the end of these observations he puts this Quere ' If it were a thing so voluntary and at the pleasure of men when they were free to put themselves under subjection why may not they as voluntarily leave this subjection when they please and be free again If they had a liberty to change their natural freedom into a voluntary subjection there is a stronger reason that they may
those things that are contrary to the safety of the Common-wealth or against the Laws of Nature And if he endeavours any such thing without doubt he transgresses the bounds of his power Let us also consider the Arguments by which the same Author in his De Cive Cap. 6 § 17. endeavours to prove that all limitation of Soveraign power is absolutely vain he says that assembly which prescribed the Laws to the future King must have had absolute power either habitually or vertually If the Assembly remains constantly or adjourns their Meeting from Time to Time to a certain day and place their power will be perpetual and so the King will not have the Supream power but will be only a bare Magistrate Which we grant to be true if that Assembly can meet by its own Right and Decree of any Affairs of the Common-wealth and that the King be liable to give them an Account of his Actions But if it absolutely dissolve it self unless the Commonwealth be likewise dissolved there must in like manner a power be left somewhere of punishing those that transgress the Laws which without absolute power cannot be performed Which is false as also the Argument by which he would prove it for he who hath granted him by Right so much power that he can compel any of the Subjects by punishments hath so great power that greater cannot be conferred by them But for all this whoever will but consider the end of all Common-wealths and that those Subjects by the submission of their Wills and powers did not immediately become senceless Machines so that since they could grant the use of their united Forces to another upon condition and are able to judg whether this condition be performâ—d or not so they can likewise withdraw their Forces again upon the breach of the condition as likewise this is apparently false that there is no better provision against the abuse of Authority when it is granted limited then when it is left absolute for it is not who that he who hath power enough to defend all Men. which all that are not Fools will easily grant their Prince as also power enough to destroy them The Commands of a General which are sufficient to make the Souldiers stout to venture their Lives against an Enemy yet would be found of no force if he should command them to draw their Swords against each other So that prudent and worthy Princes though absolute will comply with the Genins of their Subjects and â—…t-times will be sparing to urge them too far though for their own advantage when they cannot be compelled to their Duty without some hazard to the Common-wealth But those Subjects are not less discreet who when they are satisfied what is not expedient for their Common-wealth have provided by Fundamental Laws that they should not be compelled to it by their Princes power So far speaks the judicious Mr. Pusendorf upon this Subject which though somewhat prolix I have thought fit to translate verbation because I would not be thought by going about to contract it to put my own sence upon his words and besides I know no man that hath writ more clearly of this Subject in avoiding on one side an absolute despotick Monarchy without falling into that Solacism in Politicks the division of the supreme power which he supposes truly inconsistant with Monarchy So that if the Reader is not satisfied with what I have here writ upon this Subject I am sorry his understanding and mine are not framed alike nor shall be angry with him if he like an absolute Monarchy better then that we live under Provided he will never Act any thing to produce publick disturbances or to introduce it either by force or fraud in this Kingdom Yet shall wish him no greater Prerogative then that of enjoying his own opinion without imposing it upon others who are not yet weary of their Estates and Liberties which since the People of this Nation are not yet weary of The World is wide enough and there are Countries where this which they admire as the primitive Government of the World and that which they perhaps Reverence as the Primitive Religion is practised in its full splendor and indeed are most suitable to each other All the hurt I wish those Gentlemen that they were all setled in any of them even which they like best Whilst all plain hearted English-men notwithstanding such subtile discourses as thofe of our Author are resolved to return the same Answer to them as the Temporal Lords did to the Bishops long since upon another occasion Nolumus Leges Angliae mutari of which I hope there is as little fear as there is or ever will be just occasion for it And so I shall quit my hands of this ungrateful task without troubling my self with his Discourse of Witches Since his other writings sufficiently assure us that whatever he was in other Learning he was no Witch in Politicks though he had Read Aristotle might perhaps be better read in the Fathers and Schoolmen or Civil-Law than in the Laws of Nature or those of his own Countrey FINIS ERRATA PReface Page 2. l. 14. dele not l. 18. hy r. by p. 5. r. despise observe p. 8. l. 32. compore r. compare the p. 15. l. 30. of Fathers r. of a Father l. 31. more true r. more certain l. 36. to r. thereto l. 37. dele without the help and assistance of others p. 24. l. 24. should make r. should have l. 26. in r. or in p. 29. l. 16. dele fourth p. 32. l. 33. d. not p. 37. l. 33. for excellent Pufendorf r. Mr. Pufendorf a late judicious Writer p. 40. l. 17 d. often p. 42. l 20. d. of p. 43. l. 17. ought quit r. ought to puit p. 44. l. 10. for a priviledg r. a liberty l. 21. and if r. for if l. ead have such r. have only such l. 31. fatherly r. or fatherly p. 37. 57. l. 28. puzzle r. distract p. 67. l. 14. require r. acquire l. 32. as I r. and p. 70. l. 13. d. perhaps p. 72. l. 25. d. goods p. 74. l. 5. or at their own dispose include within a Parenthesis p. 77. l. 8. upon r. upon them p. 83. l. 8. on r. than l. 31. r. without any stop after legat l. 32. owe his r. owe its p. 86. l. 32. the r. those l. 35. change r. charge p. 87. l. 29. it is r. they are p. 88. l. 20. his r. this p. 89. l. 6. consting r. consisting p. 90. l. 26. r. representative and d. body p. 92. l. 34. many r. so many p. 93. l. 7. but of r. but part of l. 13. d. from p. 95. l. 16. for an r. but an l. 24. d. hatred p. 99. l. 7. both of d. both p. 102. l. 3. at mans r. a mans p. 107. l. 20. Laws d. s ead l. 1. d. Custome p. 112. l. 32. r. misuse him p. 113. l. 25. most r. many p. 117. l. 30. all