that he states the Question or rallies up any Arguments to make good his Opinion but rather tells us the Story as he thinks fit of this strange kind of domineering Phantom called the Fatherhood which whoever could catch presently got Empire and unlimited absolute Power He assures us how this Fatherhood began in Adam continued it's course and kept the World in order all the time of the Patriarchs till the Flood got out of the Arch with Noah and his Sons made and supported all the Kings of the Earth till the Captivity of the Israelites in Egypt and then the poor Fatherhood was under hatches till God by giving the Israelites Kings Re-established the Ancient and prime Right of the lineal Succession in paternal Government This is his business from p. 12 to 19. And then obviating an Objection and clearing a Difficulty or two with one half reason p. 23. to confirm the Natural Right of Regal Power he ends the first Chapter I hope 't is no Injury to call an half Quotation an half Reason for God says Honour thy Father and Mother but our Author contents himself with half leaves out thy Mother quite as little serviceable to his purpose but of that more in an other place 7 I do not think our Author so little skill'd in the way of Writing Discourses of this Nature nor so careless of the Point in hand that he by oversight commits the fault that he himself in his Anarchy of a mix'd Monarchy p. 239. Objects to Mr. Hunton in these words Where first I charge the A that he hath not given us any Definitionâ— or Discription of Monarchy in general for by the Rules of Method he should have first defin'd And by the like Rule of Method Sr. Rob. should have told us what his Fatherhood or Fatherly Authority is before he had told us in whom it was to be found and talked so much of it But perhaps Sr. Rob. found that this Fatherly Authority this Power of Fathers and of Kings for he makes them both the same p. 24. would make a very odd and frightful Figure and very disagreeing with what either Children imagin of their Parents or Subjects of their Kings if he should have given us the whole dâ—aught together in that Gigantic Form he had Painted it in his own Phancy and therefore like a wary Physician when he would have his Patient swallow some harsh or Corrosive Liquor he mingles it with a large quantity of that which may delute it that the scatter'd Parts may go down with less feeling and cause less Aversion 8. Let us then endeavour to find what account he gives us of this Fatherly Authority as it lies scatter'd in the several Parts of his Writings And first as it was vested in Adam he says not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Fatherhood Royal Authority over their Children p. 12. This Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World and by right descending from him the Patriarchs did injoy was as large and ample as the Absolute Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation p. 13. Dominion of Life and Death making War and concluding Peace p. 13. Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute Power of Life and Death p. 35. Kings in the right of Parents succeed to the Exercise of supream jurisdiction p. 19. As Kingly Power is by the Law of God so it hath no inferior Law to Limit it Adam was Lord of all p. 40. The Father of a Family governs by no other Law then by his own will p. 78. The Superiority of Princes is above Laws p. 79. The unlimited jurisdiction of Kings is so amply described by Samuel p. 80. Kings are above the Laws p. 93. And to this purpose see a great deal more which our A delivers in Bodins's words It is certain that all Laws Priviledges and Grants of Princes have no Force but during their Life if they be not ratified by the express Consent or by sufferance of the Prince following especially Priviledges O. p. 279. The reason why Laws have been also made by Kings was this when Kings were either busied with Wars or distracted with Public Cares so that every private Man could not have Accâ—ss to their Persons to learn their Wills and Pleasure then were Laws of necessity invented that so every particular Subject might find his Princes Pleasure Decypher'd unto him in the Tables of his Laws p. 92. In a Monarchy the King must by necessity be above the Laws p. 100. A perfect Kingdom is that wherein the King Rules all things according to his own Will p. 100. Neither Common nor Statute Laws are or can be any Diminution of that General Power which Kings have over their People by right of Fatherhood p. 115. Adam was the Father King and Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or Slave were one and the same thing at first The Father had Power to dispose or sell his Children or Servants whence we find that at the first reckoning up of Goods in Scripture the Man-servant and the Maid-servant are numbred among the Possessions and substance of the Owner as other Goods were O pref God also hath given to the Father a Right or Liberty to alien his Power over his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and Gift of Children to have been much in use in in the Beginning of the World when Men had their Servants for a Possession and an Inheritance as well as other Goods whereupon we find the Power of Castrating and making Eunâ—chsâ— much in use in Old times O. p. 155. Law is nothing else but the will of him that hath the Power of the Supream Father O. p. 223. It was Gods Ordinance that Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as all the Acts of his Will and as in him so in all others that have Supream Power O. p. 245. 9. I have been fain to trouble by Reader with these several Quotations in our A s own words that in them might be seen his own Discription of his Fatherly Authority as it lies scatter'd up and down in his Writings which he supposes was first vested in Adam and by Right belongs to all Princes ever since This Fatherly Authority then or Right of Fatherhood in our A s sence is a Divine unalterable Right of Sovereignty whereby a Father or a Prince hath an Absolute Arbitrary unlimited and unlimitable Power over the Lives Libertys and Estates of his Children or Subjects so that he may take or alienate their Estates sell castrate or use their Persons as he pleases they being all his slaves and he Lord and Proprietor of every thing and his unbounded Will their Law 10. Our A having placed such a mighty Power in Adam and upon that supposition founded all Government and all Power of Princes it is reasonable to expect that he should have proved this with Arguments clear and evident suitable to the weightiness of
the Cause That since Men had nothing else left them they might in slavery had such undeniable Proofs of its necessity that heir consciences might be convinced and oblige them to submit peaceably to that Absolute Dominion which their Governors had a Right to Exercise over them without this what good could our A do or pretend to do by erecting such an unlimited Power but flatter the Natural Vanity and Ambition of Men too apt of its self to grow and increase with the Possession of any Power And by perswading those who by the consent of their fellow Men are advanced to great but limited degrees of it that by that Part which is given them they have a Right to all that was not so and therefore may do what they please because they have Authority to do more then others and so tempt them to do what is neither for their own nor the good of those under their Care whereby great mischeifs cannot but follow 11. The Sovereignty of Adam being that on which as a sure basis our A builds his Mighty Absolute Monarchy I expected that in his Patriarcha this his main supposition would have been proved and established with all that evidence of Arguments that such a Fundamental Tenet required and that this on which the great stress of the business depends would have been made out with reasons sufficient to justifie the confidence with which it was assumed But in all that Treatise I could find very little tending that way the thing is there so taken for granted without Proof that I could scarce believe my self when upon attentive Reading that Treatise I found there so mighty a Structure rais'd upon the bare supposition of this Foundation for it is scarce credible that in a Discourse where he pretends to confute the Erroneous Principle of Mans Natural Freedom he does it by a bare supposition of Adams Authority without offering any Proof for that Authority Indeed he confidently says that Adam had Royal Authority p. 12 and 13. Absolute Lordship and Dominion of life and death p. 13. An Vniversal Monarchy p. 33. Absolute Power of life and death p. 35. He is very frequent in such Assertions but what is strange in all his whole Patriarcha I find not one pretence of a reason to Establish this his great Foundation of Government not any thing that looks like an Argument but these words To confirm this Natural Right of Regal Power we find in the Decalogue that the Law which injoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the Terms Honour thy Father as if all Power were Originally in the Father And why may I not add as well that in the Decalogue the Law that injoyns obedience to Queens is delivered in the Terms of Honour thy Mother as if all Power were Originally in the Mother The Argument as Sr. Rob. puts it will hold as well for one as tother but of this more in its due place 12. All that I take notice of here is that this is all our A says in this first or any of the following Chapters to prove the Absolute Power of Adam which is his great Principle and yet as if he had there settled it upon sure Demonstration he begins his 2 d. Chapter with these words by Confering these Proofs and Reasons drawn from the Authority of the Scripture Where those Proofs and Reasons for Adams Sovereignty are bateing that of Honour thy Father above mentioned I confess I cannot find unless what he says p. 11. In these words we have an evident Confession viz. of Belarmin that Creation made Man Prince of his Posterity must be taken for Proofs and Reasons drawn from Scripture or for any sort of Proofs at all though from thence by a new way of inference iâ— the words immediately following And indeed he concludes the Royal Authority of Adam sufficiently settled in him 13. If he has in that Chapter or any where in the whole Treatise given any other Proofs of Adams Royal Authority other then by often repeating it which among some Men goes for Argument I desire any body for him to shew me the Place and Page that I may be convinced of my mistake and acknowledge my oversight If no such Arguments are to be found I beseech those Men who have so much cryed up this Book to consider whether they do not give the World cause to suspect that 't is not the Force of Reason and Argument that makes them for Absolute Monarchy but some other by interest and therefore are resolved to applaud any Author that writes in Favour of this Doctrin whether he support it with reason or no. But I hope they do not expect that rational and indifferent Men should be brought over to their Opinion because this their great Dr. of it in a Discourse made on purpose to set up the Absolute Monarchical Power of Adam in opposition to the Natural Freedom of Mankind has said so little to prove it from whence it is rather naturally to be concluded that there is little to be said 14. But that I might omit no care to inform my self in our A s full Sense I consulted his Observations on Aristotle Hobs c. To see whether in disputing with others he made use of any Arguments for this his Darling Tenet of Adam's Sovereignty since in his Treatise of the Natural Power of Kings he had been so sparing of them And in his Observations on Mr. Hobs's Leviathan I think he has put in short all those Arguments for it together which in his Writings I find him any where to make use of his Words are these If God Created only Adam and of a piece of him made the Woman and if by Generation from them two as parts of them all Mankind be propagated If also God gave to Adam not only the Dominion over the Woman and the Children that should Issue from them but also over the whole Earth to subdue it and over all the Creatures on it so that as long as Adam lived no Man could claim or enjoy any thing but by Donation Assignation or Permission from him I wonder c. O. 165. Here we have the Sum of all his Arguments for Adams Sovereignty and against Natural Freedom which I find up and down in his other Treatises which are these following Gods Creation of Adam the Dominion he gave him over Eve And the Dominion he had as Father over his Children all which I shall particularly consider CHAP. III. Of Adams Title to Sovereignty by Creation 15. SIR Rob. in his Preface to his Observations on Aristotle's Politics tells us A Natural Freedom of Mankind cannot be supposed without the denial of the Creation of Adam but how Adams being Created which was nothing but his receiving a Being immediately from Omnipotency and the hand of God gave Adam a Sovereignty over any thing I cannot see nor consequently understand how a Supposition of natural Freedom is a denial of Adams Creation and would be glad any body else
due from Children and had there been any Text where the honour or obedience of Children had been directed to the Father alone 't is not likely that our A who pretends to Build all upon Scripture would have omitted it nay the Scripture makes the Authority of Father and Mother in respect of those they have begot so equal that in some places it neglects even the Priority of Order which is thought due to the Father and the Mother is put first as Lev. 19. 3. from which so constantly joyning Father and Mother together as is found quite through the Scripture we may conclude that the honour they have a Title to from their Children is one common right belonging so equally to them both that neither can claim it wholly neither can be excluded 62. One would wonder then how our A infers from the 5 th Commandment that all Power was Originally in the Father How he finds Monarchical Power of Government settled and fixed by the Commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother If all the honour due by the Commandments be it what it will be the only right of the Father because he as our A says has the Sovereignty over the Woman as being the Nobler and Principal Agent in Generation why did God afterwards all along joyn the Mother with him to share in this honour can the Father by this Sovereignty of his discharge the Child from Paying this Honour to his Mother The Scripture gave no such License to the Jews and yet there were often Breaches wide enough betwixt Husband and Wife even to divorce and seperation and I think no Body will say a Child may withhold honour from his Mother or as the Scripture Terms it set light by her though his Father should command him to do so no more then the Mother could dispense with him for neglecting to Honour his Father whereby 't is plain that this command of God gives the Father no Sovereignty no Supremacy 63. I agree with our A that the Title to this Honour is vested in the Parents by nature and is a right which accrews to them by their having begotten their Children and God by many positive Declarations has confirm'd it to them I also allow our A s Rule that in Grants and Gifts that have their Original from God and Nature as the Power of the Father let me add and Mother for whom God hath joyned together let no Man put a sunder no inferior Power of Men can limit nor make any Law of Prescription against them O. 158. So that the Mother having by this Law of God a right to Honour from her Children which is not Subject to the Will of her Husband we see this Absolute Monarchical Power of the Father can neither be founded on it nor consist with it And he has a Power very far from Monarchical very far from that Absoluteness our A contends for when another has over his Subjects the same Power he hath and by the same Title and therefore he cannot forebear saying himself that he cannot see how any Mans Children can be free from Subjection to their Parents p. 12. which in common Speech I think signifies Mother as well as Father or if Parents here signifies only Father 't is the first time I ever yet knew it to do so and by such an use of Words one may say any thing 64. By our A s Doctrin the Father having Absolute jurisdiction over his Children has also the same over their Issue and the consequence is good were it true that the Father had such a Power and yet I ask our A whether the Grand-father by his Sovereignty could discharge the Grand-Child from Paying to his Father the honour due to him by the 5 th Commandment If the Grand-Father hath by right of Fatherhood Sole Sovereign Power in him and by Honour thy Father be commanded that Obedience which is due to the Sovereign 't is certain the Grand-Father might dispence with the Grand-Sons Honouring his Father which since 't is evident in common Sense he cannot 't is evident Honour thy Father and Mother cannot mean an Absolute Subjection to a Sovereign Power but something else The right therefore which Parents have by nature and which is confirmed to them by the 5 th Commandment cannot be that Political Dominion which our A would derive from it for that being in every civil Society Supream somewhere can discharge any Subject from any Political Obedience to any one of his fellow Subjects But what Law of the Magistrate can give a Child liberty not to Honour his Father and Mother 't is an eternal Law annex'd purely to the relation of Parents and Children and so contains nothing of the Magistrates Power in it nor is Subjected to it 65. Our A says God hath given to a Father a right or liberty to Alien his Power over his Children to any other O 155. I doubt whether he can Alien wholly the right of Honour that is due from them But be that as it will this I am sure he cannot Alien and retain the same Power if therefore the Magistrates Sovereignty be as our A would have it nothing but the Authority of a Supream Father p. 23. 't is unavoidable that if the Magistrate hath all this Paternal Right as he must have if Fatherhood be the Fountain of all Authority then the Subjects though Fathers can have no Power over their Children no right to honour from them for it cannot be all in anothers hands and a part remain with them so that according to our A s own Doctrin Honour thy Father and Mother cannot possibly be understood of Political Subjection and Obedience since the Laws both in the Old and New Testament that commanded Children to Honour and obey their Parents were given to such whose Fathers were under such Government and fellow Subjects with them in Political Societies and to have bid them Honour and obey their Parents in our A s Sense had been to bid them be Subjects to those who had no Title to it the right to Obedience from Subjects being all vested in another and instead of teaching Obedience this had been to foment Sedition by setting up Powers that were not If therefore this command Honour thy Father and Mother concern Political Dominion it directly overthrows our A s Monarchy since it being to be paid by every Child to his Father even in Society every Father must necessarily have Political Dominion and there will be as many Sovereigns as there are Fathers besides that the Mother too hath her Title which destroys the Sovereignty of one Supream Monarch But if Honour thy Father and Mother mean something distinct from Political Power as necessarily it must it is besides our A s business and serves nothing to his purpose 66. The Law that enjoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered says our A in the Terms Honour thy Father as if all Power were Originally in the Father O. 254. And that Law is also delivered say I in the
