being so far from a Commonwealths-man that for my own part I reverence Monarchy above all other forms of Government and should be as willing to have it unmixt it being that by which God Almighty governs the Vniverse could humane nature be long trusted with it and could we be as certain that his Vicegerents on Earth would as easily imitate those divine Attributes of wisdom and goodness as they are prone to lay claim to his absolute Power For as where those Perfections direct the Scepter a Prince is to be loved and reverenced as the best Representative of the divine nature so the exercise of an absolute unlimited Power without these can create no other Idea in mens minds than what the barbarous Indians have of those terrible Gods they worship to whom though they often make Oblations of what is dearest to them yet it is upon no higher motive of Devotion than that they thereby hope to cajole them not to do them any mischief and would soon cast them off if they knew how to get rid of them Therefore the fault is not in the Government as absolute but in humane Nature which is not often found sufficient at least for above one or two Successions to support and manage so unlimited a Power in one single person as it ought to be And for this I desire the Reader to look over the Catalogue of all the Persian Roman and Turkish Monarchs that have ever succeeded in so many hundreds of years and see how many good ones they will finde among them and who truly considered the good and prosperity of that Empire which God had trusted them withal the effects of which absolute Power being very well known to the Satyrist who lived under it when he thus shrewdly observes Nihil est quod credere de se Non possit cum laudatur Diis aequa potestas Juven Sat. 4. And how much Christian Religion hath altered the case I desire all observing Readers to consult the late Histories of France and Muscovy and other despotick Governments in Europe But since the Government of this Nation as now establisht I conceive the best in its kind as most equal and beneficial both to the Prince and People so that it is onely their faults who would go off from it if they are not both Prince and People the happiest in the World I hope I may without sin wish those accursed from God who would remove our ancient Land-marks and pull up all Limits between Prerogative and Law and who as it may justly be feared would mis-lead Princes enslave Mankind and if occasion were sacrifice both to their own private Interests and Ambition The like I may say of those who would destroy this ancient Government and set up a Democracy amongst us since I know not which is worst to be knawn to death by Rats or devoured by a Lion Nor is it that I am conscious to my self of having writ any thing in these ensuing sheets contrary to Law destructive to Government or that Obedience which all good Subjects owe their Prince and his Laws which hath made me forbear prefixing my Name to this Treatise since perhaps some of those Motives which might perswade this Author to forbear it in the Treatises he published might likewise have the same effect upon me especially since I doubt not but what I have here written will provoke those Craftsmen who esteem this Notion of our Authors by which they expect to get both Riches and Honour as the Diana that fell down from Jupiter And therefore it is no wonder if they are angry with any man that should go about to pull off the specious Vails with which they have covered it and shew it as it really is a wooden Idol of their own making and if they knew the man would according to the usual course of those who abound more in Malice than Reason quit the matter and fall upon the person of their Antagonist and endeavour to stir up both the great Vulgar and the small Vulgar as Mr. Cowley ingeniously terms men of Title without Sense Besides all which joyn'd with the small opinion I have of my own performances or that I think these Papers capable to transmit my Name to Posterity yet if I were sure I could do it however writing against an ingenious Gentleman long since deceased and whose good Name upon all accounts I designe not to diminish yet I should not think it generous to raise my self a Fame to the prejudice of another mans And therefore my Request to you is That you would believe I write these Obscrvations for no other end than for the Truth and in defence of the Government as it is establisht and the just Rights and Liberties of all true English-men All which I pray God preserve as long as the Sun and Moon endure I am your Friend Philalethes Observations UPON A TREATISE CALLED PATRIARCHA And several other Miscellanies Lately Published Under the Name of Sir Robert Filmer Baronet CHAP. I. THE reason why I chuse to begin these Observations with this Treatise of the natural Right of Kings rather than with any of the rest though published long before it is because being as I suppose writ after the rest and on purpose to assert Monarchy to be Jure Divino is likely to contain the Authors most mature thoughts and being written with better connection than his other Tracts contains the substance of them all which were designed not so much to establish an Hypothesis as to observe the weakness of other mens and being published at several times and on divers occasions give us but the same Notions repeated according as the Tenets in the Authors he writ against needed as he thought a Confutation Which how far they do deserve it I leave to the Reader to judge and therefore shall not take upon me to defend any mans Opinions though never so great or learned farther than I conceive them agreeable to right Reason Nor shall I trouble my self to criticize on every small Errour or Mistake in this Author's Writings but onely set my self to consider such main Arguments as appear to be founded on false or meer precarious Principles not concerning my self with his other Treatises but as they contain some other Reasons or newer Matter than I finde here Page 2. The designe of this Treatise is against an Opinion maintained by some Divines and several learned men That Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from Subjection and at liberty to chuse what form of Government it please and that the Power which any one man hath over others was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude Page 3. This Opinion he says is not to be found in the Fathers of the Primitive Church that it contradicts the Doctrine and History of the Holy Scriptures the constant practice of all ancient Monarchies and the very Principles of the Law of Nature And upon this Doctrine the Jesuits and favourers of the
