Sons of Esau and Ishmael are reckon'd as so many independant Princes or Dukes and Lords of distinct Territories without any Superiority in the eldest Son who ought by the Authours Principle to have been absolute Lord over the rest And if these could divide themselves into as many distinct Governments as there were Sons Why might not they do so in infinitum And then there could never be any common Prince or Monarch set over them all but by Force or Conquest or else by Election either of which destroys the notion of the Natural Right of Eldership And as for the places he brings to prove it 1. Gods words to Gain concerning Abel will not do it His desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt rule over him For first this might be spoken only personally to Cain and not to give a Right to all Eldest Sons Secondly the words do not signifie an absolute Despotick Power but a ruling or governing by perswasion or fair means as when a man is ruled that is advised by another in his concerns Then as for the blessing upon Jacob by his Father Isaac Be Lord over thy Brethren and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee 't was never litterally fulfilled For Jacob was never Lord over Esau who was a Prince of Mount Seir in Jacob's life-time whilst Jacob was at best but Lord of his own family And as for bowing and other Rights of Superiority we read Gen. 33.3 that Jacob at his Interview with his Brother Esau called him Lord and bowed seven times to the ground before he came to him So that this Text is no more than a Prophecy to shew why the Jews or descendents of Jacob should have Right in After-times to rule over the Edomites or Posterity of Esau Lastly this Example makes against the Authour for it seems it is not the Eldest Son but whom the Father pleases to appoint is Heir after his death Since here Esau looses his Birth right by his own act but chiefly by his Fathers Will. Yet if after all some will urge from the Principles I have laid down that it seems more to conduce to the happiness and peace of Families and in that to the great end I have before laid down the common good of Mankinde rather to allow this absolute Power of Life and Death to Parents over their Children and an absolute Subjection to them as long as they live since Parents do usually take that care to breed up their Children and to have that tender Affection towards them that they will seldom take away their Lives or sell them for Slaves or keep them so themselves unless there be very great cause of which the Father only ought to be Judge since it being the nature of most Children to be apt to contradict and disobey their Fathers commands or perhaps resist them pretending they would kill them when they only go about to give them due correction And since most young people hate restraint and love to be gadding abroad they having a Right by these Principles to judge when they are able to shift for themselves would take any slight pretence to run away from their Father assoon as they were grown pretty big and so perhaps leave their Parents in their old Age when they had no body to take care of them whereby nothing but confusion and quarrels would happen in Families great mischief to the Parents and often ruine to the Children who being often opiniatred and self-will'd would think better of their own abilities than they really deserved And therefore divers Nations seeing these great Inconveniencies did by their Laws leave Parents the Power of Life and Death over their Children Such were those the Author instances in the Persians See Patriarcha p. 38. chap. 2. Gauls and many Nations in the West-Indies And the Romans even in their Popular State had this Law in force Which Power of Parents was ratified and amplified by the Laws of the XII Tables enabling of Parents to sell their Children three times And the Law of Moses gives full power to the Father to stone his disobedient Son so it be done in presence of a Magistrate And yet it did not belong to the Magistrate to inquire and examine the justness of the cause but it was so ordained lest the Father should in his Anger suddenly or secretly kill his Son To all which I answer that since this Argument quits the natural Power of a Father by Generation and only sticks to the acquired one of education and appeals to the common good of Mankinde I do acknowledge it is a better than any of the rest Yet I think it is not true that Parents in the state of Nature would more seldome abuse their power than Children would this Natural Liberty I here allow them of defending and providing for themselves in cases of extreme Danger and Necessity For this Temptation to do ill is greater on the Fathers side than that of the Children For they looking on themselves as having an absolute and unquestionable power over them and that they may deal with them as they please are apt to think themselves slighted and disobeyed by their Children perhaps on very light occasions and their Passion often rises to that height as not considering the Follies and Inconsiderateness of Youth that they may if Cholerick or Ill-natur'd strike them with that which may either kill them or else cripple or maim them and perhaps out of an immoderate Anger or being weary of them murder them on purpose And Fathers being more apt as having oftner occasion to be angry with their Children than their Children with them it is evident to me that in the state of Nature where there is no Magistrate to keep the Father in awe Fathers will be as apt to kill or maim their Children as Children their Parents And if the Fathers as I said before are intended for the good and preservation of their Child and that where their Right ceases the Childrens Right to preserve themselves takes place It seems to conduce more to the general good of Mankinde that the Children should make use of this last refuge of defending themselves when they cannot otherwise preserve their Lives and Members than that Fathers should have such an absolute Right to deal with them as they pleased without any power in the Children to resist or defend themselves So likewise Fathers being so much older understand their own advantage better than their Children and being somtimes more ill-natur'd and often by reason of their Age more covetous than they may be tempted to sell their Children for Slaves whereby they may fall into a condition worse than Death itself and may not the Son then endeavour to run away or use all lawful means possible to escape so great a misery Or if the Father will keep his Son as a Slave all the days of his life without any hopes of ever being free For when the Father dies the Son according to this