which one would think in Justice ought to be paid but that having been done in Obedience to the same Law whereby he received Nourishment and Education from his own Parents this Score of Education received from a Mans Father is paid by taking care and providing for his own Children is paid I say as much as is requir'd of payment by alteration of Property unless present necessity of the Parents require a return of Goods for their necessary Support and Subsistance for we are not now speaking of that reverence acknowledgment respect and honour that is always due from Children to their Parents but of possessions and commodities of Life valuable by Money But yet this debt to the Children does not quite cancel the Score due to the Father but only is made by nature preferable to it For the debt a Man owes his Father takes place and gives the Father a Right to Inherit the Sons Goods where for want of Issue the Right of Children doth not exclude that â—itle And therefore a Man having a Right to be maintain'd by his Children where he needs it and to injoy also the comforts of Life from them when the necessary provision due to them and their Children will afford it if his Son dye without Issue the Father has a right in nature to possess his Goods and Inherit his Estate whatever the Municipal Laws of some Countries may absurdly direct otherwise and so again his Children and their Issue from him or for want of such his Father and his Issue But where no such are to be found i. e. no Kindred there we see the possessions of a Private Man revert to the community and so in Politic Societies come into the hands of the public Magistrate but in the State of nature become again perfectly common no body having a right to Inherit them nor can any one have a Property in them otherwise then in other things common by nature of which I shall speak in its due place 91. I have been the larger in shewing upon what ground Children have a Right to succeed to the Possession of their Fathers Properties not only because by it it will appear that if Adam had a Property a Titular insignificant useless Property for it could be no better for he was bound to nourish and maintain his Children and Posterity out of it in the whole Earth and its Product yet all his Children coming to have by the Law of nature and Right of Inheritance a joynt Title and Right of Property in it after his death it could convey no right of Sovereignty to any one of his Posterity over the rest since every one having a right of Inheritance to his portion they might enjoy their Inheritance or any part of it in common or share it or some parts of it by Division as it best liked them but no one could pretend to the whole Inheritance or any Sovereignty supposed to accompany it since a right of Inheritance gave every one of the rest as well as any one a Title to share in the Goods of his Father Not only upon this account I say have I been so particular in examining the reason of Childrens Inheriting the Property of their Fathers but also because it will give us farther Light in the Inheritance of Rule and Power which in Countries where their particular Municipal Laws give the whole Possession of Land entirely to the first Born and Descent of Power has gone so to Men by this Custom some have been apt to be deceived into an Opinion that there was a Natural or Divine Right of Primogeniture to both Estate and Power and that the Inheritance of both Rule over Men and Property in things sprang from the same Original and were to descend by the same Rules 92. Property whose Original is from the Right a Man has to use any of the inferior Creatures for the subsistance and comfort of his Life is for the benefit and sole advantage of the Proprietor so that he may even destroy the thing that he has Property in by his use of it where need requires But Government being for the Preservation of every Mans Right and Property by Preserving him from the Violence or Injury of others is for the good of the Governed For the Magistrate Sword being for a Terror to evil Doers and by that Terror to inforce Men to observe the positive Laws of the Society made conformable to the Laws of Nature for the Public good i. e. the good of every particular Member of that Society as far as by common Rules it can be provided for the Sword is not given the Magistrate for his own good alone 93. Children therefore as has been shew'd by the dependance they have on their Parents for Subsistance have a Right of Inheritance to their Fathers Property as that which belongs to them for their Proper good and behoof and therefore are fitly termed Goods wherein the first Born has not a sole or peculiar Right by any Law of God and Nature His and his Brethrens being equally founded on that Right they had to maintenance support and comfort from their Parents and on nothing else But Government being for the benefit of the Governed and not the sole advantage of the Governors but only for theirs with the rest as they make a part of that Politic Body each of whose Parts and Members are taken care of and directed in their peculiar Function for the good of the whole by the Laws of the Society cannot be Inherited by the same Title that Children have to the Goods of their Fathers The Right a Son has to be maintained and provided with the necessaries and conveniences of Life out of his Fathers Stock gives him a Right to succeed to his Fathers Property for his own good but this can give him no Right to succeed also to the Rule which his Father had over other Men all that a Child has Right to claim from his Fathers is Nourishment and Education and the things nature furnishes for the support of Life but he has no Right to demand Rule or Dominion from him He can subsist and receive from him the Portion of good things aud advantages of Education naturally due to him without Empire and Dominion That if his Father hath any was vested in him for the good and behoof of others and therefore the Son cannot Claim or Inherit it by a Title which is founded wholy on his own private good and advantage 94. We must know how the first Ruler from whom any one claims came by his Authority upon what ground any one has Empire what his Title is to it before we can know who has a right to succeed him in it and inherit it from him If the Agreement and Consent of Men first gave a Scepter into any ones hand or put a Crown on his Head that also must direct its descent and conveyance for the same Authority that made the first a Lawful Ruler must make the Second too
over them as much as Iacob was in his own Family The words if one consider thy Brethren and thy Mothers Sons in them can never be understood literally of Esau or the Personal Dominion of Iacob over him for the words Sons and Brethren could not be used litterally by Isaac who knew Iacob had only one Brother And these words are so far from being true in a litteral Sense or Establishing any Dominion in Iacob over Esau that in the Story we find the quite contrary for Gen. 32. Iacob several times calls Esau Lord and himself his Servant and Gen. 33. he bowed himself seven times to the ground to Esau whether Esau then were a Subject and Vassal nay as our A tells us all Subjects are Slaves to Iacob and Iacob his Sovereign Prince by Birth right I leave the Reader to judge and believe if he can that these words of Isaac be Lord over thy Brethren and let thy Mothers Sons bow down to thee confirm'd Iacob in a Sovereignty over Esau upon the account of the Birth-right he had got from him 118. He that reads the Story of Iacob and Esau will find there was never any Jurisdicton or Authority that either of them had over the other after their Fathers death they lived with the Friendship and Equallity of Brethren neither Lord neither Slave to his Brother but Independent each of other were both heads of their distinct Families where they received no Laws from one another but lived seperately and were the Roots out of which sprang two distinct People under two distinct Governments This Blessing then of Isaac whereon our A would build the Dominion of the Elder Brother signifies no more but what Rebeca had been told from God Gen. 25. 23. Two Nations are in thy Womb and two manner of People shall be seperated from thy Bowels and the one People shall be stronger then the other People and the Elder shall serve the Younger And so Iacob Blessed Iudah Gen. 49. and gave him the Scepter and Dominion from whence our A might have argued as well that Jurisdiction and Dominion belongs to the third Son over his Brethren as well as from this Blessing of Isaac that it belonged to Iacob They being both Predictions of what should long after happen to their Posterities and not the declaring the Right of Inheritance to Dominion in either And thus we have our A s two great and only Arguments to prove that Heirs are Lords of their Brethren 1 o. Because God tells Cain Gen. 4. That however sin might set upon him he ought or might be master of it For the most Learned interpreters understand the words of sin and not of Abel and give so strong reasons for it that nothing can convincingly be infer'd from so doubtful a Text to our A s purpose 2 o. Because in this of Gen. 27. Isaac foretells that the Israelites the Posterity of Iacob should have Dominion over the Edomites the Posterity of Esau therefore says our A Heirs are Lords of their Brethren I leave any one to judge of the conclusion 119. And now we see how our A has provided for the descending and conveyance down of Adams Monarchical Power or Paternal Dominion to Posterity by the Inheritance of his Heir Succeeding to all his Fathers Authority and becoming upon his death as much Lord as his Father was not only over his own Children but over his Brethren and all descended from his Father and so in infinitum But yet who this Heir is he does not once tell us and all the light we have from him in this so Fundamental a Point is only that in his instance of Iacob by using the word Birth-right as that which passed from Esau to Iacob he leaves us to guess that by Heir he means the Eldest Son though I do not remember he any where mentions expresly the Title of the first Born but all along keeps himself under the shelter of the indefinite Term Heir But taking it to be his meaning that the Eldest Son is Heir for if the Eldest be not there will be no pretence why the Sons should not be all Heirs alike and so by Right of Pimogeniture has Dominion over his Brethren this is but one step towards the Settelment of Succession and the difficulties remain still as much as ever till he can shew us who is meant by Right Heir in all those cases which may happen where the present Possessor hath no Son But this he silently passes over and perhaps wisely too For what can be wiser after one has affirm'd that the Person having that Power as well as the Power and Form of Government is the Ordinance of God and by Divine Institution vid. O. 254. p. 12. then to be careful not to start any question concerning the Person the resolution whereof will certainly lead him into a a confession that God and Nature hath determined nothing about him And if our A cannot shew who by Right of nature or a clear positive Law of God has the next right to inherit the Dominion of this natural Monarch he has been at such pains about when he dyed without a Son he might have spared his pains in all the rest it being more necessary to settle Mens consciences and determin their Subjection and Allegiance to shew them who by Original Right Superior and Antecedent to the Will or any Act of Men hath a Title to this Paternal Iurisdiction than it is to shew that by Nature there was such a Iurisdiction It being to no purpose for me to know there is such a Paternal Power which I ought and am disposed to obey unless where there are many pretenders I also know the Person that is rightfully invested and endow'd with it 120. For the main matter in question being concerning the Duty of my Obedience and the Obligation of Conscience I am under to pay it to him that is of Right my Lord and Ruler I must know the Person that this Right of Paternal Power resides in and so impowers him to claim Obedience from me For let it be true what he says p. 12. That Civil Power not only in general is byâ— divine Institution but even the Assignment of it specifically to the Eldest Parents O. 254. That not only the Power or Right of Government but the Form of the Power of governing and the Person having that Power are all the Ordinance of God yet unless he shews us in all Cases who is this Person Ordain'd by God who is this Eldest Parent all his abstract Notions of Monarchical Power will signifie just nothing when they are to be reduced to Practice and Men are conscientiously to pay their Obedience For Paternal Iurisdiction being not the thing to be obeyed because it cannot command but is only that which gives one Man a Right which another hath not and if it come by Inheritance another Man cannot have to command and be obey'd It is ridiculous to say I pay Obedience to the paternal Power
and how far he may make use of his Freedom and so comes to have it till then some body else must guide him who is presumed to know how far the Law allows a Liberty If such a state of Reason such an Age of Discretion made him free the same shall make his Son free too Is a Man under the Law of England what made him free of that Law that is to have the Liberty to dispose of his Actions and Possessions according to his own Will within the Permission of that Law A capacity of knowing that Law Which is supposed by that Law at the Age of Twenty one and in some cases sooner If this made the Father free it shall make the Son free too Till then we see the Law allows the Son to have no Will but he is to be guided by the Will of his Father or Guardian who is to understand for him And if the Father die and fail to substitute a Deputy in this Trust if he hath not provided a Tutor to govern his Son during his Minority during his Want of Understanding the Law takes care to do it some other must govern him and be a Will to him till he hath attained to a state of Freedom and his Understanding be fit to take the Government of his Will But after that the Father and Son are equally free as much as Tutor and Pupil after Nonage equally Subjects of the same Law together without any Dominion left in the Father over the Life Liberty or Estate of his Son whether they be only in the State and under the Law of Nature or under the positive Laws of an Establish'd Government 60. But if through defects that may happen out of the ordinary Course of Nature any one comes not to such a degree of Reason wherein he might be supposed capable of knowing the Law and so living within the Rules of it he is never capable of being a Free Man he is never let loose to the disposure of his own Will because he knows no bounds to it has not Understanding its proper Guide but is continued under the Tuition and Government of others all the time his own Understanding is uncapable of that Charge And so Lunaticks and Ideots are never set free from the Government of their Parents Children who are not as yet come unto those years whereat they may have and Innocents which are excluded by a natural defect from ever having Thirdly Madmen which for the present cannot possibly have the use of right Reason to guide themselves have for their Guide the Reason that guideth other Men which are Tutors over them to seek and procure their good for them says Hooker Eccl. Pol. lib. 1. § 7. All which seems no more than that Duty which God and Nature has laid on Man as well as other Creatures to preserve their Off-spring till they can be able to shift for themselves and will scarce amount to an instance or proof of Parents Regal Authority 61. Thus we are born free as we are born rational not that we have actually the Exercise of either Age that brings one brings with it the other too And thus we see how natural Freedom and Subjection to Parents may consist together and are both founded on the same Principle A Child is free by his Father's Title by his Father's Understanding which is to govern him till he hath it of his own The Freedom of a man at years of discretion and the Subjection of a Child to his Parents whilst yet short of it are so consistent and so distinguishable that the most blinded Contenders for Monarchy by Right of Fatherhood cannot miss of it the most obstinate cannot but allow of it For were their Doctrine all true were the right Heir of Adam now known and by that Title setled a Monarch in his Throne invested with all the Absolute Unlimited Power Sr. R. F. talks of If he should dye as soon as his Heir were born must not the Child notwithstanding he were never so free never so much sovereign be in subjection to his Mother and Nurse to Tutors and Gonours till Age and Education brought him Reason and Ability to govern himself and others The Necessities of his Life the Health of his Body and the Information of his Mind would require him to be directed by the Will of others and not his own and yet will any one think that this Restraint and Subjection were inconsistent with or spoiled him of that Liberty or Sovereignty he had a Right to or gave away his Empire to those who had the Government of his Nonage This Government over him only prepared him the better and sooner for it If any body should ask me When my Son is of Age to be free I shall answer Just when his Monarch is of Age to govern But at what time says the judicious Hooker Eccl. Pol. l. 1. § 6. a man may be said to have attain'd so far forth the use of Reason as sufficeth to make him capable of those Laws whereby he is then bound to guide his Actions this is a great deal more easie for sense to discern than for any one by Skill and Learning to determine 62. Commonwealths themselves take notice of and allow that there is a time when Men are to begin to act like Free Men and therefore till that time require not Oaths of Fealty or Allegiance or other publick owning of or Submission to the Government of their Countreys 63. The Freedom then of Man and Liberty of acting according to his own Will is grounded on his having Reason which is able to instruct him in that Law he is to govern himself by and make him know how far he is left to the freedom of his own will To turn him loose to an unrestrain'd Liberty before he has Reason to guide him is not the allowing him the priviledge of his Nature to be free but to thrust him out amongst Brutes and abandon him to a state as wretched and as much beneath that of a Man as theirs This is that which puts the Authority into the Parents hands to govern the Minority of their Children God hath made it their business to imploy this Care on their Off-spring and hath placed in them suitable Inclinations of Tenderness and Concern to temper this power to apply it as his Wisdom designed it to the Childrens good as long as they should need to be under it 64. But what reason can hence advance this Care of the Parents due to their Off-spring into an Absolute Arbitrary Dominion of the Father whose power reaches no farther than by such a Discipline as he finds most effectual to give such strength and health to their Bodies such vigour and rectitude to their Minds as may best fit his Children to be most useful to themselves and others and if it be necessary to his Condition to make them work when they are able for their own Subsistence But in this power the Mother too has her