the Son hath begotten But though Children may have this Right of defending their own Lives or those of their Wives and Children from their Fathers unjust violence when they can by no means else be preserved Yet I would not be here understood to give Children this right of resisting upon any less occasion as if the Father should only go about to correct his Son though without just cause it were therefore lawful for him to resist or beat his Father For we are obliged by the Law of Christ to bear smaller Injuries from others much more from a Father neither yet would I give them any right to continue this state of War and to revenge upon their Parents the Injuries they have formerly received at their hands For all Revenge taken in this sence as a satisfaction of the minde in returning of an evil or injury already received without any respect to a mans own preservation or the good of the person that did the wrong is unlawful even in the state of Nature Therefore this returning Evil for Evil which some improperly call Revenge is only justifiable for one or both of these ends either to make the party that hath done the Injury sensible of his Errour and seeing the Follies and Inconveniences of it to alter his minde and resolve to do so no more or as it may conduce to a mans own preservation for the future and be a warning to others not to injure him in like manner since they see he will not take injuries tamely But all this is still left to a mans own prudence how far he will pass them by And he is certainly obliged to leave off returning them assoon as he can be safe without it since otherwise quarrels would be perpetual Neither ought one who hath been highly obliged to a man perhaps for his life to return him evil for evil since scarce any Injury being great enough to cancel so great an Obligation Therefore since a Father who hath truely performed his Duty is the greatest Benefactor we can imagine in this life so no man ought to revenge an Injury though never so great upon him since it is not only undutiful but ungrateful and cannot serve either of those two ends for which alone this returning evil for evil is allowable For first it cannot make the Father see his fault since this correction being from a Son whom he looks upon as one highly obliged to him and so much his inferior will rather serve to exasperate than amend him Secondly Neither can this bearing of the Injury encourage others to attempt doing the like since all that know the case will likewise consider the person that did the wrong So that Patience alone is the only lawful means to make the Father see his Errour and be reconciled to his Child who ought to embrace it assoon as the Father offers it But as for the places of Scripture brought for absolute Obedience to Parents viz. the fourth Commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother Children obey your Parents in the Lord Ephes 6.1,2 and Children obey your Parents in all things Col. 3.20 God did not intend here to give us any new Law or Precept concerning this Duty but to confirm and explain the fifth Commandment as that was but a confirmation of the Law of Nature by which men were obliged to reverence and obey their Parents long before that Law was given Therefore since the Laws of Nature which are but Rules of right Reason for the good of Mankinde are the foundation of this Commandment and of all those commands in the New Testament they are still to be interpreted according to that Rule Neither are other places of Scripture understood in any other sence such as are those of turning the right Cheek of giving away a mans Coat to him that would go to Law and the like all which we are not to Interpret Literally See Grotius and. Dr. Hammond's Annot. upon these places but according to Reason And so are likewise these words of St. Paul to be understood Children obey your Parents in all things that is in all things reasonable and lawful And this sence must be allowed of or else Children were bound to obey all commands of their Parents whether unlawful or lawful being comprehended under this general word All. Nor will the distinction of an active or passive Obedience help in this case for passive Obedience cannot be the end of the Fathers command and consequently his will is not performed in suffering since no Father can be so unreasonably cruel as to command a thing meerly because he would have occasion to punish his Son whom he thinks must not resist him Neither do these places appoint a Son when an infant a man of full age and perhaps an old man of threescore to be all governed the same way or that the same Obedience is required of them all And this brings me to a fuller Answer to the Author's Argument and to shew that though Children are indeed always bound in Gratitude to please their Parents as far as they are able without ruining themselves and to pay a great reverence to them yet that this submission is not an absolute subjection but is to be limited according to the Rules of right Reason or Prudence And to prove this I will produce instances from the case of Adam's Children since the Author allows no Father to have had a larger authority than himself We will therefore consider in the first place Adam's power as a Father in respect of his Sons marriage Suppose then that he had commanded one of his Sons never to marry at all certainly this command would have been yoid since then it had been in Adam's power to have frustrated Gods Command to mankind of increase and multiply and replenish the Earth which was not spoken to Adam and Eve alone since they could not do it in their persons but to all mankind represented in them And likewise Adam had been the occasion of his Sons incontinency if he had lain with any of his Sisters before marriage Secondly Suppose Adam had commanded Abel to marry one of his Sisters that being the onely means then appointed to propagate mankind which he could not love can any man think that he had been obliged to do it Certainly no for it would have been a greater sin to marry a wife he knew before-hand he could not live with than to disobey his Father for else how could this be true Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife Since then Adam could not force his Sons affections but onely recommend such of his Sisters as he thought would best suit with his humour therefore if the Son could not live without marriage and that Adam could not force a Wife upon him it was most reasonable that he should chuse a Wife for himself And to come to that other great point that the Son can never separate himself from his Fathers Family nor subjection