the Second Point proposed and consider what kinde of Right this is and how far it extends Since therefore the Father's greatest interest in his Child proceeds from his having bred it up and taken care of it and that this Duty is founded on that great Law of Nature that every Man ought to endeavour the common good of Mankinde which he performs as far as lies in his power in breeding up and taking care of his Child it follows that this right in the Child or power over it extends no farther than as it conduces to this end that is the good and preservation thereof and when this Rule is transgressed the Right ceases For God hath not delivered one man into the power of another merely to be tyrannized over at his pleasure but that the person who hath this Authority may use it for the good of those he governs And herein lies the difference between the Interest which a Father hath in his Children and that property which he hath in his Horses or Slaves since his right to the former extends only to those things that conduce to their Good and Benefit but in the other he hath no other consideration but the profit he may reap from their labour and service being under no other obligation but that of Humanity and of using them as becomes a good-natur'd and merciful man yet still considering and intending his own advantage as the principal end of his keeping of them Whereas in his Children he is chiefly to design their good and advantage as far as lies in his power without ruining himself and though he justly may make use of their labour and service while they continue as part of his Family yet it is not for the same end alone that he uses his Horses or Slaves but that his Children being bred up in a constant course of Industry may be the better able either to get their own living or else to spend their time as they ought to do without falling into the Vices of Idleness or Debauchery So that it is evident the Father has no more right over the Life of his Child than another man being as much answerable to God if he abuse this Right of a Father in killing his innocent Son as if another had done it Neither hath he from the same Principles any right to maim or castrate his Child as this Author allows him to do in his Directions for Obedience much less sell him for a Slave Therefore it is no part of the Law of Nature unless he cannot otherwise provide for it but of the Roman or Civil-Law that a Father should have power to sell his Son three times For the Father is appointed by God to meliorate the condition of his Child but not to make it worse since it is not himself but God that properly gave him his being So that I hope I have sufficiently proved there is a great difference between a Child and a Slave or a Servant for Life though this Authour will have them in the state of Nature to be all one But for the better clearing of this point how far the power of Parents over their Children extends I think we may very well divide as Grotius does the life of the Child into three periods or ages De J.B. l. 2. c. 5. § 2. The first is the time of imperfect judgment or before the Child comes to be able to exercise his Reason The second is the period of perfect Judgment yet whilst the Child still continues part of his Fathers Family The third is after he hath left his Father's and either enters into another Family or sets up a Family himself In the first Period all the actions of Children are under the absolute dominion of their Parents for since they have not the use of Reason nor are able to judge what is good or bad for themselves they could not grow up nor be preserved unless their Parents judged for them what means conduced to this end yet this power is still to be directed for the principal end the good and preservation of the Child In the second Period when they are of mature Judgment yet continue part of their Fathers Family they are still under their Fathers command and ought to be obedient to it in all actions which tend to the good of their Fathers Family and concerns and in both these Ages the Father hath a power to set his Children to work as well to enable them to get their own Living as to recompence himself for the pains and care he hath taken and the charge he may have bin at in their Education For though he were obliged by the Law of Nature to breed up his Children yet there is no reason but he may make use of their labour as a natural recompence for his trouble And in this Period the Father hath power to correct his Son if he prove negligent or disobedient since this Correction is for his advantage to make him more careful and diligent another time and to subdue the stubbornness of his Will But in other actions the Children have a power of acting freely yet still with respect of gratifying and pleasing their Parents to whom they are obliged for their Being and Education since without their care they could not have attained to that age But since this Duty is not by force of any absolute Subjection but only of Piety Gratitude and Observance it does not make void any act though done contrary to those Duties as Marriage and the like for the gift of a thing is not therefore void though made contrary to the Rule of Prudence and Frugality In the third Period they are in all actions free and at their own dispose yet still under those obligations of Gratitude Piety and Observance toward their Parents as their greatest Benefactors since if that they have well discharged their Duty