share with the Father 65. Nay this power so little belongs to the Father by any peculiar right of Nature but only as he is Guardian of his Children that when he quits his Care of them he loses his power over them which goes along with their Nourishment and Education to which it is inseparably annexed and belongs as much to the Foster-Father of an exposed Child as to the Natural Father of another So little power does the bare act of begetting give a Man over his Issue if all his Care ends there and this be all the Title he hath to the Name and Authority of a Father and what will become of this Paternal Power in that part of the World where one Woman hath more than one Husband at a time Or in those parts of America where when the Husband and Wife part which happens frequently the Children are all left to the Mother follow her and are wholly under her Care and Provision And if the Father die whilst the Children are young do they not naturally every where owe the same Obedience to their Mother during their Minority as to their Father were he alive And will any one say that the Mother hath a legislative Power over her Children that she can make standing Rules which shall be of perpetual Obligation by which they ought to regulate all the Concerns of their Property and bound their Liberty all the course of their Lives and inforce the observation of them with Capital Punishments For this is the proper power of the Magistrate of which the Father hath not so much as the shadow His Command over his Children is but temporary and reaches not their Life or Property It is but a help to the weakness and imperfection of their Non-age a Discipline necessary to their Education and though a Father may dispose of his own Possessions as he pleases when his Children are out of danger of perishing for want yet his power extends not to the lives or goods which either their own industry or anothers bounty has made theirs nor to their liberty neither when they are once arrived to the infranchisement of the years of discretion The Father's Empire then ceases and he can from thence forwards no more dispose of the liberty of his Son than that of any other Man And it must be far from an absolute or perpetual Jurisdiction from which a Man may withdraw himself having Licence from Divine Authority to leave Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife 66. But though there be a time when a Child comes to be as free from subjection to the will and Command of his Father as he himself is free from subjection to the will of any body else and they are both under no other restraint but that which is common to them both whether it be the Law of Nature or municipal Law of their Country yet this freedom exempts not a Son from that honour which he ought by the Law of God and Nature to pay his Parents God having made the Parents Instruments in his great design of continuing the Race of Mankind and the occasions of Life to their Children as he hath laid on them an obligation to nourish preserve and bring up their Off-spring so he has laid on the Children a perpetual obligation of honouring their Parents which containing in it an inward esteem and reverence to be shewn by all outward expressions ties up the Child from any thing that may ever injure or affront disturb or endanger the happiness or life of those from whom he received his and engages him in all actions of defence relief assistance and comfort of those by whose means he entred into being and has been made capable of any enjoyments of life From this obligation no State no freedom can absolve Children But this is very far from giving Parents a power of command over their Children or an Authority to make Laws and dispose as they please of their Lives or Liberties 'T is one thing to owe honour respect gratitude and assistance another to require an absolute obedience and submission The honour due to Parents a Monarch in his Throne owes his Mother and yet this lessens not his Authority nor subjects him to her Government 67. The subjection of a minor places in the Father a temporary Government which terminates with the minority of the Child And the honour due from a Child places in the Parents a perpetual right to respect reverence support and compliance to more or less as the Father's care cost and kindness in his Education has been more or less And this ends not with minority but holds in all parts and conditions of a Man's Life The want of distinguishing these two powers which the Father hath in the right of tuition during minority and the right of honour all his Life may perhaps have caused a great part of the mistakes about this matter For to speak properly of them the first of these is rather the priviledge of Children and duty of Parents than any Prerogative of Paternal Power The nourishment and Education of their Children is a Charge so incumbent on Parents for their Childrens good that nothing can absolve them from taking care of it And though the power of commanding and chastising them go along with it yet God hath woven into the principles of humane nature such a tenderness for their Off-spring that there is little fear that Parents should use their power with too much rigour the excess is seldom on the severe side the strong biass of nature drawing the other way And therefore God Almighty when he would express his gentle dealing with the Israelites he tells them that though he chasten'd them he chasten'd them as a man chastens his Son Deut. 8. 5. i. e. with tenderness and affection and kept them under no severer discipline than what was absolutely best for them and had been less kindness to have slacken'd This is that power to which Children are commanded obedience that the pains and care of their Parents may not be increased or ill rewarded 68. On the other side honour and support all that which gratitude requires to return for the benefits received by and from them is the indispensible duty of the Child and the proper priviledge of the Parents This is intended for the Parents advantage as the other is for the Childs though Education the Parents duty seems to have most power because the ignorance and infirmities of Childhood stand in need of restraint and correction which is a visible exercise of Rule and a kind of Dominion And that duty which is comprehended in the word honour requires less obedience though the obligation be stronger on grown than younger Children For who can think the Command Children obey your Parents requires in a Man that has Children of his own the same submission to his Father as it does in his yet young Children to him and that by this Precept he were bound to obey all his Father's Commands
if out of a conceit of authority he should have the indiscretion to treat him still as a Boy 69. The first part then of Paternal Power or rather Duty which is Education belongs so to the Father that it terminates at a certain season when the business of Education is over it ceases of it self and is also alienable before For a Man may put the tuition of his Son in other hands and he that has made his Son an Apprentice to another has discharged him during that time of a great part of his Obedience both to himself and to his Mother But all the duty of honour the other part remains never the less entire to them nothing can cancel that It is so inseparable from them both that the Father's Authority cannot dispossess the Mother of this right nor can any Man discharge his Son from honouring her that bore him But both these are very far from a power to make Laws and inforceing them with Penalties that may reach Estate Liberty Limbs and Life The power of Commanding ends with Non-age and though after that honour and respect support and defence and whatsoever gratitude can oblige a Man to for the highest benefits he is naturally capable of be always due from a Son to his Parents yet all this puts no Scepter into the Father's hand no Soveraign Power of Commanding He has no Dominion over his Sons property or actions nor any right that his Will should prescribe to his Sons in all things however it may become his Son in many things not very inconvenient to him and his Family to pay a Deference to it 70. A Man may owe honour and respect to an ancient or wise Man defence to his Child or Friend relief and support to the distressed and gratitude to a Benefactor to such a degree that all he has all he can do cannot sufficiently pay it But all these give no Authority no right of making Laws to any one over him from whom they are owing And 't is plain all this is due not to the bare title of Father not only because as has been said it is owing to the Mother too but because these obligations to Parents and the degrees of what is required of Children may be varied by the different care and kindness trouble and expence is often imployed upon one Child more than another 71. This shews the reason how it comes to pass that Parents in Societies where they themselves are Subjects retain a power over their Children and have as much right to their Subjection as those who are in the state of Nature which could not possibly be if all political Power were only paternal and that in truth they were one and the same thing for then all paternal Power being in the Prince the Subject could naturally have none of it but these two Powers political and paternal are so perfectly distinct and separate and built upon so different Foundations and given to so different Ends that every Subject that is a Father has as much a paternal Power over his Children as the Prince has over his And every Prince that has Parents owes them as much filial Duty and Obedience as the meanest of his Subjects do to theirs and can therefore contain not any part or degree of that kind of Dominion which a Prince or Magistrate has over his Subject 72. Though the Obligation on the Parents to bring up their Children and the Obligation on Children to honour their Parents contain all the Power on the one hand and Submission on the other which are proper to this Relation yet there is another Power ordinarily in the Father whereby he has a tye on the Obedience of his Children which though it be common to him with other men yet the Occasions of shewing it almost constantly happening to Fathers in their private Families and in Instances of it else-where being rare and less taken notice of it passes in the World for a part of paternal Iurisdiction And this is the Power Men generally have to bestow their Estates on those who please them best The Possession of the Father being the Expectation and Inheritance of the Children ordinarily in certain proportions according to the Law and Custom of each Country yet it is commonly in the Father's Power to bestow it with a more sparing or liberal hand according as the Behaviour of this or that Child hath comported with his Will and Humour 73. This is no small Tye to the Obedience of Children and there being always annexed to the Enjoyment of Land a Submission to the Government of the Country of which that Land is a part It has been commonly suppos'd That a Father could oblige his Posterity to that Government of which he himself was a Subject that his Compact held them whereas it being only a necessary Condition annex'd to the Land which is under that Government reaches only those who will take it on that Condition and so is no natural Tye or Engagement but a voluntary Submission For every Man's Children being by Nature as free as himself or any of his Ancestours ever were may whilst they are in that Freedom choose what Society they will join themselves to what Commonwealth they will put themselves under But if they will enjoy the Inheritance of their Ancestours they must take it on the same terms their Ancestours had it and submit to all the Conditions annex'd to such a Possession By this Power indeed Fathers oblige their Children to Obedience to themselves even when they are past Minority and most commonly too subject them to this or that political Power But neither of these by any peculiar right of Father-hood but by the Reward they have in their hands to inforce and recompence such a Compliance and is no more Power than what a French-man has over an English-man who by the hopes of an Estate he will leave him will certainly have a strong tye on his Obedience and if when it is left him he will enjoy it he must certainly take it upon the Conditions annex'd to the Possession of Land in that Country where it lies whether it be France or England 74. To conclude then though the Father's Power of commanding extends no farther than the Minority of his Children and to a degree only fit for the Discipline and Government of that Age. And though that Honour and Respect and all that which the Latins called Piety which they indispensibly owe to their Parents all their Life times and in all estates with all that Support and Defence is due to them gives the Father no Power of governing i. e. making Laws and exacting Penalties on his Children Though by this he has no Dominion over the Property or Actions of his Son yet 't is obvious to conceive how easie it was in the first Ages of the World and in places still where the thinness of People gives Families leave to separate into unpossessed Quarters and they have room to remove and plant themselves
to say what has been above proved that the Text it self proves the contrary and in the other the Words and Sense are directly against it 37. But our A says Noah was the sole Heir of the World why should it be thought that God would disinherit him of his Birth-right-Heir indeed in England signifies the Eldest Son who is by the Law of England to have all his Fathers Land but where God ever appointed any such Heir of the World our A would have done well to have shewed us and how God disinherited him of his Birth-right or what harm was done him if God gave his Sons a Right to make use of a part of the Earth for the support of themselves and Families when the whole was not only more then Noah himself but infinitely more then they all could make use of and the Possessions oâ— one could not at all Prejudice or as to any use straighten that of the other 38. Our A probably foreseeing he might not be very successful in perswading People out of their Senses and say what he could Men would be apt to believe the plain words of Scripture and think as they saw that the Grant was spoken to Noah and his Sons joyntly He comes 2â— to insinuate as if this grant to Noah conveyed no Property no Dominion because Subduing the Earth and Dominion over the Creatures are therein omitted nor the Earth once named And therefore says he there is a considerable difference between these two Texts the first blessing gave Adam a Dominion over the Earth and all Creatures the latter allows Noah Liberty to use the Living Creatures for Food here is no alteration or diminishing of his Title to a Property of all things but an Enlargment only of his Commons O. 211. so that in our A s Sense all that was said here to Noah and his Sons gave them no Dominion no Property but only Enlarged the Commons their Commons I should say since God says to you are they given though our A says his for as for Noahs Sons they it seems by Sr. Robt's appointment during their Fathers Life time were to keep Fasting days 39. Any one but our A would be mightily suspected to be blinded with Prejudice that in all this Blessing to Noah and his Sons could see nothing but only an Enlargment of Commons For as to Dominion which our A thinks omitted the fear of you and the dread of you says God shall be upon every Beast which I suppose expresses the Dominion or Superiority was designed Man over the living Creatures as fully as may be for in that fear and dread seems cheifly to consist what was given to Adam over the inferior Animals who as Absolute a Monarch as he was could not make bold with a Lark or a Rabbit to satisfie his hunger and had the Herbs but in common with the Beasts as is plain from 1 Gen. 2. 9. and 30. In the next place 't is manifest that in this Blessing to Noah and his Sons Property is not only given in clear words but in a larger extent then it was to Adam Into your hands they are given says God to Noah and his Sons which words if they give not Property nay Property in Possession 't will be hard to find words that can since there is not a way to express a Mans being possessed of any thing more Natural nor more certain then to say it is delivered into his hands And verse 3 d to shew that they had then given them the utmost Property Man is capable of which is to have a right to destroy any thing by using it every moving thing that Liveth saith God shall be Meat for you which was not allowed to Adam in his Charter This our A calls a Liberty of using them for Food and only an Enlargment of Commons but no alteration of Property O. 211. What other Property Man can have in the Creatures but the Liberty of using them is hard to be understood So that if the first Blessing as our A says gave Adam Dominion over the Creatures and the Blessing to Noah and his Sons gave them such a Liberty to use them as Adam had not it must needs give them something that Adam with all his Sovereignty wanted something that one would be apt to take for a greater Property for certainly he has no Absolute Dominion over even the Brutal Part of the Creatures and the Property he has in them is very narrow and scanty who cannot make that use of them which is permitted to another should any one who is Absolute Lord of a Country have bidden our A Subdue the Earth and given him Dominion over the Creatures in it but not have permitted him to have taken a Kid or a Lamb out of the flock to satisfie his hunger I guess he would scarce have thought himself Lord or Proprietor of that Land or the Cattel on it but would have found the difference between having Dominion which a Shepherd may have and having full Property as an owner so that had it been his own Case Sr. Rob. I believe would have thought here was an Alteration nay an Enlarging of Property and that Noah and his Children had by this Grant not only Property given them but such a Property given them in the Creatures as Adam had not for however in respect of one another Men may be allowed to have Propriety in their distinct portions of the Creatures yet in respect of God the maker of Heaven and Earth who is sole Lord and Proprietor of the whole World Mans Propriety in the Creatures is nothing but that Liberty to use them which God has permitted and so mans Property may be altered and Enlarged as we see it was here after the Flood when other uses of them are allowed which before were not from all which I suppose it is clear that neither Adam nor Noah had any Private Dominion any Property in the Creatures exclusive of his posterity as they should successively grow up into need of them and come to be able to make use of them 40. Thus we have examined our A s Argument for Adams Monarchy founded on the Blessing Pronounced 1 Gen. 28. Wherein I think 't is impossible for any sober Reader to find any else but the setting of Mankind above the other kinds of Creatures in this habitable Earth of ours 'T is nothing but the giving to man the whole Species of man as the chief inhabitant who iâ— the Image of his Maker the Dominion over the other Creatures This lies so obvious in the plain words that any one but our A would have thought it necessary to have shewn how these words that seem'd to say the quite contrary gave Adam Monarchical Absolute Power over other Men or the Sole Propriety in all the Creatures and me thinks in a business of this moment and that whereon he Builds all that follows he should have done something more then barely cite words which apparently make against him
Writing having once named the Text concludes presently without any more ado that the meaning is as he would have it let the Words Rule and Subject be but found in the Text or Margent and it immediately signifies the Duty of a Subject to his Prince and the Relation is changed and though God says Husband Sr. Robt. will have it King Adam has presently Absolute Monarchial Power over Eve and not only Eve but all that should come of her though the Scripture says not a word of it nor our A a word to prove it But Adam must for all that be an Absolute Monarch and so to the end of the Chapter quite down to Ch. 1. And here I leave my Reader to consider whether my bare Saying without offering any Reasons to evince it that this Text gave not Adam that Absolute Monarchial Power our A supposes be not as sufficient to destroy that Power as his bare Assertion is to Establish it since the Text mentions neither Prince nor People speaks nothing of Absolute or Monarchial Power but the Subjection of Eve a Wife to her Husband And he that would treat our A so although he would make a short and sufficient answer to the greatest part of the Grounds he proceeds on and abundantly confute them by barely denying It being a sufficient answer to Assertions without proof to deny them without giving a Reason and therefore should I have said nothing but barely deny'd that by this Text the Supream Power was setled and founded by God himself in the Fatherhood Limited to Monarchy and that to Adams Person and Heirs all which our A notably concludes from these Words as may be seen in the same Page O. 244. and desired any sober Man to have read the Text and considered to whom and on what occasion it was spoken he would no doubt have wondered how our A found out Monarchical Absolute Power in it had he not had an exceeding good Faculty to find it himself where he could not shew it others And thus we have examined the two places of Scripture all that I remember our A brings to prove Adams Sovereignty that Supremacy which he says it was Gods Ordinance should be unlimitted in Adam and as large as all the Acts of his Will O. 254 viz. 1 Gen. 28. and 3. Gen. 16. one whereof signifies only the Subjection of the inferior Ranks of Creatures to Mankind and the other the Subjection that is due from a Wife to her Husband both far enough from that which Subjects owe the Governors of Political Societies CHAP. VI. Of Adams Title to Sovereignty by Fatherhood 50. THere is one thing more and then I think I have given you all that our A brings for proof of Adams Sovereignty and that is a Supposition of a natural Right of Dominion over his Children by being their Father and this Title of Fatherhood he is pleased with that you will find it brought in almost in every Page particularly he says not only Adam but the succeeding Patriarchs had by Right of Fatherhood Royal Authority over their Children p. 12. And in the same page This Subjection of Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority c. This being as one would think by his so frequent mentioning it the main basis of all his Frame we may well expect clear and evident Reason for it since he lays it down as a position necessary to his purpose that every Man that is born is so far from being Free that by his very Birth he becomes a Subject of him that begets him O. 156. So that Adam being the only Man Created and all ever since being begotten no body has been born free If we ask how Adam comes by this Power over his Children he tells us here 't is by begetting them And so again O. 223. This natural Dominion of Adam says he may be proved out of Grotius himself who teacheth that generatione jus acquiritur parentibus iâ— liberos And indeed the act of begetâ—ing being that which makes a Man a Father his Right of Father over his Children can naturally arise from nothing else 51. Grotius tells us not here how far this jus in liberos this Power of Parents over their Children extends but our A always very clear in the point assures us 't is Supreme Power and like that of Absolute Monarchs over their Slaves Absolute Power of Life and Death He that should demand of him how or for what Reason it is that begetting a Child gives the Father such an Absolute Power over him will find him answer nothing we are to take his word for this as well as several other things and by that the Laws of Nature and the Constitutions of Government must stand and fall Had he been an Absolute Monarch this way of talking might have suited well enough pro ratione voluntas may there be allowed But 't is but an ill way of pleading for Absolute Monarchy and Sr. Robts bare Sayings will scarce Establish it one slaves Opinion without proof is not of weight enough to dispose of the Liberty and Fortunes of all Mankind If all Men are not as I think they are naturally equal I 'm sure all Slaves are and then I may without presumption oppose my single Opinion to his and be as confident that my Saying that begetting of Children makes them not Slaves to their Fathers sets all Mankind Free as his affirming the contrary makes them all Slaves But that this position which is the Foundation of all their Doctrin who would have Monarchy to be Iure divino may have all fair play let us hear what reasons others give for it since our A offers none 52. The Argument I have heard others make use of to prove that Fathers by begetting them come by an Absolute Power over their Children is this That Fathers have a Power over the Lives of their Children because they give them Life and Being which is the only proof it is capable of since there can be no reason why naturally one Man should have any claim or pretence of Right over that in another which was never his which he bestowed not but was received from the bounty of another 1 o. I answer that every one who gives an other any thing has not always thereby a Right to take it away again But 2 o. they who say the Father gives Life to his Children are so dazled with the thoughts of Monarchy that they do not as they ought remember God who is the Author and giver of Life 't is in him alone we live move and have our Being How can he be thought to give Life to another that knows not wherein his own Life consists Philosophers are at a loss about it after their most diligent enquiries And Anatomists after their whole Lives and Studies spent in dissections and diligent examining the Bodies of Men confess their Ignorance in the Structure and Use of Many parts of Mans Body and in that Operation wherein Life consists in the