in Reuben to have spoke thus since he knew his Father had power to slay his Sons if he thought fit whether he gave him such an authority or not But if it be replied that Jacob when his Sons married might set them at liberty and so give them power of Life and Death that is make them absolute in their respective Families This is gratis dictum and no proof brought of it out of Scripture and therefore may as well be otherwise Nor is it likely that Jacob should thus manumit his Sons since it is apparent they did not then set up distinct Families for we finde Jacob still commanding them as Head of the Family to go down and buy Corn in Egypt saying Go down and buy us that is the whole Family whereof they were Members a little food And yet these Sons did not think their Fathers command so absolute but that they tell him plainly they will not go down unless he send Benjamin with them As for the other Examples of Abram's exercising the full power of a Prince in making War and Peace I will not deny that the Heads of separate Families being out of Commonwealths have many things analogous to them though they are not Commonwealths themselves And the reason why I do not allow them to be so is because the ends of a Family and a Commonwealth are divers and so many parts of a Monarchical Empire are not to be found in Families yet the Heads of such Families may notwithstanding exercise a power of Life and Death in great Offences and also of making War and Peace And this being for the good of the Family they govern and by their implyed consents no body will contradict him in the exercise of this power But this being matter of fact does not prove an absolute and unquestionable Right in the Father of such a Family of doing whatsoever he please and that no Member of the Family hath power in any case to contradict his will for it is rational to conceive that this Father of a Family having had an authority over his Children and Servants born perhaps in his house from their very Infancy and if he be a wise and a good man and hath carried himself as a good Father or Master ought to do toward them should even by their consents as knowing none more worthy than himself retain the exercise of that Authority after they are gown up to be men in which he cannot be contradicted without disorder and mischief to the whole Family So that indeed this submission of the Children and Servants is by a tacite consent to obey the Father or Master in all things tending to the common good of the Family But this proves not this absolute despotick power the Author contends for but onely the most reasonable way of acting for the Families good and whilst the Father exercises this Authority onely for that end which when he transgresses his Right to govern ceases for if this Author would have but considered the state of some parts of Africa he should have found that where the Father will exercise this absolute power and sell his Children for slaves the Children make as little scruple where they are strong enough to put the same trick upon their Fathers Nor can they be justly blamed for so doing until any man can shew me that the Father hath some better Right than meer Custom or Power I shall now proceed to the consideration of those other places he produces out of Scripture for the natural Right of Fathers to be Kings over their Descendants Patriarcha p. 16. First As for the example of Nimrod that makes against him for here the Grandson of Ham who ought to have been a Servant to the Children of Shem and Japhet interrupting this Paternal Empire domineers and tyrannizes not onely over his own Family but the Descendants of the elder Brethren But Sir Walter Rawleigh of which opinion the Author himself is will have him to be Lord over his own Family by Right of Succession but to enlarge his Empire against Right by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families But however after the confusion of Tongues the Author will have it revive again and the distinct Nations thereupon erected were not confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at liberty to chuse what Governours they pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it plainly appears that even in this confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families For so it appears by the Text Gen. 10.5.20.22 But these places will not prove what the Author quotes them for viz. the Monarchical or Kingly power of Fathers for neither does the Scripture or Josephus mention that this division of the World by Noah's Posterity was performed by the Fathers of these Families as absolute Monarchs but it rather seems that their Children and Descendants followed them as Volunteers as retaining a Reverence and Affection to their persons for their great age experience and care of their Families Which * Sir Will. Temple's Essay of Government p. 67. an ingenious modern Author conceives to be the natural original of all Governments springing from a tacite deference to the Authority of one single person And of this opinion is excellent Pufendorf And of this kind were those first Kings which Aristotle calls Heroical whom the People did obey of their own accord because they deserved well of them and either by teaching them Arts or by warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands among them Secondly If it were true that these Fathers of Families were so many absolute Kings yet it quite destroys the Author's Hypothesis who will have but one true Heir to Adam who if he could be known had a natural Right to be Monarch of the whole world And though Kings now Patriarch p. 19. are not the natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first natural Parents of the People and in their right succeed to the exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers Whereas we see here no such right of Eldership observed neither among the Sons of Noah nor their descendants but every one as appears from the words of the Text was an independant Head Leader of his own Family by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided c. and by these viz. the descendants of Shem were the Nations divided c. So likewise the other places he brings concerning the Sons of Ishmael and Esau do destroy the Authours notion of an Heir to the Authority of the Father or that any Son is more Lord of his Brethren than another For all the