toward their Children they can never in their whole lives sufficiently recompence so great benefits as they have received from them But it seems the Authour is not satisfied with these distinctions Observations on Grotius de J. B. p. 62. but saies He cannot conceive how in any case Children can ever naturally have any power or moral Faculty of doing what they please without their Parents leave since they are always bound to study to please them And though by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of discretion have Power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by positive humane Laws only which are made by the Supreme Fatherly Power of Princes who regulate limit or assume the Authority of Inferiour Fathers for the publick benefit of the Commonwealth So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceaseth by any separation but only by the permission of the transcendent Fatherly Power of the Supreme Prince Children may be dispensed with or priviledged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents For my part I see no
these Patriarchs â—ere For this will serve toward the solving those â—xamples he puts of Abram's power of Peace and â—ar and of Judah's power of Life and Death over 〈◊〉 Daughter-in-law Thamar We will first then conâ—er the power of a Father by the Law of Nature â—er his Children and then that of a Master of a Faâ—ly over his Wife Servants or Slaves To begin â—…th that of a Father as the most worthy I shall deavour to search into the Original of the Father's â—wer over the persons of his Children and how far extends It is evident that this Power of Fathers over their â—ildren can only take place in the state of Wedlock 〈◊〉 as to Children got out of Marriage it is uncertain â—o is their Father who can only be known by the declaration of the Mother and she sometimes cannot certainly tell her self So that no man is obliged to take care of or breed up a Bastard because the Mother if she had her liberty of keeping what company she pleased can never morally assure him that the Child is his therefore unless he take upon him the care and education of this Child it belongs to the Mother and not to him to provide for it So that the Right of the Father over his Child commences by vertue 〈◊〉 the Marriage which is a mutual Compact between a Man and a Woman for their Cohabitation the generation of Children and their joint care and provision for them So that though by the Law of Nature which is confirm'd by the Law of God the Woman as the weaker vessel is to be subject to the Man as the stronger stouter and commonly the wiser creature 〈◊〉 whose care and courage she must owe the greatest parâ— of her provision and protection yet she is not without an Interest in the Children since she is under 〈◊〉 obligation to perform her part and that the most 〈◊〉 borious and troublesome in their Education thougâ— her Power and Right in them be still subordinate 〈◊〉 that of the Man to whom by force of the Marriage shâ— hath already subjected herself Some Writers therâ— fore think they have done sufficiently when they 〈◊〉 us that the Father hath an absolute Dominion ovâ— his Child because he got it and is the cause of it being By this Argument the Mother hath greatâ— Right over the person of the Child since all Natâ— ralists hold the Child partakes more of her than of 〈◊〉 Father and she is besides at greater pain and troubâ— both in the bearing bringing it forth nursing anâ— breeding it up But if it be answered that the Maâ— being Master of his Wife is by the Contract so likâ— wise of her Issue Then it follows that this power 〈◊〉 the Father does not commence barely from Geneâ—… tion but is acquired from the Contract of Marriage which till I meet with some reason to the contrary I see not why it might not be so agreed by the Contracts that the Father should not dispose of the Children without the Mothers consent Since we see it often so agreed in the Marriages of Soveraign Princes Vid. Articles of Marriage between King Philip and Queen Mary in Godwin's Annals An. 1554. Thuanus Lib. IX So likewise where a Subject marries his Queen as the Lord Darnley's Marriage with Mary Qu. of Scotland the Soveraignty and consequently the Power over the Children to be born remained entirely in Her who are always supposed to be in the state of Nature in respect to each other Yet though I will not deny but some Gratitude and Acknwledgment is due from Children to Parents even for this that they did enter into the state of Marriage for their generation and were the occasion of their Being Yet I do not see how by this alone a Father acquires an absolute power and dominion over the person of the Child to dispose of it as he thinks fit Since Parents acting here only as Natural and not Moral Agents they are not the voluntary Causes of its generation Therefore I cannot found so great a Right as that of an absolute perpetual Dominion over the Children upon so slight a foundation We must therefore trace this Right of Fathers over his Children to a more true original than any of these Since then all the Laws of Nature or Reason are intended for one end or effect viz. the common good and preservation of Mankinde and that Marriage is no otherwise a Duty than as by the propagation of our Species it conduces to without the help and assistance of others and that the Parents entred into this state of Marriage for the procreation of Children both the Instinct of Nature and Law of Reason dictate that they are obliged to take care of and provide for that Child which they as subordinate Causes have produced as being those on whom God hath imposed this Duty which is much greater than that of Generation for now the world is sufficiently peopled it may be doubted whether any person is obliged to Marry further than it may consist with their conveniency or course of Life But Parents when they are Married are tyed by the Laws of Nature to take care of the Children Therefore I suppose the highest Right of Parents in their Children doth arise merely from their discharge of