suck the Blood as it ran from the Wounds of the dying Man They had public Shambles of Mans Flesh and their Madness herein was to that degree that they spared not their own Children which they had begot on Strangers taken in War For they made their Captives their Mistrisses and choisly nourished the Children they had by them till about thirteen Years Old they Butcher'd and Eat them and they served the Mothers after the same fashion when they grew past Child-bearing and ceased to bring them any more Roasters Garcilasso de la vega hist. des yncas de Peru l. 1. c. 12. 58. Thus far can the busie mind of Man carry him to a Brutality below the level of Beasts when he quits his reason which places him almost equal to Angels nor can it be otherwise in a Creature whose thoughts are more then the Sands and wider then the Ocean where fancy and passion must needs run him into strange courses if reason which is the only Star and Compass be not that he Steers by the imagination is always restless and suggests variety of thoughts and the will reason being laid aside is ready for every extravagant project And in this State he that goes farthest out of the way is thought fittest to lead and is sure of most followers And when Fashion hath once Established what Folly or Craft began Custom makes it Sacred and 't will be thought impudence or madness to contradict or question it He that will impartially survey the World will find so much of the Religion Government and Manners of the Nations of the World brought in and continued by these means that he will have but little Reverence for the Practices which are in Fashion amongst Men and will have reason to think that the Woods and Forests where the irrational untaught Inhabitants keep right by following nature are fitter to give us Rules then Cities and Palaces where those that call themselves civil and rational go out of their way by the Authority of Example 59. Be it then as Sr. Rob. says that Anciently it was usual for Men to sell and castrate their Children O. 155. Let it be that they expose them add to it if you please for this is still greater Power that they begat them for their Tables to fat and eat them if this proves a right to do so we may by the same Argument justifie Adultery Incest and Sodomy for there are examples of these too both Ancient and Modern Sins which I suppose have their Principal Aggravation from this that they cross the main intention of nature which willeth the increase of Mankind and the continuation of the Species in the highest perfection and the distinction of Families with the security of the Marriage Bed as necessary thereunto 60. In confirmation of this Natural Authority of the Father our A brings a Lame Proof from the positive command of God in Scripture His Words are to confirm the natural Right of Regal Power we find in the Decalogue that the Law which injoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the Term Honour thy Father p. 23. whereas many confefs that Government only in the Abstract is the Ordinance of God they are not able to prove any such Ordinance in the Scripture but only in the Fatherly Power and therefore we find the Commandment that injoyns Obedience to Superiors given in the Terms Honour thy Father so that not only the Power and Right of Government but the Form of the Power Governing and the Person having the Power are all the Ordinances of God The first Father had not only simply Power but Power Monarchical as he was Father immediately from God O. 254. To the same purpose the same Law is cited by our A in several other places and just after the same Fashion that is and Mother as Apocriphal Words are always left out a great Argument of our A s ingenuity and the goodness of his Cause which required in its Defender Zeal to a degree of warmth able to warp the Sacred Rule of the Word of God to make it comply with his present occasion a way of proceeding not unusual to those who imbrace not truths because Reason and Revelation offers them but espouse Tenets and Parties for ends different from Truth and then resolve at any rate to defend them And so do with the Words and Sense of Authors they would fit to their purpose just as Procustes did with his guests top or stretch them as may best fit them to the size of their Notions and they always prove like those so served deformed and useless 61. For had our A set down this command without Garbling as God gave it and joyned Mother to Father every Reader would have seen that it had made directly against him and that it was so far from Establishing the Monarchical Power of the Father that it set up the Mother equal with him and injoyn'd nothing but what was due in common to both Father and Mother for that is the constant Tenor of the Scripture Honour thy Father and thy Mother Exod. 20. He that smiteth his Father or Mother shall surely be put to death 21. 15. He that Curseth his Father or his Mother shall surely be put to death ver 17. Repeated Lev. 20.9 and by our Saviour Math. 15. 4. ye shall fear every Man his Mother and his Father Lev. 19. 3. If a Man have a Rebellious Son which will not obey the voice of his Fathâ—r or the voice of his Mother then shall his Father and his Mother lay hold on him and say this our Son is Stuborn and Rebellious he will not obey our voice Deut. 21. 18 19 20 21. Cursed be he that setteth light by his Father or his Mother 28. 16. my Son hear the instructions of thy Eather and forsake not the Law of thy Mother are the Words of Solomon a King who was not ignorant of what belonged to him as a Father or a King and yet he joyns Father and Mother together in all the Instructions he gives Children quite through his Book of Proverbs woe unto him that sayeth unto his Father what begettest thou or to the Woman what hast thou brought forth Isa. 11. v. 10. In thee have they set light by Father or Mother Ezek. 28. 2. And it shall come to pass that when any shall yet Prophesy then his Father and his Mother that begat him shall say unto him thou shalt not live and his Father and his Mother that begat him shall thrust him through when he Prophesieth Zech. 13. 3. Here not the Father only but Father and Mother joyntly had Power in this Case of Life and Death Thus ran the Law of the Old Testament and in the New they are likewise joyn'd in the Obedience of their Children Eph. 6. 1. The rule is Children obey your Parents and I do not remember that I any where read Children obey your Father and no more the Scripture joyns Mother too in that homage which is
and if any thing could be demanded from him by either of the other it could be only due to his natural Father who perhaps might have forfeited his Right to much of that Duty comprehended in the command Honour your Parents but could transfer none of it to another he that purchased and neglected the Child got by his Purchase and Grant of the Father no Title to Duty or Honour from the Child but only he acquired it who by his own Authority performing the Office and Care of a Father to the Forlorn and Perishing Infant made himself by Paternal Care a Title to proportionable Degrees of Paternal Power This will be more easily admitted upon consideration of the nature of Paternal Power for which I refer my Reader to the 2 d Book 101. To return to the Argument in hand this is evident That Paternal Power arising only from Begetting for in that our A places it alone can neither be transfer'd nor inherited And he that does not beget can no more have Paternal Power which arises from thence then he can have a Right to any thing who performs not the condition to which only it is annexed If one should ask by what Law has a Father Power over his Children it will be answered no doubt by the Law of nature which gives such a Power over them to him that begets them If one should ask likewise by what Law does our A s Heir come by a Right to Inherit I think it would be answer'd by the Law of nature too for I find not that our A brings one word of Scripture to prove the Right of such an Heir he speaks of why then the Law of nature gives Fathers Paternal Power over their Children because they did beget them and the same Law of nature gives the same Paternal Power to the Heir over his Brethren who did not beget them whence it follows that either the Father has not his Paternal Power by begetting or else that the Heir has it not at all For 't is hard to understand how the Law of nature which is the Law of reason can give the Paternal Power to the Father over his Children for the only reason of Begetting and to the first born over his Brethren without this only reason i. e. for no reason at all and if the Eldest by the Law of nature can inherit thiâ— Paternal Power without the only reason that gives a Title to it so may the Youngest as well as he and a stranger as well as either for where there is no reason for any one as there is not but for him that begets all have an equal Title am sure our A offers no reason and when any body does we shall see whether it will hold or no. 102. In the mean time 't is as good Sense to say that by the Law of nature a Man has Right to inherit the Property of another because he is of Kin to him and is known to be of his Blood and therefore by the same Law of nature an utter Stranger to his Blood has Right to inherit his Estate As to say that by the Law of nature he that begets them has Pâ—ternal Power over his Children and therefore by the Law of nature the Hâ—â—r that begets them not has this Paternal Power over them or supposing the Law of the Land gave Absolute Power over their Children to such only who nursed them and fed their Children themselves could any body pretend that this Law gave any one who did no such thing Absolute Power over those who were not his Children 103. When therefore it can be shew'd that conjugal Power can belong to him that is not an Husband it will also I believe be proved that our A s Paternal Power acquired by begetting may be inherited by a Son and that a Brother as Heir to his Fathers Power may have Paternal Power over his Brethren and by the same Rule conjugal Power to but till then I think we may rest satisfied that the Paternal Power of Adam this Sovereign Authority of Fatherhood were there any such could not descend to nor be inherited by his next Heir Fatherly Power I easily grant our A if it will do him any good can never be lost because it will be as long in the World as there are Fathers but none of them will have Adams Paternal Power or derive theirs from him but every one will have his own by the same Title Adam had his viz. by Begetting but not by Inheritance or Succession no more then Husbands have their conjugal Power by Inheritance from Adam And thus we see as Adam had no such Property no such Paternal Power as gave him Sovereign Jurisdiction over Mankind so likewise his Sovereignty built upon either of these Titles if he had any such could not have descended to his Heir but must have ended with him Adam therefore as has been proved being neither Monarch nor his imaginary Monarchy hereditable the Power which is now in the World is not that which was Adams since all that Adam could have upon our A s grounds either of Property or Fatherhood necessarily dyed with him and could not be convey'd to Posterity by Inheritance In the next place we will consider whether Adam had any such Heir to inherit his Power as our A talks of CHAP. X. Of the Heir to Monarchical Power of Adam 104. OUR A tells us O. 253. That it is a truth undeniable that there cannot be any multitude of Men whatsoever either great or small though gathered together from the several corners and remotest Regions of the World but that in the same Multitude considered by its self there is one Man amongst them that in nature hath a Right to be King of all the rest as being the next Heir to Adam and all the other Subject to him every Man by nature is a King or a Subject and again p. 20. If Adam himself were still living and now ready to dye it is certain that there is one Man and but one in the World who is next Heir let this Multitude of Men be if our A pleases all the Princes upon the Earth there will then be by our A s Rule one amongst them that in nature hath a Right to be King of all the rest as being the right Heir to Adam An excellent way to Establish the Titles of Princes and settle the Obedience of their Subjects by setting up an Hundred or perhaps a Thousand Titles if there be so many Princes in the World against any King now Reigning upon our A s grounds as good as his own If this Right of Heir carry any weight with it if it be the Ordinance of God as our A seems to tell us O. 244. must not all be Subject to it from the highest to the lowest can those who wear the name of Princes without having the Right of being Heirs to Adam demand Obedience from their Subjects by this Title and not be bound to pay it by
mighty consequence upon so doubtful and obscure a place of Scripture which may be well nay better understood in a quite different Sense and so can be but an ill Proof being as doubtful as the thing to be proved by it especially when there is nothing else in Scripture or Reason to be found that favours or supports it 113. It follows p. 19. Accordingly when Iacob bought his Brothers Birth-right Isaac Blessed him thus be Lord over thy Brethren and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee another instance I take it brought by our A to evince Dominion due to Birth-right and an admirable one it is for it must be no ordinary way of reasoning in a Man that is pleading for the natural Power of Kings and against all compact to bring for Proof of it an example where his own account of it founds all the right upon compact and settles Empire in the Younger Brother unless buying and selling be no compact for he tells us when Iacob bought his Brothers Birth-right But passing by that let us consider the History it self with what ufe our A makes of it and we shall find these following mistakes about it 1 o. That our A reports this as if Isaac had given Iacob this Blessing immediately upon his Purchasing the Birth-right for he says when Iacob bought Isaac Blessed him which is plainly otherwise in the Scripture for it appears there was a distance of time between and if we will take the Story in the order it lies it must be no small distance All Isaacs Sojourning in Gerar and Transactions with Abimelech Gen. 26. coming between Rebeka being then Beautiful and consequently young but Isaac when he Blessed Iacob was old and decrepit And Esau also complains of Iacob Gen. 27. 36. that two times he had Supplanted him he took away my Birth-right says he and behold now he hath taken away my Blessing words that I think signifies distance of time and difference of Action 2 o. Another mistake of our A s is that he supposes Isaac gave Iacob the Blessing and bid him be Lord over his Brethren because he had the Birth right for our A brings this example to prove that he that has the Birth-right has thereby a right to be Lord over his Brethren But it is also manifest by the Text that Isaac had no consideration of Iacobs having bought the Birth right for when he Blessed him he considered him not as Iacob but took him for Esau nor did Esau understand any such connexion between Birth-right and the Blessing for he says he hath Supplanted me these two times he took away my Birth-right and behold now he hath taken away my Blessing whereas had the Blessing which was to be Lord over his Brethren belong'd to the Birth-right Esau could not have complain'd of this second as a Cheat Iacob having got nothing but what Esau had sould him when he sould him his Birth-right so that it is plain Dominion if these words signifie it was not understood to belong to the Birth-right 114. And that in those days of the Patriarchs Dominion was not understood to be the Right of the Heir but only a greater Portion of goods is plain from Gen. 21. 10. for Sarah taking Isaac to be Heir says cast out this Bond-woman and her Son for the Son of this Bond-woman shall not be Heir with my Son whereby could be meant nothing but that he should not have a pretence to an equal share of his Fathers Estate after his death but should have his Portion presently and be gone Accordingly we read Gen. 25. 5 6. That Abraham gave all that he had unto Isaac but unto the Sons of the Concubines which Abraham had Abraham gave Gifts and sent them away from Isaac his Son while he yet lived That is Abraham having given Portions to all his other Sons and sent them away that which he had reserved being the greatest part of his substance Isaac as Heir Possessed after his death but by being Heir he had no Right to be Lord over his Brethren For if he had why should Sarah desire to rob him of one of his Subjects his Slaves by desiring to have him sent away 115. Thus as under the Law the Priviledge of Birth-right was nothing but a double Portion so we see that before Moses in the Patriarchs time from whence our A pretends to take his model there was no knowledge no thought that Birth-right gave Rule or Empire Paternal or Kingly Authority to any one over his Brethren which if it be not plain enough in the Story of Isaac and Ishmael let them look into 1 Chron. 5. 12. and there he may read these words Ruben was the first Born but for as much as he desiled his Fathers Bed his Birth-right was given unto the Sons of Ioseph the Son of Israeel and the Geneology is not to be reckon'd after the Birth-right For Iudah prevailed above his Brethren and of him came the cheif Ruler but the Birth-right was Iosephs and what this Birth-right was Iacob Blessing Ioseph Gen. 58. 22. telleth us in these words Moreover I have given thee one Portion above thy Brethren which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my Sword and with my Bow whereby it is not only plain that the Birth-right was nothing but a double Portion but the Text in Chron. is express against our A s Doctrin shews that Dominion was no part of the Birth-right for it tells us that Ioseph had the Birth-right but Iudah the Dominion But one would think our A were very fond of the very name of Birth-right when he brings this instance of Iacob and Esau to prove that Dominion belongs to the Heir over his Brethren 116. 1 o. Because it will be but an ill example to prove that Dominion by Gods Ordination belonged to the Eldest Son because Iacob the Youngest here had it let him come by it how he would For if it prove any thing it can only prove against our A that the Assignment of Dominion to the Eldest is not by Divine Institution which would then be unalterable For if by the Law of God or Nature Absolute Power and Empire belongs to the Eldest Son and his Heirs so that they are Supream Monarchs and all the rest of their Brethren Slaves our A gives us reason to doubt whether the Eldest Son has a Power to part with it to the prejudice of his Posterity since he tells us O. 158. that in Grants and Gifts that have their Original from God or nature no inferior Power of Man can limit or make any Law of Prescription against them 117. 2 o. Because this place Gen. 27. 29. brought by our A concerns not at all the Dominion of one Brother over the other nor the Subjection of Esau to Iacob for 't is plain in the History that Esau was never Subject to Iacob but lived a part in Mount Seir where he founded a distinct People and Government and was himself Prince