Right of governing them is said to be transferred as far as it is accompanied with the Honours and Profits annexed to it For although a Prince may say of his Subject He is my Man yet this Property in him is much different from that whereby a Prince calls his Horse his own for in the first sence he means no more than that the Right of governing this man belongs to me and not to another yet cannot be extended as far as he pleases but that Property which is attributed to a Beast or other Goods includes a Right of using or consuming that thing as he will himself without any other reason than that it is his own But although the Laws of Humanity do not permit that however a man hath carried himself towards us all Remains of that Primitive Equality between men should be quite extinguished towards him and after a man hath entered into a state of Peace with us that he should be dealt with as a Brute or inanimate thing though it is true that the Cruelty and Avarice of divers Nations hath proceeded so far that Slaves are reckoned amongst Houshold-goods and are ordered not so much by Command as by the force of an absolute Dominion and Property yet this is not from the Law of Nature but the Civil Law of that particular Common-wealth So that though I grant by the Roman Civil Law a man might have said of a Slave in the same sence as of a Beast This is mine yet this was not from the Laws of Nature but Custom of that Empire who taking many Captives in the Wars almost all their Servants consisted at first of such Yet this is not allowed of in our Law nor yet in France and other Countries And this will serve to demonstrate what this Author lays down in his Preface to his Observations on Aristotle's Politicks to be false That Adam was a Father King and Lord over his Family and that a Son Subject and Slave or Servant were all one at first since it may hereby appear that there is a real difference in Nature between every one of them And though the express names of Subject Tyrant and Slave be not found in Scripture yet the things are and that as plainly described as if they had been called so though the Hebrew being a barren Language hath not distinct words for them without Epithites or Circumlocutions For 1. As to Servants it is apparent out of the Law of Moses Exod. 21. v. 2. Levit. 25.39.44 Deut. 15.12 there is a vast difference between Hebrew Servants and those that were of other Nations these latter onely being called Bondservants whose service was perpetual and who were as a Possession and Inheritance to their Lords whereas the former were not to be made to serve with that Rigour but onely as hired Servants to be set free in the seventh or Sabbatical year And it is frequent in the Law as well as Prophets to make mention of the Wages of an Hireling So that nothing is plainer than that even among the Jews there was a difference between hired Servants Hebrew Servants for years and forreign Slaves for ever And before that when Jacob served Laban for his two Daughters it is evident that there was then a distinction between an hired Servant and a Slave since there was a Contract for what Wages Jacob should serve him And though Laban for ought appears according to the custom of those times was an Independant Father of a Family as well as Jacob was afterwards and consequently a Prince as this Author needs will have it yet we do not finde it charged upon Jacob as a Crime no not by Laban himself but onely as a matter of unkindness that he had stolen away from him with his Daughters and the Goods he had yearned in his service So likewise though the word Tyrant is not found expresly in Scripture yet the thing it self is if a Tyrant be one who abusus his Kingly Power to the Oppression of his Subjects or else Pharaoh in Egypt and those Kings who after the Israelites coming out of Egypt so cruelly oppressed them were all good and lawful Monarchs and had as much Authority as their own Princes which God set over them and it had been a wicked thing in them to have resisted them and driven them out as they did whenever they were able since they were in possession according to this Author by the permissive Will of God Having now shewn the difference of the Power of a Master of a Family from that of a Father and that the Right which a Father hath in his Children is divers from that which he hath in his Servants or Slaves I will now consider in the last place the Power which Adam had or any other Husband now hath over his Wife in the state of Nature I have already proved that the Authority of the Husband over the Wife commences from that Contract we call Marriage and though by the Word of God the Woman is made subject to the Man yet the reason of that subjection naturally depends upon the Mans being commonly stronger both in body and mind than the Woman and where that ceases the subjection will likewise of course cease even amongst us For we see that if a Husband be a foolish or a careless man and either cannot or will not govern his Family and Estate the Wife may and does and oftentimes him into the Bargain Nor does any one finde fault with her for so doing since somebody must govern the Concerns of the Family and if the man either cannot or will not who hath more Right or Interest to do it than her who hath an equal share in the happiness and well-being of her Family and Children Neither can there be at once two absolute Heads in the same house commanding contradictory things without confusion since the Children and Servants could never tell whom to obey So that even this subjection of the womans will to the mans commanded by Scripture is still with a supposition that the man is capable or willing to govern for if he be not he loses this Prerogative of course But suppose he is able to govern her and the Family the Question is What kind of Power he hath over her as a Husband in the state of Nature I grant that if she made it part of her Bargain to be so absolutely subject to him as that he might command her in all things as a Slave and make her do what work he pleased to appoint and that he may either turn her away or put her to death if he find her imbezilling his Goods or committing Adultery the woman in this case is bound by her Contract as another Servant who makes her self so by her own act or consent But this is not the Question but what power the man hath naturally over his Wife as a Husband supposing no such Conditions or Bargain were made at the Marriage It is true indeed that the Wife