this great Duty of Education as may appear from this Instance Suppose the Parents not being willing to undertake the trouble of breeding up the Child do either expose it or pass over their Right in it to another assoon as it is born I desire to know if the person that finds this Child or he to whom it is assigned breed it up until it come to have the use of Reason what Duty this Child can owe his Parents if they are made known to him Certainly all the obligation he can have to them must be upon the score of their begetting him which how small that is you may observe from what hath been said before nor can the Parents claim any further Right in this Child since by their exposing and granting it away they renounced all the Interest they could have in it so that the Duty and Gratitude he should have owed them had they taken upon them the care and trouble of breeding him up is now due to his Foster-Father or Mother who took care of him until he was able to shift for himself From whence it is evident that the highest Right which Parents can have in their Children is not meerly natural from generation but acquir'd by their performance of that nobler part of their Duty And so the highest Obedience which Children owe their Patents proceeds from that Gratitude and Sense they ought to have of the great obligation they owe their Parents for the trouble and care they put them to in their Education Having now I hope found out the Original of Parents Right and Interest in their Children and the chief ground of their Gratitude and Duty to their Parents we will now proceed to
reason why these distinctions of Grotius may not be well enough defended against all the Reasons which the Authour gives us to the contrary For he only tells us He cannot conceive how in any case Children can ever naturally have any power or moral faculty of doing what they please without their Fathers leave and that naturally the Power of Parents never ceaseth by any separation c. but gives us no other reason than that they are always bound to study to please them As if this obligation of Gratitude and Complacency did likewise comprehend a full and perfect propriety of all Fathers in the persons of their Children and an absolute power over them in all cases whatsoever so that Children shall have no Right left to consult their own good or preservation in any case whatsoever Vid. Bodin de Rep. l. 1. c. 4. farther than the Father pleases As for Bodin and divers others that have writ on this subject they do no more than follow others who have asserted this Absolute Power upon no other grounds than the Jewish or Roman Municipal Laws but have never troubled themselves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial Subjection according to the Laws of Nature or Reason And most Treatises of this subject being commonly written by Fathers they have been very full in setting forth their own Power and Authority over their Children but have said little or nothing of the Rights of Children in the state of Nature towards their Parents Loc. sup laudat Therefore Bodin thinks he hath done enough in supposing that if a Father is wise and not mad he will never kill his Son without cause since he will never correct him without he deserve it and that therefore the Civil Law supposes that the Will of the Parents in managing the concerns of their Children is void of all Fraud and that they will rather violate all Divine and Humane Laws than not endeavour to make their Children both rich and honourable And from those instances out of the Roman Law supposes that Parents cannot so much as will any thing to their Childrens prejudice or so much as abuse this Fatherly Power of Life and Death And therefore thinks he hath sufficiently answered the Objection he makes that there have been some Parents who have abused this power so far as to put their Children to Death without cause He says They give us no Examples to the contrary And supposing this to have sometimes fallen out must therefore Legislators alter a wholsome Law because some persons may abuse it But if we consider what Bodin hath here said we shall finde every one of his Suppositions false For 1. he supposes it to be the Right of all Fathers by the Law of Nature to have an absolute power over the lives and persons of their Children 2. That the Jewish and Roman Law are most agreeable to the Laws of Nature in this point 3. That Fathers do seldom or never abuse this power 4. That if they do abuse it yet it is better to leave it in their hands than to abrogate it or retrench it The falseness of all which Assertions I either have already or else shall hereafter make manifest Only I shall remark thus much at present That upon Bodin's principle women that murder their Bastards would have a good time on 't because having no Husbands they have full power over the Life of their Children and there is no reason that it should be retrencht by any positive Laws because some offend against it But however this Argument of Bodin's would do our Author's cause no good for if Parents are to be trusted with this absolute power over their Children because of the natural affection they are always supposed to bear them then Princes ought not to be trusted with it since none but Parents themselves can have this natural affection towards their Children Princes as the Author grants having this power onely as representing these Parents Whereas Parentage is a natural Relation and neither can be created nor assigned farther than the Civil Laws of the Country have appointed and therefore there can be no adopted Son by the Law of Nature since Adoption arises chiefly from the promise and consent of the person adopted and partly from the Authority of the Civil Law or Municipal Law of the Commonwealth So that in relation to Princes upon this Reason of Bodin's cessante causa cessat effectus But indeed Bodin never dreamt of this fine Notion of our Author's that all Monarchs were not onely Heads but Fathers of their people or else certainly we should have had this as the chief Argument to prove