when I obey him to whom paternal Power gives no Right to my Obedience For he can have no Divine Right to my Obedience who cannot shew his Divine Right to the Power of ruling over me as well as that by Divine Right there is such a Power in the World 121. And hence not being able to make out any Princes Title to Government as Heir to Adam which therefore is of no use and had been better let alone he is fain to resolve all into present Possession and makes Civil Obedience as due to an Vsurper as to a lawful King and thereby the Vsurpers Title as good His words are O. 253. And they deserve to be remembred If an Vsurper dispossess the true Heir the Subjects Obedience to the Fatherly Power must go along and wait upon Gods Providence But I shall leave his Title of Usurpers to be examin'd in its due place and desire my sober Reader to consider what thanks Princes owe such Politics as this which can suppose Paternal Power i. e. a Right to Government into the hands of a Cade or a Cromwell and so all Obedience being due to paternal Power the Obedience of Subjects will be due to them by the same Right and upon as good Grounds as it is to lawful Princes and yet this as dangerous a Doctrine as it is must necessarily follow from making all Political Power to be nothing else but Adams Paternal Power by Right and Divine Institution descending from him without being able to shew to whom it descended or who is Heir to it 122. For I say to settle Government in the World and to lay Obligations to Obedience on any Mans Conscience it is as necessary supposing with our A that all Power be nothing but the being possessed of Adams Fatherhood to satisfie him who has a Right to this Power this Fatherhood when the possessor dyes without Sons to succeed immediately to it as it was to tell him that upon the death of the Father the Eldest Son had a right to it For it is still to be remembr'd that the great question is and that which our A would be thought to contend for if he did not sometimes forget it what Persons have a Right to be obeyed and not whether there be a Power in the World which is to be called Paternal without knowing in whom it resides for so it be a Power i. e. Right to govern it matters not whether it be called Paternal Regal Natural or acquired Supream Fatherhood or Supream Brotherhood provided we know who has it 123. I go on then to ask whether in the inheriting of this Paternal Power this Supream Fatherhood The Grand-Son by a Daughter hath a Right before a Nephew by a Brother whether the Grand-Son by the Eldest Son being an Infant before the Younger Son a Man and able whether the Daughter before the Uncle or any other Man descended by a Male Line whether a Grand-Son by a Younger Daughter before a Grand-Daughter by an Elder Daughter whether the Elder Son by a Concubine before a Younger Son by a Wife from whence also will arise many questions of Legitimation and what in nature is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine for as to the municipal or positive Laws of Men they can signifie nothing here It may farther be asked whether the Eldest Son being a Fool shall inherit this Paternal Power before the Younger a wise Man and what Degree of Folly it must be that shall exclude him and who shall be judge of it whether the Son of a Fool excluded for his Folly before the Son of his wise Brother who Reign'd who has the Paternal Power whilst the Widdow Queen is with Child by the deceased King and no body knows whether it will be a Son or a Daughter which shall be Heir of two Male twins who by the dissection of the Mother were laid open to the World whether a Sister by the half Blood before a Brothers Daughter by the whole Blood 124. These and many more such doubts might be proposed about the Titles of Succession and the Right of Inheritance and that not as idle Speculations but such as in History we shall find have concerned the Inheritance of Crowns and Kingdoms and if ours want them we need not go farther for Famous Examples of it then the other Kingdom in this very Island which having been fully related by the ingenious and Learned Author of Patriarchanon Monarcha I need say no more of And till our A hath resolved all the doubts that may arise about the next Heir and shewed that they are plainly determin'd by the Law of nature or the revealed Law of God all his Suppositions of a Monarchical Absolute Supream Paternal Power in Adam and the descent of that Power to his Heir and so on If I say all these his suppositions were as much demonstrations as they are the contrary yet they would not be of the least use to Establish the Authority or make out the Title of any one Prince now on earth but would rather unsettle and bâ—ing all into question For let our A tell us as long as he please and let all Men believe it too that Adam had a Paternal and thereby a Monarchical Power That this the only Power in the World descended to his Heirs and that there is no other Power in the World but this yet if it be not past doubt to whom this Paternal Power descends and whose now it is no body can be under any Obligation of Obedience unless any one will say that I am bound to pay Obedience to Paternal Power in a Man who has no more Paternal Power then I my self which is all one as to say I obey a Man because he has a Right to govern and if I be asked how I know he has a Right to govern I should answer it cannot be known that he has any at all for that cannot be the reason of my Obedience which I know not to be so much less can that be a reason of my Obedience which no body at all can know 125. And therefore all this ado about Adams Fatherhood the Greatness of its Power and the necessity of its supposal helps nothing to the Establishing the Power of those that govern or determin the Obedience of Subjects who are to obey if they cannot tell whom they are to obey or it cannot be known who are to govern and who to obey And this Fatherhood this Monarchical Power of Adam descending to his Heirs would be of no more Use to the Government of Mankind then it would be to the quieting of Mens Consciencesâ— or securing their Healths if our A had assured them that Adam had a Power to forgive Sins or cure Diseases which by Divine Institution descended to his Heir whilst â—his Heir is impossible to be known And should not be do as rationally who upon this assurance of our A went and confessed his Sins and expected a good Absolution or took Physic with
expectation of Health from any one who had taken on himself the Name of Priest or Physician or thrist himself into those imployments saying I acquiess in the Absolving Power descending from Adam or I shall be cured by the Medicinal Power descending from Adam as he who says I submit to and obey the Paternal Power descending from Adam when 't is confessed all these Powers descend only to his single Heiâ— and that Heir is unknown 126. 'T is true the Civil Lawyers haâ—e pretended to determine some of these Cases concerning the succession of Princes but by our A s Principles they have medled in a matter that belongs not to them For if all Political Power he derived only from Adam and be 〈…〉 only to his Successive Heirs by the Ordinenee of God and Divine Institution this is a Right Antecedeâ—t and Paramount to all Government and therefore the positive Laws of Men cannot determine that which is it self the Foundation of all Law and Government and is to receive its Rule only from the Law of God and Nature And that being silent in the Case I am apt to think there is no such Right to be conveyed this way I am fure it would be to no purpose if there were and Men would be more at a loss concerning Government and Obedience to Governors then if there were no such Right since by positive Laws and compact which Divine Institution if there be any shuts out all these endless inextricable doubts can be safely provided against but it can never be understood how a Divine natural Right and that of such moment as is all Order and Peace in the World should be convey'd down to Posterity without any plain Natural or Divine Rule concerning it And these would be an end of all Civil Government if the Assignment of Civil Power were by Divine Institution to the Heir and yet by that Divine Institution the Person of the Heir could not be known This Paternal Regal Power being by Divine Right only his it leaves no room for human prudence or confent to place it any where else for if only one Man hath a Divine Right to the Obedience of Mankind no body can claim that Obedience but he that can shew that Right nor can Mens Consciences by any other pretence be obliged to it And thus this Doctrine cuts up all Government by the Roots 127. Thus we see how our A laying it for a sure Foundation that the very Person that is to Rule is the Ordinance of God and by Divine Institution tells us at large only that this Person is the Heir but who this Heir is he leaves us to guess and so this Divine Institution which Assigns it to a Person whom we have no Rule to know is just as good as an Assignment to no body at all But whatever our A does Divine Institution makes no such ridiculous Assignments nor can God be supposed to make it a Sacred Law that one certain Person should have a Right to something and yet not give Rules to mark out and know that Person by or give an Heir a Divine Right to Power and yet not point out who that Heir is T' is rather to be thought that an Heir had no such Right by Divine Institution then that God should give such a Right to the Heir but yet leave it doubtful and undeterminable who such Heir is 128. If God had given the Land of Canaan to Abraham and in general Terms to some body after him without naming his Seed whereby it might be known who that some-body was it would have been as good and useful an Assignment to determin the Right to the Land of Canaan as it would to the determining the Right of Crowns to give Empire to Adam and his Successive Heirs after him without telling who his Heir is For the word Heir without a Rule to know who it is signifies no more then somebody I know not whom God making it a Divine Institution that Men should not marry those who were near of Kin thinks it not enough to say none of you shall approach to any that is near of Kin to him to uncover their Nakedness But Moreover gives Rules to know who are those near of Kin forbiden by Divine Institution or else that Law would have been of no use it being to no purpose to lay restraint or give Priviledges to Men in such general Terms as the Particular Person concern'd cannot be known by But God not having any where said the next Heir shall Inherit all his Fathers Estate or Dominion we are not to wonder that he hath no where appointed who that Heir should be for never having intended any such thing never designed any Heir in that Sense we cannot expect he should any where nominate or appoint any Person to it as we might had it been otherwise and therefore in Scripture though the word Heir occur yet there is no such thing as Heir in our A s Sence one that was by Right of Nature to inherit all that his Father had exclusive of his Brethren hence Sarah suppose that if Ishmael staid in the House to share in Abrahams Estate after his death this Son of a Bond-woman might be Heir with Isaac and therefore say she cast out this Bond-woman and her Son for the Son of this Bond-woman shall not be Heir with my Son But this cannot excuse our A who telling us there is in every Number of Men one who is Right and next Heir to Adam ought to have told us what the Laws of descent are but hâ—ving been so sparing to instruct us by Rules how to know who is Heir let us see in the next place what his History out of Scripture on which he pretends wholly to build his Government gives us in this necessary and Fundamental point 129. Our A to make good the Title of his Book p. 13. begins his History of the descent of Adams Regal Power p. 13. In these words This Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World and by Right descending from him the Patriarchs did enjoy was as large c. How does he prove that the Patriarchs by descent did enjoy it for Dominion of Life and Death says he we find Judah the Father pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamer his Daughter-in Law for playing the Harlot p. 13. How does this prove that Iudah had Absolute and Sovereign Authority He pronounced Sentence of Death The pronouncing of Sentence of Death is not a certain mark of Sovereignty but usually the Office of Inferior Magistrates The Power of making Laws of Life and Death is indeed a mark of Sovereignty but pronouncing the Sentence according to those Laws may be done by others and therefore this will but ill prove that he had Sovereign Authority as if one should say Iudge Iefferies pronounced Sentence of Death in the late Times therefore Iudge Iefferies had Sovereign Authority But it will be said Iudah did it not by Commission from another
gave not only to David but his Seed also And however our A assures us that God intends that the Issue should have the benefit of it when he chooses any Person to be King yet we see that the Kingdom he gave to Saul without mentioning his Seed after him never came to any of his Issue and why when God chose a Person to be King he should intend that his Issue should have the benefit of it more then when he chose one to be Judg in Israel I would fain know a reason or why does a Grant of Fatherly Authority to a King more comprehend the Issue then when a like Grant is made to a Judge Is Paternal Authority by Right to descend to the Issue of one and not of the other there will need some Reason to be shewn of this difference more then the name when the thing given is the same Fatherly Authority and the manner of giving it Gods choice of the Person for I suppose our A when he says God raised up Iudges will by no means allow they were chosen by the People 168. But since our A has so confidently assured us of the care of God to preserve the Fatherhood and pretends to build all he says upon the Authority of the Scripture we may well expect that that People whose Law Constitution and History is chiefly contain'd in the Scripture should furnish him with the clearest Instances of Gods care of preserving of the Fatherly Authority in that People who 't is agreed he had a most peculiar care of let us see then what State this Paternal Authority or Government was in amongst the Iews from their beginning to be a People It was omitted by our A s confession from their coming into Egypt till their return out of that Bondage above 200 Years From thence till God gave the Israelites a King about 400 Years more our A gives but a very slender account of it nor indeed all that time are there the least Footsteps of Paternal or Regal Government amongst them But then says our A God Re-establish'd the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to Paternal Government 169. What a Lineal Succession to Paternal Government was then Establish'd we have already seen I only now consider how long this lasted and that was to their Captivity about 500 Years From whence to their Destruction by the Romans above 650 Years after the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to Paternal Government was again lost and they continued a People in the promised Land without it so that of 1750 Years that they were Gods peculiar People they had Hereditary Kingly Government amongst them not one third of the time and of that time there is not the leaft Footsteps of one moment of Paternal Government nor the Re-establishment of the Ancient and Prime Right of lineal Succession to it whether we suppose it to be derived as from its Fountain from David Saul Abraham or which upon our A s Principles is the only true From Adam **** AN ESSAY Concerning the True Oringinal Extent and End OF CIVIL GOVERNMENT BOOK II. CHAP. I. 1. IT having been shewn in the foregoing Discourse 1 o. That Adam had not either by natural Right of Fatherhood or by positive Donation from God any such Authority over his Children nor Dominion over the World as is pretended 2 o. That if he had his Heirs yet had no Right to it 3 o. That if his Heirs had there being no Law of Nature nor positive Law of God that determins which is the Right Heir in all Cases that may arise the Right of Succession and consequently of bearing Rule could not have been certainly determined 4 o. That if even that had been determined yet the knowledge of which is the Eldest Line of Adams Posterity being so long since utterly lost that in the Races of Mankind and Families of the World there remains not to one above another the least pretence to be the Eldest House and to have the Right of Inheritance All these premises having as I think been clearly made out it is impossible that the Rulers now on Earth should make any benefit or derive any the least shadow of Authority from that which is held to be the Fountain of all Power Adams Private Dominion and Paternal Iurisdiction so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all Government in the World is the product only of Force and Violence and that Men live together by no other Rules but that of Beasts where the strongest carries it and so lay a Foundation for perpetual Disorder and Mischeif Tumult Sedition and Rebellion things that the followers of that Hipothesis so loudly cry out against must of necessity find out another rise of Government another Original of Political Power and another way of designing and knowing the Persons that have it then what Sr. Robt. E. hath taught us 2. To this purpose I think it may not be amiss to set down what I take to be Political Power That the Power of a Magistrate over a Subject may be distinguished from that of a Father over his Children a Master over his Servant a Husband over his Wife and a Lord over his Slave All which distinct Powers happening sometimes together in the same Man if he be considered under these different Relations it may help us to distinguish these Powers one from another and shew the difference betwixt a Ruler of a Common-wealth a Father of a Family and a Captain of a Gally 3. Political Power then I take to be a Right of making Laws with Penalties of death and consequently all less Penalties for the Regulating and Preserving of Property and of employing the force of the Community in the Execution of such Laws and in the defence of the Common-wealth from Foreign Injury and all this only for the Public Good CHAP. II. Of the State of Nature 4. TO understand Political Power a right and derive it from its Original we must consider what Estate all Men are naturally in and that is a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions and dispose of their Possessions and Persons as they think fit within the bounds of the Law of Nature without asking leave or depending upon the Will of any other Man A State also of Equality wherein all the Power and Jurisdiction is reciprocal no one having more then another there being nothing more evident then that Creatures of the same species and rank promiscuously born to all the same advantages of Nature and the use of the same faculties should also be equal one amongst another without Subordination or Subjection unless the Lord and Master of them all should by any manifest Declaration of his Will set one above another and confer on him by an evident and clear appointment an undoubted Right to Dominion and Sovereignty 5. This equality of Men by Nature the Judicious Hooker looks upon as so evident in it self and beyond all question that he makes