granting that the force of the Government lay in â—he Curiata Comitia or better sort of Citizens yet it was still vertually in the common People who resumed â—t when they would And it was to this whole Body â—f the People that Valerius Publicola used when Conâ—ul to make the Lictors abase his Fasces and in that sufficiently acknowledged where the Soveraign Power â—esided I shall not trouble my self farther to defend the Moâ—el of the Roman Commonwealth which I look upon â—s one of the most unequal and irregular that ever were and if it had not been for the excellent Temper admirable Discipline and exact Education of â—hat People it was impossible it could ever have lasted â—o long In which when they began to grow remiss â—hrough Riches and Luxury their Commonwealth soon fell to pieces being indeed never well compacted â—t first Much less shall I take upon me to defend a Popular Government where the mixt Multitude without any Representatives consult of Affairs or make Laws Any man that will but read Thucydides and Livy will see enough of it As for the Author's Arguments against the Peopleâ— being able to agree to institute any Government aâ— all they are most of them but meer Wrangling and have been answered in the foregoing Observations and so need not be repeated I shall likewise pass by the Author's Directions for Obedience to Government in doubtful times since I have already taken notice of all that is considerable in it CHAP. IV. I Shall therefore in the next place look over his miscellany observations 1 Upon divers modern Authors As for Mr. Hob's Leviathan I shall leave them to decide the controversie as they please and refer it to the readers judgment who hath the better on 't For in many things I think neither of them are in the right only it is a hundred pitties Mr. Hobs did not consult the Author and take in his Patriarcal Hypothesis and then all his rights of exercising Soveraign Tyranny would have gone down well enough But for my part I neither like the foundation nor the building which Mr. Hobs hath set up and therefore shall here leave the Author to build and pull down as he pleases without my intermedling And less shall I take upon me to vindicate Milton since that were at once to defend downright Murder and Rebellion So that I shall turn over to his observations upon Grotius an Author of greater learning and better reputation than either of them Where I shall not trouble my self to defend the manifold distinctions P. 37. and contradictions of the old Civil Lawyers about the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations or whether the natural and Moral law be all one it is sufficient if Grotius's didifinition of the law of Nature be true Nor does it signifie any thing whether the word Law of nature be found in Scripture Yet I think Thomas Aquinas may well enough be defended that there is such a thing too proved from 11. Romans v. 14 15. For though he doth not say expresly that nature is a Law unto them but they are a law unto themselves yet certainly Saint Pauls meaning is to the same For if the Gentiles by nature did the things contained in the law and so were a law unto themselves I know not what else he can mean by their doing by nature the things contained in the law but their living according to the Laws of nature or right reason which all rational men are sensible of as soon as they come of an age able to exert this faculty and so becomes by nature a Law unto themselves neither can this be custom since Saint Paul says they do so by nature c. the things contained in the Law Neither do I see any Reason why Grotius is to be blamed for not taking his Hypothesis concerning the Original of Mankind of Dominion and Property out of Genesis since writing of the rights of Peace and War according to the laws of nature and the general consent of civilised Nations and not according to any revealed Will or Law of God he was not bound nay it was contrary to his purpose to make use of Scripture farther than to confirm what could be made out from natural reason alone for to have done otherwise had been to have written a treatise of cases of Conscience in Divinity and not of right and wrong by the laws of nature So that though he sometimes make use of Texts of Scripture yet it is either to strengthen those or else to answer some objections that may be drawn from thence against his conclusions And therefore he was not obliged to take notice whether God gave a begining to Mankind from one man or more at once since it might if he had pleased have been either way Nor yet did he dream of Adams Monarchy over the whole Creation before he had any Subjects to command nor of his being sole Lord Proprietor and first occupant of all the earth and of all the Creatures in it when neither he nor his Children ever knew nor made any use of the 1000. parts of them these were Notions too fine spun for a man of his solid judgment ever to light on so therefore we must be beholding to our Author and some English Divines for this admirable discovery Yet as I doubt not but if that great man were alive he could well enough defend himself by that great reason and learning he was Master of against what ever this Author or some other lesser Scriblers could reasonably object against a work of that nature yet I doubt not but most of those things the Author observes as errors may be well enough defended by one of far meaner parts and less learning than Grotius himself so that I am not convinced that he either forgets or contradicts himself as our Author will needs have him when he refers alieni abstinentia or abstaining from that which belongs to another P. 59. to consist with a sociable community of all things because says the Author where there is Community there can be neither meum nor tuum nor yet alienum and if there be no alienum there can be no alieni abstinentia and so likewise by the Law of nature men ought to stand to bargains but if all things were common by nature how could there be any bargains In answer to which it will appear that a Propriety of occupancy or the personal possession of things and applying it to the use of one or more men while they have need of it may very well consist with community and is absolutely necessary to the preservation of Mankind As for Example a Theater is in Common to all that have a right of coming thither but no man can say that one place in it is more his than anothers untill he is seated in it and then that place is so much his that whilest the Play lasts no man can without injury put him out of it so likewise supposing