we see the Positive Law of God every where joins them together without distinction when it commands the Obedience of Children Honour thy Father and thy Mother Exod. 20. 12. Whosoever curseth his Father or his Mother Lev. 20. 9. Ye shall fear every Man his Mother and his Father Lev. 19. 3. Children obey your Parents c. Eph. 6. 1. is the stile of the Old and New Testament 53. Had but this one thing been well consider'd without looking any deeper into the matter it might perhaps have kept men from running into those gross mistakes they have made about this Power of Parents which however it might without any great harshness bear the name of Absolute Dominion and Regal Authority when under the title of Paternal Power it seem'd appropriated to the Father would yet have sounded but odly and in the very name shewn the absurdity if this supposed Absolute Power over Children had been called Parental and thereby discover'd that it belong'd to the Mother too For it will but very ill serve the turn of those Men who contend so much for the Absolute Power and Authority of the Fatherhood as they call it that the Mother should have any share in it And it would have but ill supported the Monarchy they contend for when by the very name it appeared that that Fundamental Authority from whence they would derive their Government of a single Person only was not plac'd in one but two Persons jointly But to let this of names pass 54. Though I have said above 2. That all Men by Nature are equal I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of Equality Age or Virtue may give Men a just Precedency Excellency of Parts and Merit may place others above the Common Level Birth may subject some and Alliance or Benefits others to pay an Observance to those to whom Nature Gratitude or other Respects may have made it due and yet all this consists with the Equality which all Men are in in respect of Jurisdiction or Dominion one over another which was the Equality I there spoke of as proper to the Business in hand being that equal Right that every Man hath to his Natural Freedom without being subjected to the Will or Authority of any other Man 55. Children I confess are not born in this full state of Equality though they are born to it Their Parents have a sort of Rule and Jurisdiction over them when they come into the World and for some time after but 't is but a temporary one The Bonds of this Subjection are like the Swadling Cloths they are wrapt up in and supported by in the weakness of their Infancy Age and Reason as they grow up loosen them till atlength they drop quite off and leave a Man at his own free Disposal 56. Adam was created a perfect Man his Body and Mind in full possession of their Strength and Reason and so was capable from the first Instance of his being to provide for his own Support and Preservation and govern his Actions according to the Dictates of the Law of Reason God had implanted in him From him the World is peopled with his Descendants who are all born Infants weak and helpless without Knowledge or Understanding But to supply the Defects of this imperfect State till the improvement of Growth and Age had removed them Adam and Eve and after them all Parents were by the Law of Nature under an Obligation to preserve nourish and educate the Children they had begotten not as their own Workmanship but the Workmanship of their own Maker the Almighty to whom they were to be accountable for them 57. The Law that was to govern Adam was the same that was to govern all his Posterity the Law of Reason But his Off-spring having another way of entrance into the World different from him by a natural Birth that produced them ignorant and without the Use of Reason they were not presently under that Law For no Body can be under a Law that is not promulgated to him and this Law being promulgated or made known by Reason only he that is not come to the Use of his Reason cannot be said to be under this Law and Adam's Children being not presently as soon as born under this Law of Reason were not presently free For Law in its true Notion is not so much the Limitation as the direction of a free and intelligent Agent to his proper Interest and prescribes no farther than is for the general Good of those under that Law Could they be happier without it the Law as an useless thing would of it self vanish and that ill deserves the Name of Confinement which hedges us in only from Bogs and Precipices So that however it may be mistaken the end of Law is not to abolish or restrain but to preserve and enlarge Freedom For in all the states of created Beings capable of Laws where there is no Law there is no Freedom For Liberty is to be free from Restraint and Violence from others which cannot be where there is no Law and is not as we are told A Liberty for every Man to do what he lists For who could be free when every other Man's Humour might domineer over him But a Liberty to dispose and order freely as he lists his Person Actions Possessions and his whole Property within the Allowance of those Laws under which he is and therein not to be subject to the the arbitrary Will of another but freely follow his own 58. The Power then that Parents have over their Children arises from that Duty which is incumbent on them to take care of their Off-spring during the imperfect state of Childhood To inform the Mind and govern the Actions of their yet ignorant Nonage till Reason shall take its place and ease them of that Trouble is what the Children want and the Parents are bound to For God haing given Man an Understanding to direct his Actions has allowed him a freedom of Will and liberty of Acting as properly belonging thereunto within the bounds of that Law he is under But whilst he is in an Estate wherein he has no Understanding of his own to direct his Will he is not to have any Will of his own to follow He that understands for him must will for him too he must prescribe to his Will and regulate his Actions but when he comes to the estate that made his Father a Free-man the Son is a Free-man too 59. This holds in all the Laws a Man is under whether natural or civil Is a man under the Law of Nature what made him free of that Law what gave him a free disposing of his Property according to his own Will within the compass of that Law I answer an Estate wherein he might be suppos'd capable to know that Law that so he might keep his Actions within the Bounds of it When he has acquired that state he is presumed to know how far that Law is to be his Guide
in yet vacant habitations for the Father of the Family to become the Prince of it he had been a Ruler from the Beginning of the infancy of his Children and when they were grown up since without some Government it would be hard for them to live together it was likelyest it should by the express or tacit Consent of the Children be in the Father where it seemed without any change barely to continue And when indeed nothing more was required to it than the permitting the Father to exercise alone in his Family that executive Power of the Law of Nature which every Free-man naturally hath and by that Permission resigning up to him a Monarchical Power whilst they remained in it But that this was not by any paternal Right but only by the Consent of his Children is evident from hence That no Body doubts but if a Stranger whom Chance or Business had brought to his Family had there kill'd any of his Children or committed any other Fact he might condemn and put him to Death or otherwise have punished him as well as any of his Children which was impossible he should do by virtue of any paternal Authority over one who was not his Child but by virtue of that executive Power of the Law of Nature which as a Man he had a right to and he alone could punish him in his Family where the Respect of his Children had laid by the Exercise of such a Power to give way to the Dignity and Authority they were willing should remain in him above the rest of his Family 75. Thus 't was easie and almost natural for Children by a tacit and almost natural consent to make way for the Father's Authority and Government They had been accustomed in their Child-hood to follow his Direction and to refer their little differences to him and when they were Men who fitter to rule them Their little Properties and less Covetousness seldom afforded greater Controversies and when any should arise where could they have a fitter Umpire than he by whose Care they had every one been sustain'd and brought up and who had a tenderness for them all 'T is no wonder that they made no distinction betwixt Minority and full Age nor looked after one and Twenty or any other Age that might make them the free Disposers of themselves and Fortunes when they could have no desire to be out of their Pupilage The Government they had been under during it continued still to be more their Protection than Restraint and they could no where find a greater security to their Peace Liberties and Fortunes than in the Rule of a Father 76. Thus the natural Fathers of Families by an insensible change became the politick Monarchs of them too and as they chanced to live long and leave able and worthy Heirs for several Successions or otherwise so they laid the Foundations of Hereditary or Elective Kingdoms under several Constitutions and Manors according as Chance Contrivance or Occasions happen'd to mould them But if Princes have their Titles in the Fathers Right and it be a sufficient proof of the natural Right of Fathers to political Authority because they commonly were those in whose hands we find de facto the Exercise of Government I say if this Argument be good it will as strongly prove that all Princes nay Princes only ought to be Priests since 't is as certain that in the Beginning The Father of the Family was Priest as that he was Ruler in his own Houshold CHAP. VII Of Political or Civil Society 77. GOD having made Man such a creature that in his own Judgment it was not good for him to be alone put him under strong Obligations of Necessity Convenience and Inclination to drive him into Society as well as fitted him with Understanding and Language to continue and enjoy it The first Society was betwen Man and Wife which gave beginning to that between Parents and Children to which in time that between Master and Servant came to be added and though all these might and commonly did meet together and make up but one Family wherein the Master or Mistriss of it had some sort of Rule proper to a Family each of these or all together came short of Political Society as we shall see if we consider the different Ends Ties and Bounds of each of these 78. Conjugal Society is made by a voluntary compact between Man and Woman and though it consist chiefly in such a Communion and Right in one anothers Bodies as is necessary to its chief End Procreation yet it draws with it mutual Support and Assistance and a Communion of Interests too as necessary not only to unite their Care and Affection but also necessary to their common Off-spring who have a Right to be nourished and maintained by them till they are able to provide for themselves 79. For the end of conjunction between Male and Female being not barely Procreation but the continuation of the Species This conjunction betwixt Male and Female ought to last even after Procreation so long as is necessary to the nourishment and support of the young Ones who are to be sustained by those that got them till they are able to shift and provide for themselves This Rule which the Infinite wise Maker hath set to the Works of his hands we find the inferiour Creatures steadily obey In those viviparous Animals which feed on Grass the conjunction between Male and Female lasts no longer than the very Act of Copulation because the Teat of the Dam being sufficient to nourish the Young till it be able to feed on Grass the Male only begets but concerns not himself for the Female or Young to whose Sustenance he can contribute nothing But in Beasts of Prey the conjunction lasts longer because the Dam not being able well to subsist her self and nourish her numerous Off-spring by her own Prey alone a more laborious as well as more dangerous way of living than by feeding on Grass the Assistance of the Male is necessary to the Maintenance of their common Family which cannot subsist till they are able to prey for themselves but by the joint Care of Male and Female The same is to be observed in all Birds except some domestick ones where plenty of food excuses the Cock from feeding and taking care of the young Brood whose Young needing Food in the Nest the Cock and Hen continue Mates till the Young are able to use their wing and provide for themselves 80. And herein I think lies the chief if not the only reason why the Male and Female in Mankind are tyed to a longer conjunction than other Creatures viz. because the Female is capable of conceiving and de facto is commonly with Child again and brings forth too a new Birth long before the former is out of a dependency for support on his Parents help and able to shift for himself and has all the assistance is due to him from his Parents whereby the
at least an Argument from what has been to what should of right be of no great force one might without any great danger yield them the cause But if I might advise them in the Case they would do well not to search too much into the original of Governments as they have begun de facto lest they should find at the foundation of most of them something very little favourable to the design they promote and such a power as they contend for 104. But to conclude Reason being plain on our side that Men are naturally free and the Examples of History shewing that the Governments of the World that were begun in Peace had their beginning laid on that foundation and were made by the Consent of the People There can be little room for doubt either where the Right is or what has been the Opinion or Practice of Mankind about the first erecting of Governments 105. I will not deny that if we look back as far as History will direct us towards the Original of Commonwealths we shall generally find them under the Government and Administration of one Man And I am also apt to believe that where a Family was numerous enough to subsist by it self and continued entire together without mixing with others as it often happens where there is much Land and few People the Government commonly began in the Father For the Father having by the Law of Nature the same Power with every Man else to punish as he thought fit any Offences against that Law might thereby punish his transgressing Children even when they were Men and out of their Pupilage and they were very likely to submit to his punishment and all join with him against the Offender in their turns giving him thereby power to Execute his Sentence against any transgression and so in effect make him the Law-maker and Governour over all that remained in Conjunction with his Family He was fittest to be trusted Paternal affection secured their Property and Interest under his Care and the Custom of obeying him in their Childhood made it easier to submit to him rather than any other If therefore they must have one to rule them as Government is hardly to be avoided amongst Men that live together who so likely to be the Man as he that was their common Father unless Negligence Cruelty or any other defect of Mind or Body made him unfit for it But when either the Father died and left his next Heir for want of Age Wisdom Courage or any other qualities less fit for Rule or where several Families met and consented to continue together There 't is not to be doubted but they used their natural freedom to set up him whom they judged the ablest and most likely to Rule well over them Conformable hereunto we find the People of America who living out of the reach of the Conquering Swords and spreading domination of the two great Empires of Peru and Mexico enjoy'd their own natural freedom though caeteris paribus they commonly prefer the Heir of their deceased King yet if they find him any way weak or uncapable they pass him by and set up the stoutest and bravest Man for their Ruler 106. Thus though looking back as far as Records give us any account of Peopling the World and the History of Nations we commonly find the Government to be in one hand yet it destroys not that which I affirm viz. That the beginning of Politick Society depends upon the consent of the Individuals to join into and make one Society who when they are thus incorporated might set up what form of Government they thought fit But this having given occasion to Men to mistake and think that by Nature Government was Monarchical and belong'd to the Father it may not be amiss here to consider why People in the beginning generally pitch'd upon this form which though perhaps the Father's Preheminency might in the first institution of some Commonwealths give a rise to and place in the beginning the Power in one hand yet it is plain that the reason that continued the Form of Government in a single Person was not any Regard or Respect to Paternal Authority since all petty Monarchies that is almost all Monarchies near their Original have been commonly at least upon occasion elective 107. First then in the beginning of things the Father's Government of the Childhood of those sprung from him having accustomed them to the Rule of one Man and taught them that where it was exercised with Care and Skill with Affection and Love to those under it it was sufficient to procure and preserve Men all the political Happiness they sought for in Society It was no wonder that they should pitch upon and naturally run into that Form of Government which from their Infancy they had been all accustomed to and which by experience they had found both easie and safe To which if we add that Monarchy being simple and most obvious to Men whom neither experience had instructed in Forms of Government nor the Ambition or Insolence of Empire had taught to beware of the Encroachments of Prerogative or the Inconveniencies of Absolute Power which Monarchy in Succession was apt to lay claim to and bring upon them It was not at all strange that they should not much trouble themselves to think of methods of restraining any Exorbitances of those to whom they had given the Authority over them and of ballancing the Power of Government by placing several parts of it in different hands They had neither felt the Oppression of Tyrannical Dominion nor did the Fashion of the Age nor their Possessions or way of living which afforded little matter for Covetousness or Ambition give them any reason to apprehend or provide against it and therefore 't is no wonder they put themselves into such a Frame of Government as was not only as I said most obvious and simple but also best suited to their present State and Condition which stood more in need of defence against foreign Invasions and Injuries than of multiplicity of Laws where there was but very little Property and wanted not variety of Rulers and abundance of Officers to direct and look after their Execution where there were but few Trespasses and few Offenders Since then those who liked one another so well as to join into Society cannot but be supposed to have some Acquaintance and Friendship together and some Trust one in another They could not but have greater Apprehensions of others than of one another and therefore their first care and thought cannot but be supposed to be how to secure themselves against foreign Force 'T was natural for them to put themselves under a Frame of Government which might best serve to that end and chuse the wisest and bravest Man to conduct them in their Wars and lead them out against their Enemies and in this chiefly be their Ruler 108. Thus we see that the Kings of the Indians in America which is still a
therewith new Representatives carries with it a supposition that in time the measures of representation might vary and those have a just right to be represented which before had none and by the same reason those cease to have a right and be too inconsiderable for such a priviledge which before had it 'T is not a Change from the present State which perhaps Corruption or decay has introduced that makes an Inroad upon the Government but the tendency of it to injure or oppress the People and to set up one part or Party with a distinction from and an unequal subjection of the rest Whatsoever cannot but be acknowledged to be of advantage to the Society and People in general upon just and lasting measures will always when done justify it self and whenever the People shall chuse their Representatives upon just and undeniably equal measures suitable to the original Frame of the Government it cannot be doubted to be the will and act of the Society whoever permitted or propos'd to them so to do CHAP. XIV Of Prerogative 159. WHere the Legislative and Executive Power are in distinct hands as they are in all moderated Monarchies and well-framed Governments there the good of the Society requires that several things should be left to the discretion of him that has the Executive Power For the Legislators not being able to foresee and provide by Laws for all that may be useful to the Community the Executor of the Laws having the power in his hands has by the common Law of Nature a right to make use of it for the good of the Society in many Cases where the municipal Law has given no direction till the Legislative can conveniently be Assembled to provide for it nay many things there are which the Law can by no means provide for and those must necessarily be left to the discretion of him that has the Executive Power in his hands to be ordered by him as the publick good and advantage shall require nay 't is fit that the Laws themselves should in some Cases give way to the Executive Power or rather to this Fundamental Law of Nature and Government viz. That as much as may be all the Members of the Society are to be preserved For since many accidents may happen wherein a strict and rigid observation of the Laws may do harm as not to pull down an innocent Mans House to stop the Fire when the next to it is burning and a Man may come sometimes within the reach of the Law which makes no distinction of Persons by an action that may deserve reward and pardon 'T is fit the Ruler should have a Power in many Cases to mitigate the severity of the Law and pardon some Offenders since the end of Government being the preservation of all as much as may be even the guilty are to be spared where it can prove no prejudice to the innocent 160. This Power to act according to discretion for the publick good without the prescription of the Law and sometimes even against it is that which is called Prerogative for since in fome Governments the Law-making Power is not always in being and is usually too numerous and so too slow for the dispatch requisite to Execution and because also it is impossible to foresee and so by Laws to provide for all accidents and necessities that may concern the publick or make such Laws as will do no harm if they are Executed with an inflexible rigour on all occasions and upon all Persons that may come in their way therefore there is a latitude left to the Executive Power to do many things of choice which the Laws do not prescribe 161. This Power whilst imployed for the benefit of the Community and suitably to the trust and ends of the Government is undoubted Prerogative and never is questioned For the People are very seldom or never scrupulous or nice in the point or questioning of Prerogative whilst it is in any tolerable degree imploy'd for the use it was meant that is the good of the People and not manifestly against it But if there comes to be a question between the Executive Power and the People about a thing claimed as a Prerogative the tendency of the exercise of such Prerogative to the good or hurt of the People will easily decide that question 162. It is easy to conceive that in the Infancy of Governments when Common-wealths differed little from Families in number of People they differ'd from them too but little in number of Laws and the Governours being as the Fathers of them watching over them for their good the Government was almost all Prerogative A few establish'd Laws served the turn and the discretion and care of the Ruler supply'd the rest But when mistake or flattery prevailed with weak Princes to make use of this Power for private ends of their own and not for the publick good the people were fain by express Laws to get Prerogative determin'd in those points wherein they found disadvantage from it And declared limitations of Prerogative in those Cases which they and their Ancestors had left in the utmost latitude to the Wisdom of those Princes who made no other but a right use of it that is for the good of their People 163. And therefore they have a very wrong notion of Government who say that the People have incroach'd upon the Prerogative when they have got any part of it to be defined by positive Laws For in so doing they have not pulled from the Prince any thing that of right belong'd to him but only declared that that Power which they indefinitely left in him or his Ancestors hands to be exercised for their good was not a thing they intended him when he used it otherwise For the End of Government being the good of the Community whatsoever alterations are made in it tending to that end cannot be an incroachment upon any body since no body in Government can have a right tending to any other end And those only are incroachments which prejudice or hinder the publick good Those who say otherwise speak as if the Prince had a distinct and separate Interest from the good of the Community and was not made for it The Root and Source from which spring almost all those Evils and Disorders which happen in Kingly Governments And indeed if that be so the People under his Government are not a Society of Rational Creatures entered into a Community for their mutual good such as have set Rulers over themselves to guard and promote that good but are to be looked on as an Herd of inferiour Creatures under the Dominion of a Master who keeps them and works them for his own Pleasure or Profit If Men were so void of Reason and brutish as to enter into Society upon such Terms Prerogative might indeed be what some Men would have it an Arbitrary Power to do things hurtful to the People 164. But since a Rational Creature cannot be supposed
my Estate to him would this give him any Title Just such a Title by his Sword has an unjust Conquerour who forces me into Submission The Injury and the Crime is equal whether committed by the wearer of a Crown or some petty Villain The Title of the Offender and the Number of his Followers make no difference in the Offence unless it be to aggravate it The only difference is Great Robbers punish little ones to keep them in their Obedience but the great ones are rewarded with Laurels and Triumphs because they are too big for the weak hands of Justice in this World and have the Power in their own possession which should punish Offenders What is my Remedy against a Robber that so broke into my House Appeal to the Law for Justice But perhaps Justice is deny'd or I am crippled and cannot stir Robbed and have not the means to do it If God has taken away all means of seeking remedy there is nothing left but Patience But my Son when able may seek the Relief of the Law which I am denyed he or his Son may renew his Appeal till he recover his Right But the Conquered or their Children have no Court no Arbitrator on Earth to appeal to Then they may appeal as Iephtha did to Heaven and repeat their Appeal till they have recovered the native Right of their Ancestours which was to have such a Legislative over them as the Majority should approve and freely acquiesce in If it be objected this would cause endless trouble I answer No more than Justice does where she lies open to all that appeal to her He that troubles his Neighbour without a Cause is punished for it by the Justice of the Court he appeals to And he that appeals to Heaven must be sure he has Right on his side and a Right too that is worth the Trouble and Cost of the Appeal as he will answer at a Tribunal that cannot be deceived and will be sure to retribute to every one according to the Mischiefs he hath created to his Fellow-Subjects that is any part of Mankind From whence 't is plain that he that conquers in an unjust War can thereby have no Title to the Subjection and Obedience of the Conquered 177. But supposing Victory favours the right side let us consider a Conquerour in a lawful War and see what Power he gets and over whom First 'T is plain he gets no Power by his Conquest over those that Conquered with him They that fought on his side cannot suffer by the Conquest but must at least be as much Free-men as they were before And most commonly they serve upon Terms and on Condition to share with their Leader and enjoy a part of the Spoil and other Advantages that attend the conquering Sword Or at least have a part of the subdued Countrey bestowed upon them And the conquering People are not I hope to be Slaves by Conquest and wear their Laurels only to shew they are Sacrifices to their Leader's Triumph They that found Absolute Monarchy upon the Title of the Sword make their Heroes who are the Founders of such Monarchies arrant Draw-can-Sirs and forget they had any Officers and Souldiers that fought on their side in the Battles they won or assisted them in the subduing or shared in possessing the Countries they Master'd We are told by some that the English Monarchy is founded in the Norman Conquest and that our Princes have thereby a Title to absolute Dominion which if it were true as by the History it appears otherwise and that William had a right to make War on this Island yet his Dominion by Conquest could reach no farther than to the Saxons and Britans that were then Inhabitants of this Country The Normans that came with him and helped to Conquer and all descended from them are Freemen and no Subjects by Conquest let that give what Dominion it will And if I or any Body else shall claim freedom as derived from them it will be very hard to prove the contrary And 't is plain the Law that has made no distinction between the one and the other intends not there should be any difference in their Freedom or Priviledges 178. But supposing which seldom happens that the Conquerers and Conquer'd never incorporate into one People under the same Laws and Freedom Let us see next what Power a lawful Conquerer has over the subdued and that I say is purely Despotical He has an Absolute Power over the Lives of those who by an unjust War have forfeited them but not over the Lives or Fortunes of those who ingaged not in the War nor over the Possessions even of those who were actually engaged in it 179. Secondly I say then the Conquerour gets no Power but only over those who have actually assisted concurr'd or consented to that unjust force that is used against him For the People having given to their Governours no Power to do an unjust thing such as is to make an unjust War for they never had such a Power in themselves They ought not to be charged as guilty of the violence and injustice that is committed in an unjust War any farther than they actually abet it no more than they are to be thought guilty of any Violence or Oppression their Governours should use upon the People themselves or any part of their Fellow-Subjects they having impowered them no more to the one than to the other Conquerours 't is true seldom trouble themselves to make the distinction but they willingly permit the confusion of War to sweep all together but yet this alters not the Right for the Conquerour's Power over the Lives of the Conquered being only because they have used force to do or maintain an injustice he can have that power only over those who have concur'd in that force all the rest are innocent and he has no more title over the people of that Country who have done him no injury and so have made no forfeiture of their Lives than he has over any other who without any injuries or provocations have lived upon fair terms with him 180. Thirdly The Power a Conquerer gets over those he overcomes in a just War is perfectly despotical he has an absolute Power over the Lives of those who by putting themselves in a state of War have forfeited them but he has not thereby a right and title to their Possessions This I doubt not but at first sight will seem a strange Doctrine it being so quite contrary to the practice of the World There being nothing more familiar in speaking of the dominion of Countries than to say such an one Conquer'd it As if Conquest without any more ado convey'd a right of Possession But when we consider that the practice of the strong and powerful how universal soever it may be is seldom the rule of Right however it be one part of the subjection of the Conquer'd not to argue against the Conditions cut out to them by the Conquering
Swords 181. Though in all War there be usually a complication of force and damage and the Aggressor seldom fails to harm the Estate when he uses force against the persons of those he makes War upon yet 't is the use of force only that puts a Man into the State of War For whether by force he begins the injury or else having quietly and by fraud done the injury he refuses to make reparation and by force maintains it which is the same thing as at first to have done it by force 't is the unjust use of force that makes the War For he that breaks open my House and violently turns me out of Doors or having peaceably got in by force keeps me out does in effect the same thing supposing we are in such a state that we have no common Judge on Earth whom I may appeal to and to whom we are both obliged to submit for of such I am now speaking 'T is the unjust use of force then that puts a Man into the state of War with another and thereby he that is guilty of it makes a forfeiture of his Life For quitting reason which is the rule given between Man and Man and using force the way of Beasts he becomes liable to be destroy'd by him he uses force against as any savage ravenous Beast that is dangerous to his being 182. But because the miscarriages of the Father are no faults of the Children and they may be rational and peaceable notwithstanding the brutishness and injustice of the Father the Father by his miscarriages and violence can forfeit but his own Life but involves not his Childten in his guilt or destruction His goods which nature that willeth the preservation of all Mankind as much as is possible hath made to belong to the Children to keep them from perishing do still continue to belong to his Children For supposing them not to have join'd in the War either through infancy or choice they have done nothing to forfeit them nor has the Conquerour any right to take them away by the bare right of having subdued him that by force attempted his destruction though perhaps he may have some right to them to repair the dammages he has sustained by the War and the defence of his own right which how far it reaches to the possessions of the Conquer'd we shall see by and by so that he that by Conquest has a right over a Mans Person to destroy him if he pleases has not thereby a right over his Estate to possess and enjoy it For it is the brutal force the Aggressor has used that gives his Adversary a right to take away his Life and destroy him if he pleases as a noxious Creature but 't is damage sustain'd that alone gives him title to another Mans Goods For though I may kill a Thief that sets on me in the Highway yet I may not which seems less take away his money and let him go this would be Robbery on my side His force and the state of War he put himself in made him forfeit his Life but gave me no title to his Goods The right then of Conquest extends only to the Lives of those who join'd in the War but not to their Estates but only in order to make reparation for the damages received and the Charges of the War and that too with reservation of the right of the innocent Wife and Children 183. Let the Conquerer have as much Justice on his side as could be suppos'd he has no right to seize more than the vanquish'd could forfeit his Life is at the Victors Mercy and his service and goods he may appropriate to make himself reparation but he cannot take the goods of his Wife and Children they too had a title to the goods he enjoy'd and their shares in the estate he possessed For Example I in the state of nature and all Common-wealths are in the state of nature one with another have injured another Man and refusing to give satisfaction it is come to a state of War wherein my defending by force what I had gotten unjustly makes me the Aggressour I am conquered my Life 't is true as forfeit is at mercy but not my Wives and Childrens They made not the War nor assisted in it I could not forfeit their Lives they were not mine to forfeit My Wife had a share in my Estate that neither could I forfeit And my Children also being born of me had a right to be maintain'd out of my Labour or Substance Here then is the Case The Conquerour has a Title to Reparation for Damages received and the Children have a Title to their Father's Estate for their Subsistence For as to the Wife's share whether her own Labour or Compact gave her a Title to it 't is plain her Husband could not forfeit what was hers What must be done in the case I answer The Fundamental Law of Nature being that all as much as may be should be preserved it follows that if there be not enough fully to satisfie both viz. for the Conquerour's Losses and Childrens Maintenance he that hath and to spare must remit something of his full Satisfaction and give way to the pressing and preferible Title of those who are in danger to perish without it 184. But supposing the Charge and Damages of the War are to be made up to the Conquerour to the utmost Farthing and that the Children of the vanquished spoiled of all their Father's Goods are to be left to starve and perishâ— yet the satisfying of what shall on this score be due to the Conquerour will scarce give him a Title to any Countrey he shall conquer For the Damages of War can scarce amount to the value of any considerable Tract of Land in any part of the World where all the Land is possessed and none lies waste And if I have not taken away the Conquerour's Land which being vanquished it is impossible I should scarce any other spoil I have done him can amount to the value of mine supposing it of an extent any way coming near what I had over-run of his and equally cultivated too The destruction of a Years Product or two for it seldom reaches four or five is the utmost spoil that usually can be done For as to Money and such Riches and Treasure taken away these are none of Natures Goods they have but a phantastical imaginary value Nature has put no such upon them They are of no more account by her standard than the Wampompeke of the Americans to an European Prince or the Silver Money of Europe would have been formerly to an American And five years Product is not worth the perpetual Inheritance of Land where all is possessed and none remains waste to be taken up by him that is disseiz'd which will be easily granted if one do but take away the imaginary value of Money the disproportion being more than between five and five thousand Though at the same time half a years