the Earth and fruits thereof to have been at first bestowed in Common on all its inhabitants yet since Gods first Command to man was encrease and multiply if he hath a right to perform the end he hath certainly a right to the means of his preservation and the propagation of his species so that though the fruits of the earth or beasts for food were all in common yet when once any man had by his own labour acquired such a proportion of either as would serve the necessities of himself and Family they became so much his own as that no man could without manifest injustice rob him of these necessities of life and this sort of Community was most Primitive and Natural being still retained among the Americans to this day the rest of the Country lying still in common neither can any Indian prescribe to this or that Tree that grows out of his own Garden or to any of the wild Beasts that this is his more than anothers until he hath either gathered those or killed the other and then all look upon it as robbery to take from each other what they are once possessed of so likewise in this state of Community if an Indian make a bargain with another to give him some of his venizon for such a proportion of maiz or roots there is never an honest Indian but will judge the taker bound to make good his bargain without any dispute so likewise if any two or more of them make a bargain to go a hunting or fishing together upon condition that the Venizon or Fish that they shall take be equally divided amongst them all I think every one of them will think himself wronged if one of them cheat or steal from the rest before the quarry come to be divided So that you may see how true it is which this Author affirms that if all things were common by nature there could be no contracts agreeable to which is the Hypothesis layd down by Grotius ' that God imediately after the Creation did bestow upon Mankind in general a right over all things of an inserior nature from whence it came to pass that presently every man might take what he would for his own occasions and that such an universal right was instead of property for what every man so took another could not take from him but by injury But it seems our Author will have this repugnant to Scripture P. 46. because Mr. Selden in his Mare clausum from I know not what Tradition of the Rabbins ' supposes that Adam by donation from God Gen. 1.28 was made general Lord of all things not without such a private dominion to himself as without his grant did exclude his Children and that by donation assgnation or some kind of cession before he was dead or left any heir to succeed him his Children had their distinct territories by private dominion Abel had his flocks and pastures for them Cane had his fields for Corn and the land of Nod where he built himself a City For the confutation of which opinion I have already proved that Adams absolute dominion over the lives and persons of his Children is not to be deduced from that place of Genesis before cited by Mr. Selden Let us now consider whether Adam had by these words an absolute dominion over the world and all things therein distinct from that of his wife and Children the words are Male and Female created he them and God blessed them and God said unto them be fruitful and multiiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it and have do minion over the Fish of the Sea and over the Fowel of the Air and over every living thing that moveth upon the face of the Waters From whence it may be observed 1. That though these words are placed before the making of Eve by a Prolepsis very usual in Scripture yet it is apparent that they must have been spoken after it by these words male and female created he them since Moses could not speak of a Female untill the woman was made 2. That this Dominion over the creatures is given unto them both joyntly the grant of the Dominion as well as the blessing being given alike to them And God blessed them and said unto them c. 3. That it does not appear that this Dominion was personal to Adam and Eve alone exclusivly to their Children and descendents so that none of them could eat or dispose of any fruits of the Earth for the supplying of the necessities of nature without their leave for the words are general Male and Female created he them and so seem though spoke to the persons of Adam and Eve as the Protoplasts of Mankind to relate to all the Males and Females that ever should be born 4. That this Dominion was not absolute to dispose of the Creatures as they pleased since the previledge of using them for food was not given until after the flood So if these words in Genesis do not prove an absolute Dominion in Adam over all things I do not see any other place that can for though it is true that God after the fall made the woman subject to her husband yet I do not see why she should therefore loose her right of preserving her self by the fruits of the earth or her using any of the Creatures suppose the milk of a Cow without her husbands consent For if Adam had been at any time in an ill humour all the things in the world being his should he have but forbid her to eat any of them without his leave our great Grandmother might have starved without all remedy So likewise had he been at any time angry with any of his Sons and had forbid them to touch so much as an Apple they must either have perished or if they had filled their bellys been at once guilty of Theft and disobedience so that it had been in his power without any violence to have taken away their lives when he pleased But I cannot think it rational neither is it consonant to Scripture that God gave Adam such a despotick power over all things for since all the Children of Adam had as much right to their lives as Adam had himself it must likewise follow that they had as good a right to the fruits of the earth which were then the only means to maintain it and consequently might have filled their bellies when they pleased with any of the natural products of the earth without their Fathers leave for the Psalmist saith God gave the Earth to the Children of men that is not to any one man nor yet absolutely in common but to be either divided or used in common as they should find it stand best with their convenience and way of living so that I shall not much dispute with the Author whether Cain and Abel had their separate Pastures for their Flocks by the Assignment of their Father though I believe it will be a pretty hard task