But this Priviledge belonging only to the King's Person hinders not but they may be questioned opposed and resisted who use unjust force though they pretend a Commission from him which the Law authorizes not As is plain in the Case of him that has the King 's Writ to arrest a Man which is a full Commission from the King and yet he that has it cannot break open a Man's House to do it nor execute this Command of the King upon certain days nor in certain places though this Commission have no such exception in it but they are the Limitations of the Law which if any one transgress the King's Commission excuses him not For the King's Authority being given him only by the Law he cannot impower any one to act against the Law or justifie him by his Commission in so doing The Commission or Command of any Magistrate where he has no Authority being as void and insignificant as that of any private Man The difference between the one and the other being that the Magistrate has some Authority so far and to such ends and the private Man has none at all For 't is not the Commission but the Authority that gives the Right of acting and against the Laws there can be no Authority But notwithstanding such Resistance the King's Person and Authority are still both secured and so no danger to Governour or Government 207. Thirdly Supposing a Government wherein the Person of the chief Magistrate is not thus Sacred yet this Doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting all unlawful exercises of his Power will not upon every slight occasion indanger him or imbroil the Government For where the injured Party may be relieved and his damages repaired by Appeal to the Law there can be no pretence for Force which is only to be used where a Man is intercepted from appealing to the Law For nothing is to be accounted Hostile Force but where it leaves not the remedy of such an Appeal And 't is such Force alone that puts him that uses it into a state of War and makes it lawful to resist him A Man with a Sword in his hand demands my Purse in the High-way when perhaps I have not 12 d. in my Pocket This Man I may lawfully kill To another I deliver 100 l. to hold only whilst I alight â—hich he refuses to restore me when I am got up again but draws his Sword to defend the possession of it by force I endeavour to retake it The mischief this Man does me is a hundred or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me whom I kill'd before he really did me any and yet I might lawfully kill the one and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully The Reason whereof is plain because the one using force which threatned my Life I could not have time to appeal to the Law to secure it And when it was gone 't was too late to appeal The Law could not restore Life to my dead Carcass The Loss was irreparable which to prevent the Law of Nature gave me a Right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of War with me and threatned my destruction But in the other case my Life not being in danger I might have the benefit of appealing to the Law and have Reparation for my 100 l. that way 208. Fourthly But if the unlawful acts done by the Magistrate be maintained by the Power he has got and the remedy which is due by Law be by the same Power obstructed yeâ— the Right of resisting even in such manifest Acts of Tyranny will not suddenly or on slight occasions disturb the Government For if it reach no farther than some private Mens Cases though they have a right to defend themselves and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them yet the Right to do so will not easily ingage them in a Contest wherein they are sure to perish It being as impossible for one or a few oppressed Men to disturb the Government where the Body of the People do not think themselves concerned in it as for a raving mad Man or heady Male content to overturn a well setled State the People being as little apt to follow the one as the other 209. But if either these illegal Acts have extended to the Majority of the People or if the Mischief and Oppression has light only on some few but in such Cases as the Precedent and Consequences seem to threaten all and they are perswaded in their Consciences that their Laws and with them their Estates Liberties and Lives are in danger and perhaps their Religion too how they will be hindred from resisting illegal Force used against them I cannot tell This is an Inconvenience I confess that attends all Governments whatsoever when the Governours have brought it to this pass to be generally suspected of their People the most dangerous state they can possibly put themselves in wherein they are the less to be pityed because it is so easie to be avoided It being as impossible for a Governour if he really means the good of his People and the preservation of them and their Laws together not to make them see and feel it as it is for the Father of a Family not to let his Children see he loves and takes care of them 210. But if all the World shall observe Pretences of one kind and Actions of another Arts used to elude the Law and the Trust of Prerogative which is an Arbitrary Power in some things left in the Prince's hand to do good not harm to the People employed contrary to the end for which it was given If the People shall find the Ministers and subordinate Magistrates chosen suitable to such ends and favoured or laid by proportionably as they promote or oppose them If they see several Experiments made of Arbitrary Power and that Religion underhand favoured though publickly proclaimed against which is readiest to introduce it and the Operators in it supported as much as may be and when that cannot be done yet approved still and liked the better and a long Train of Actings shew the Councils all tending that way how can a Man any more hinder himself from being perswaded in his own Mind which way things are going or from casting about how to save himself than he could from believing the Captain of the Ship he was in was carrying him and the rest of the Company to Algiers when he found him always stearing that Course though cross Winds Leaks in his Ship and want of Men and Provisions did often force him to turn his Course another way for some time which he steadily returned to again as soon as the Wind Weather and other Circumstances would let him CHAP. XIX Of the Dissolution of Governments 211. HE that will with any clearness speak of the Dissolution of Government ought in the first place to distinguish between the Dissolution of the Society and the Dissolution of the
very difficult dear and dangerous 241. But farther this Question Who shall be Judge cannot mean that there is no Judge at all For where there is no Judicature on Earth to decide Controversies amongst Men God in Heaven is Judge He alone 't is true is Judge of the Right But every Man is Judge for himself as in all other Cases so in this whether another hath put himself into a State of War with him and whether he should appeal to the Supreme Judge as Iephtha did 242. If a Controversie arise betwixt a Prince and some of the People in a matter where the Law is silent or doubtful and the thing be of great Consequence I should think the proper Umpire in such a Case should be the Body of the People For in Cases where the Prince hath a Trust reposed in him and is dispensed from the common ordinary Rules of the Law there if any Men find themselves aggrieved and think the Prince acts contrary to or beyond that Trust who so proper to judge as the Body of the People who at first lodg'd that Trust in him how far they meant it should extend But if the Prince or who-ever they be in the Administration decline that way of Determination the Appeal then lies no where but to Heaven Force between either Persons who have no known Superiour on Earth or which permits no Appeal to a Judge on Earth being properly a State of War wherein the Appeal lies only to Heaven and in that State the injured Party must judge for himself when he will think fit to make use of that Appeal and put himself upon it 243. To conclude The Power that every individual gave the Society when he entered into it can never revert to the Individuals again as long as the Society lasts but will always remain in the Community because without this there can be no Community no Commonwealth which is contrary to the original Agreement so also when the Society hath placed the Legislative in any Assembly of Men to continue in them and their Successors with Direction and Authority for providing such Successors the Legislative can never revert to the People whilst that Government lasts Because having provided a Legislative with Power to continue for ever they have given up their Political Power to the Legislative and cannot resume it But if they have set Limits to the Duration of their Legislative and made this Supreme Power in any Person or Assembly only temporary Or else when by the Miscarriages of those in Authority it is forfeited upon the Forfeiture of their Rulers or at the Determination of the Time set it reverts to the Society and the People have a Right to act as Supreme and continue the Legislative in themselves or place it in a new Form or new hands as they think good FINIS * In Grants and Gifts that have their Origiginal from God or Nature as the Power of the Father hath no inferior Power of Man can limit nor make any Law of prescription against them O. 158. †The Scripture teaches that Supreme Power was Originally in the Father without any limitation O. 245. It is no improbable Opinion therefore which the Arch-Philosopher was of That the chief Person in every Houshold was always as it were a King so when Numbers of Housholds joyn'd themselves in civil Societies together Kings were the first kind of Governours amongst them which is also as it seemeth the reason why the name of Fathers continued still in them who of Fathers were made Rulers as also the ancient Custom of Governours to do as Melchizedec and being Kings to exercise the Office of Priests which Fathers did at the first grew perhaps by the same Occasion Howbeit this is not the only kind of Regiment that has been received in the World The Inconveniences of one kind have caused sundry other to be devised so that in a word all publique Regiment of what kind soever seemeth evidently to have risen from the deliberate Advice Consultation and Composition between Men judging it convenient and behovefull there being no impossibility in Nature considered by it self but that Man might have lived without any publique Regiment Hooker's Eccl. l. 1. §. 10. The publick Power of all Society is above every Soul contained in the same Society and the principal use of that power is to give Laws unto all that are under it which Laws in such Cases we must obey unless there be reason shew'd which may necessarily inforce that the Law of Reason or of God doth injoin the contrary Hook Eccl. Pol. 1. §. 16. To take away all such mutual Grievances Injuries and Wrongs i. e. such as attend Men in the state of Nature There was no way but only by growing into Composition and Agreement amongst themselves by ordaining some kind of Government publick and by yielding themselves subject thereunto that unto whom they granted Authority to rule and govern by them the Peace Tranquillity and happy Estate of the rest might be procured Men always knew that where Force and Injury was offered they might be Defenders of themselves they knew that however Men may seek their own Commodity yet if this were done with Injury unto others it was not to be suffered but by all Men and all good means to be withstood Finally they knew that no Man might in reason take upon him to determine his own Right and according to his own Determination proceed in maintenance thereof in as much as every man is towards himself and them whom he greatly affects partial and therefore that Strifes and Troubles would be endless except they gave their common Consent all to be ordered by some whom they should agree upon without which Consent there would â—e no reason that one man should take upon him to be Lord or Iudge over another Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. 1. §. 10. At the first when some certain kind of Regiment was once appointed it may be that nothing was then farther thought upon for the manner of governing but all permitted unto their Wisdom and Discretion which were to Rule till by experience they found this for all parts very inconvenient so as the thing which they had devised for a Remedy did indeed but increase the Sore which it should have cured They saw that to live by one Man's Will became the cause of all Mens misery This constrained them to come unto Laws wherein all Men might see their Duty beforehand and know the Penalties of transgressing them Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. 1. §. 10. Civil Law being the Act of the whole Body Politick doth therefore over-rule each several part of the same Body Hooker ibid. At first when some certain kind of Regiment was once approved it may be nothing was then further thought upon for the manner of governing but all permitted unto their Wisdom and Discretion which were to Rule till by experience they found this for all parts very inconvenient so as the thing which they had devised for a Remedy did indeed but increase the Sore which it should have cured They saw that to live by one Man's Will became the cause of all Mens misery This constrained them to come unto Laws wherein all Men might see their Duty beforehand and know the Penalties of transgressing them Hooker's Eccl. Pol. l. 1. §. 10. The lawful Power of making Laws to Command whole Politick Societies of Men belonging so properly unto the same intire Societies that for any Prince or Potentate of what kind soever upon Earth to exercise the same of himself and not by express Commission immediately and personally received from God or else by authority derived at the first from their consent upon whose persons they impose Laws it is no better than meer Tyranny Laws they are not therefore which publick approbation hath not made so Hooker's Eccl Pol. l. 1. §. 10. Of this point therefore we are to note that sith Men naturally have no full and perfect Power to Command whole politick multitudes of Men therefore utterly without our Consent we could in such sort be at no Mans Commandment living And to be commanded we do consent when that Society whereof we be a part hath at any time before consented without revoking the same after by the like universal agreement Laws therefore human of what kind soever are available by consent Ibid. Two Foundations there are which bear up publick Societies the one a natural inclination whereby all Men desire sociable Life and Fellowship the other an Order expresly or secretly agreed upon touching the manner of their union in living together the latter is that which we call the Law of a Commonweal the very Soul of a politick Body the parts whereof are by Law animated held together and set on work in such actions as the common good requireth Lawâ— politick ordain'd for external order and regiment amongst Men are never framed as they should be unless presuming the will of Man to be inwardly obstinate â—rebellious and averse from all obedience to the sacred Laws of his nature in a word unless presuming Man to be in regard of his depraved Mind little better than a wild Beast they do accordingly provide notwithstanding so to frame his outward actions that they be no hindrance unto the common good for which Societies are instituted Vnless they do this they are not perfect Hooker's Ec. Pol. l. 1. §. 10. Humane Laws are measures in respect of Men whose actions they must direct howbeit such measures they are as have also their higher Rules to be measured by which Rules are two the Law of God and the Law of Nature so that Laws humane must be made according to the general Laws of Nature and without contradiction to any positive Law of Scripture otherwise they are ill made Ibid. l. 3. § 9. To constrain Men to any thing inconvenient doth seem unreasonable Ibid. l. 1. §. 10.
the express words convey it and by which only it is held and thus if as our A himself contends that Donation Gen. 1. 28. were made only to Adam personally his Heir could not succeed to his Property in the Creatures and if it were a Donation to any but Adam let it be shewn that it was to his Heir in our A s Sense i.e. to one of his Children exclusive of all the rest 86. But not to follow our A too far out of the way the plain of the Case is this God having made Man and Planted in him as in all other Animals a strong desire of self Preservation and furnished the World with things fit for Food and Rayment and other necessaries of Life Subservient to his design that Man should live and abide for some time upon the the Face of the Earth and not that so curious and wonderful a piece of Workmanship by its own negligence or want of necessaries should perish again presently after a few moments continuance God I say having made Man and the World thus spoke to him that is directed him by his Senses and Reason as he did the inferior Animals by their Sense and Instinct which he had placed in them to that purpose to the use of those things which were serviceable for his subsistence and gave him the means of his Preservation and therefore I doubt not but before these words were pronounced 1 Gen. 28. 29. If they must be understood Litterally to have been spoken or without any such Verbal Donation Man had a right to a Use of the Creatures by the Will and Grant of God for the desire strong desire of Preserving his Life and Being having been Planted in him as a Principle of Action by God himself Reason which was the voice of God in him could not but teach him and assure him that pursuing that natural Inclination he had to preserve his Being he followed the Will of his Maker and therefore had a right to make use of those Creatures which by his Reason or Senses he could discover would be serviceable thereunto and thus Mans Property in the Creatures was founded upon the right he had to make use of those things that were necessary or useful to his being 87. This being the Reason and Foundation of Adams Property gave the same Title on the same Ground to all his Children not only after his death but in his life time so that here was no Priviledge of his Heir above his other Children which could exclude them from an equal right to the use of the inferior Creatures for the comfortable Preservation of their Beings Which is all the Property Man hath in them and so Adams Sovereignty built on Property or as our A calls it Private Dominion comes to nothing Every Man had a right to the Creatures by the same Title Adam had viz. by the right every one had to take care of and provide for their Subsistance and thus Men had a right in common Adams Children in common with him But if any one had began and made himself a Property in any particular thing which how he or any one else could do shall be shewn in another place that thing that possession if he dispos'd not otherwise of it by his positive Grant descâ—nded Naturally to his Children and they had a right to succeed to it and possess it 88. It might reasonably be asked here how come Children by this right of possessing before any other the Properties of their Parents upon their Decease for it being Personally the Parents when they dye without actually Transferring their Right to another why does it not return again to the commmon Stock of Mankind 'T will perhaps be answered that common consent hath disposed of it to the Children Common Practice we see indeed does so dispose of it but we cannot say that it is the common consent of Mankind for that hath never been asked nor Actually given and if common tacit Consent had Establish'd it it would make but a positive and not natural Right of Children to Inherit the Goods of their Parents But where the Practice is Universal 't is reasonable to think the Cause is natural The ground then I think to be this The first and strongest desire God Planted in Men and wrought into the very Principle of their nature being that of self Preservation is the Foundation of a right to the Creatures for their particular support and use of each individual Person himself But next to this God Planted in Men a strong desire also of Propagating their Kind and continuing themselves in their posterity and this gives Children a Title to share in the Property of their Parents and a Right to Inherit their Possessions Men are not Proprietors of what they have meerly for themselves their Children have a Title to part of it and have their Kind of Right joyn'd with their Parent 's in the Possession which comes to be wholly theirs when death having put an end to their Parents use of it hath taken them from their Possessions and this we call Inheritance Men being by a like Obligation bound to preserve what they have begotten as to preserve themselves their issue come to have a Right in the Goods they are possessed of And that Children have such a Right is plain from the Laws of God and that Men are convinced that Children have such a Right is Evident from the Law of the Land both which Laws require Parents to provide for their Children 89. For Children being by the course of nature born weak and unable to provide for themselves they have by the appointment of God himself who hath thus ordered the course of nature a right to be nourish'd and maintained by their Parents nay a right not only to a bare Subsistance but to the conveniences and comforts of Life as far as the conditions of their Parents can afford it And hence it comes that when their Parents leave the World and so the care due to their Children ceases the effects of it are to extend as far as possibly they can and the Provisions they have made in their Life time are understood to be intended as nature requires they should for their Children whom after themselves they are bound to provide for though the dying Parents by express Words declare nothing about them nature appoints the the descent of their Property to their Children who thus come to have a Title and natural Right of â—nheritance to their Fathers Goods which the rest of Mankind cannot pretend to 90. Were it not for this right of being nourished and maintained by their Parents which God and nature has given to Children and obliged Parents to as a duty it would be reasonable that the Father should Inherit the Estate of his Son and be prefer'd in the Inheritance before his Grand Child for to the Grand Father there is due a long Score of care and expences laid out upon the Breeding and Education of his Son