Authour is to be Servant to his Eldest Brother or to whomever else his Father pleased to bequeath him Is not the case the same And as for the quiet of the Family which is supposed to be preserved by the Sons absolute submission rather than his resistance in any circumstance I think it would rather increase Dissentions by encouraging of Fathers to use their Power over their Children not as Reason but Drunkenness or Passion may impel them Whereas this Right of Children in defending their Lives and not being obliged to give them up at their Fathers pleasure will rather make Parents act moderately and discreetly towards their Children when they know they are not obliged to stay or bear with them upon other conditions than that they may enjoy their Lives in safety and the ordinary means thereof with some comfort Not that I give Children any Right as I said before to disobey their Parents or resist them upon every slight occasion but rather to bear with their Infirmities as far as it is possible And to suffer divers Hardships and Inconveniencies from them rather than to resist or leave them considering the great obligation they owe them So that I do not allow this Remedy but in case of extreme Necessity yet of which the Sufferer only in the state of Nature can be Judge since in that state where there is no Umpire without both their consents but God only every man is Judge when his Life is in danger And if the Peace of Mankinde were to be procured merely by a mans Sufferance and Submission without any respect to this Right then it would be his duty to give himself up to be robb'd or kill'd by any one who had the wickedness to attempt it because himself being innocent may go to Heaven and the other being guilty of an intent to rob or murder may be damned if he be killed And besides it would more conduce to the preservation of Mankinde that but one man should be lost whereas by resistance they may both perish Yet I suppose no man is so sottish as to hold he ought quit his own preservation in these cases or if he do hold it for discourse sake I am sure he would not be so mad as to observe it For this were such an Argument as to hold Because some men may abuse that Law of Self-preservation to another mans destruction Therefore it were unlawful to defend a mans self at all As for the Examples of those Nations and Common-wealths who have permitted Fathers to exercise a Despotick Power over their Children The Law of Nature or right Reason is not to be gathered from the Municipal Laws or Customs of any particular Nation or Commonwealth which are often different and contrary to each other Therefore as to the Jewish Law though I will not say it was contrary to the Law of Nature yet it was extremely rigorous and severe in all its dispensations and does not now oblige Christian Common-wealths in this particular as in divers others much less in the state of Nature And as for the Romans they saw the inconveniencies of this Absolute Power and retrenched it by degrees until it came to be no more than now with us and in most Countreys of Europe So likewise the Arguments which Bodin brings for the absolute power of Parents over their Children depending upon the Roman and Jewish Law may be easily answered from these grounds Having as I hope clear'd this main point of Paternal Authority and of Natural Obedience without giving an extravagant power to Parents on the one hand to abuse their power or a priviledge to Children on the other side to be stubborn or disobedient to their Parents If then this Paternal Authority extend farther than I have seated it I shall own my self beholding to any Friend of the Authour 's or his Opinions to shew me my errour But if they cannot I desire they would consider whether this natural Right of Kings which the Authour asserts precedent to any compact or civil constitution can extend farther than the natural Authority of Fathers from whom they are supposed to derive it and on which it is founded And if it appears that Princes have such Power as our Fathers then all that the Authour hath writ on this subject signifies just nothing Therefore I shall now proceed to examine the rest of his Principles and shall I hope prove that supposing this Fatherly Power as absolute as the Authour fancies yet that his Divine Absolute Monarchy cannot however be derived from thence The Authour seems to think it a Question very easie to be answered If any one asks what comes of this Right of Fatherhood in case the Crown Fatherly power escheat for want of an Heir whether it fall to the People Patriarch P. 20. or what else becomes of it To which his Answer is That it is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to loose the knowledg of the true Heir for an Heir there is always If Adam were still living and now were ready to die it is certain that there is but one Man and but one in the world who is next Heir although the knowledge who should be that one Man be quite lost So that this fine Notion signifies nothing now for Adam being dead and his right Heir not to be known it is all one as if he had none since for ought I know to the contrary the Authors Footman may be the Man But to help this the Author hath found out a couple of Expedients such as they be The first is Directions for Obedience p. 69. That an Vsurper of this Power where the knowledge of the right Heir is lost being in by possession is to be taken and reputed for the true Heir and is to be obeyed by them as their Father And if this will not do he gives us another and tells us Patriarch p. 21. The Government in this case is not devolved upon the multitude but the Kingly power escheats in such cases to the Fathers and independent Heads of Families For every Kingdom is resolved into those parts of which it was first made Each of which we will examine in their turn To begin with the former let us see if it be so easie a thing as the Authour makes it to know who was Adam's or any Monarch's right Heir setting the Municipal Laws of the Country aside so that the People cannot be excused of wilful Ignorance or Negligence if they loose this knowledg Where by the way I observe that as easie a thing as it was to know who was Adam's right Heir and upon whom by the Laws of God and Nature the Crown is to descend upon the Death of the Monarch yet he no where positively answers this important Question For sometimes he is to claim by descent as in this instance of the Heir of Adam sometimes by his Father's last Will as in the case of Noah's Sons according as the Examples out of
Scripture do best serve his turn So that I believe he did not either negligently or ignorantly avoid settling this point because he might still have a hole left to creep out at or else because he could do it no better than the Instances he brings would permit He says Direct for Obedience pag. 68. A Son is always to live under the subjection of his Father unless by Gods immediate appointment or by the Grant or Death of his Father he become himself possess'd of that Power to which he was subject By which words he seems to imply that this Power is to descend to the Eldest Son when his Father dies So likewise in this Treatise we are now upon P. 12. he says Civil Power not only in general is by Divine Institution but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest Parents By which words I suppose he means if any thing eldest Sons though I know not why he should limit it to Parents for methinks it were very hard the eldest Son should forfeit his Right in case he were not a Parent when his Father died So likewise he tells us P. 19. That these Heirs of this Fatherly Power are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Father Yet tells us not plainly which of the Sons is Heir only says a little before That when God made choice of any special Person to be King he always intended that the Issue also should have the benefit thereof Though this general Rule was false in the case of Saul whose Children were disinherited by God to establish the Crown upon David and his Line So uncertain things are Instances drawn from Scripture without any due consideration of the Reason of them But to return to the subject I grant that it is not impossible but from the command of a Father of a Family who hath divers other Families under him there may spring a Civil Government though the Fatherly Authority doth properly regard the Education of the Children and the Masterly Power to encrease Riches And though it is not changed barely by the great number of Children or Servants yet the difference between them is not so wide that there can be no transition from one to the other unless a new Right of Soveraign Majesty be produced by God For if a Father of a Family being provided of a great stock of Children and Slaves will by way of Manumission permit them to enjoy their own Goods and Families apart on that condition that they submit to his Government for their common Security I do not see what is wanting to the making him a Prince if he have strength sufficient to perform the ends of a Commonwealth But he dying and nominating a Successour if his Sons will consent to him and confirm his Will they may if they please if not all of them as in an Interregnum may appoint what sort of Government they will have for the future Nor will the Law of Nature be violated if the youngest Son having most Votes should be elected in his Fathers stead I should be glad any man could demonstrate to me from the Laws of God and Nature that Adam's eldest Son was by the Right of Eldership to be Lord over his Brethren without their Election or Consent when their Father died Indeed the Jewish Law allow'd a preheminence to the Elder Brother and that he should have a double portion and be reverenced by all his Brethren exprest by this Phrase of Let thy Mothers Sons bow before thee But this proves not that as Eldest Son he had therefore a Right of exercising all that Authority upon the Death of their Father over his Brethren which his Father had before Neither had Jacob any such Right over Esau though he sold his Birthright or the eldest or any other Son of Jacob any such Right over his Brethren for certainly God would not have abrogated it if they had So that Jacob's Authority as a Father ended with his Life and for any Despotick Propriety or Dominion over them I have already proved that the Father has none in the state of Nature Yet admitting he had the Children notwithstanding would have been free at his Death For Servitude being a mere personal Duty due only to the person of him that acquired this Slave when the person dies to whom he owed this subjection the Slave is free in the state of Nature unless the Lord of this Slave transferr'd his Right in him to another in his life-time a mans Person not being like a brute beast to be seiz'd by whoever can lay hold of him he hath no longer any obligation to serve his Children unless he will make himself their Slave of his own accord But if it be answered that the Father may bequeath this Right of Dominion over his Children at his Death by his Will to which of his Sons he pleased and that he that is so constituted by their Father is Lord over all the rest of his Brethren and endeavour to prove this from Genesis the 9. vers 25 26 27. where Noah cursing Canaan because Ham his Father had derided his nakedness says He shall be a Servant unto his Brethren I desire you would take notice that this Answer quite gives up the Natural Right of the Heir or Eldest Son 2. I suppose this rather was a Prediction or Curse to be fulfilled in Canaan's Posterity than upon himself For first this Right was not given as it ought to have been over the Person of Ham the Offender Observat on Grotius p. 49 50. whom this Authour allows to have had an equal share with his Brethren in the division of the World and so to have been in all Prerogatives equal with them Neither doth he give this Right to one of them bâ—… to both alike saying both of Shem and Japhet that Canaan should be their Servant which could not be meant of his person since that could not be divided by them both who were like to live at so great a distance therefore it can onely signifie that his Descendants should be slaves to the others And several Commentators upon this place do suppose that Moses related this Curse of Noah upon Ham onely to shew the Jews the Right they had to make slaves of the Canaanites because they were descended from Canaan And as for the Right of bequeathing slaves by Testament it is much disputed whether by the Law of Nature Testaments have any force in this case those that have written of it being much divided about it in the state of Nature since all Propriety in that state being but Occupancy or Possession which ceases with the life of the Occupant Therefore since a Testament commences onely from the Testators death who as soon as he died lost his Right in the Goods bequeathed since the dead can have no interest in any thing neither can the Legatee sustain the person of the Testator since this