his French Monarchy to be Jure Divino But I shall trouble my self no farther with him at present but shall proceed to consider this point of absolute Obedience a little farther I suppose the Author as any sober man else would grant that Children are not obliged so much as to attempt to perform the commands of their Parents in case they evidently appear impossible or extravagant such as a Father may give when he is in a fit of drunkenness madness or sudden rage which is all one with madness and of this who can judge but the Children who are to perform these Commands And in this case no man will deny but it is lawful for the Children to hold nay binde their mad or drunken Parents in case they cannot otherwise hinder them from doing mischief or killing either themselves their Mothers or Brethren So that though they may do this from that natural love charity which all men in the state of nature ought to shew toward each other yet they may likewise justifie the doing of it as Children who ought to have a greater concern for the good and preservation of their Parents than meer strangers and have therefore an higher obligation to prevent their doing any mischief either to themselves or neer Relations this being for the Fathers good and preservation and that for which he hath cause to thank them when he comes to himself And if it be said that the Son may then refuse his Fathers Commands or resist them pretending he is mad drunk or in a rage when he really is not and thereby take occasion to obey his Father no farther than he pleases to this I answer That the Son is either really perswaded that his Father is in some of those evil circumstances before mentioned or else onely pretends that he thinks so when really he does not If in the first case he erre in his judgment and the ignorance did not proceed from his own fault either of passion prejudice or too slight an esteem of his Fathers understanding he is not culpable though he make such a false judgment of his Fathers actions for God considering onely the sincerity of the heart does not require of any man more than he is able to perform But if on the other side the Son play the Hypocrite and refuse
his Parents Commands pretending they are mad or drunk when really they are not he is without doubt doubly guilty both of Hypocrisie and Disobedience But this does not hinder Children in the state of Nature from judging of the reasonableness or lawfulness of their Parents Commands and of the condition they are in when they gave them for otherwise a Child ought to be of his Fathers Religion though it were Idolatry if he commanded it or were obliged to break any of the Laws of Nature if this Obedience were absolute And it is a lesser evil that the Commands of Parents should be disobeyed nay sometimes their persons resisted than that they should make a Right to command or do unreasonable and unlawful things in a fit of madness drunkenness or passion destroy either themselves or others But it may be replied that though Fathers in the state of Nature have no Right to act unjustly or cruelly toward their Children or to command such unlawful or unreasonable things yet however they are onely answerable to God for so doing and there is out of a Commonwealth no superiour power that can question the Fathers actions for since his Children are committed by God to his care he onely is answerable for them and for his actions towards them since no other man hath any interest or concern in them but himself So that if he kill maim abuse or sell his Son there is no man that hath Right to revenge punish or call him to an account for so doing and if no others that are his equals much less his Wife and Children who are so much his Inferiours and who ought in all things to be obedient to his Will Therefore this Power though it be not absolute in respect of God yet is so in respect of his Wife and Children and so in all cases where the Children cannot yield an active Obedience to their Fathers commands they are notwithstanding obliged by the Law of God See Ephes 6.1 Colos 3.20 to a passive one and patiently to submit to whatever evils or punishments he pleases to inflict though it were to the loss of Life itself To which I answer That though it is true a Father in the state of Nature and considered as the head of a separate Family hath no Superiour but God and consequently no other person whatsoever hath any Authority or Right to call him to an account and punish him for this abuse of his paternal Power yet it doth not follow that such absolute submission is therefore due from the Children as does oblige them either to an active or a passive Obedience in all cases to the Fathers Will so that they neither may nor ought to defend themselves in any circumstance whatsoever There is a great deal of difference in the state of Nature between calling a man to an account as a Superiour and defending a mans self as an equal For a man in this state hath a right to this latter against all men that assault him by the principle of Self-preservation But no man hath a right to the former but onely in respect of those over whom he hath an Authority either granted him by God or conferr'd upon him by the consent of other men So that the evils which an Aggressor or Wrong-doer suffers from him he injured though in respect of God the Supreme Lawgiver they may be natural Punishments ordained by him to deter men from violating the Laws of Nature yet they are not so in regard of the Person who inflicts them For God may sometimes appoint those for the Instruments of his Justice who otherwise do injury to the person punished as in the case of Absalom's Rebellion against his Father David So that in this case the evils the wrong-doer suffers are not properly Punishments but necessary Consequences of his Violence and Injustice and in respect of the Inflicter are but necessary means of his preservation So that if a Son have any Right to defend himself in what belongs to him from the unjust violence of his Father he doth not act as his Superiour but in this case as his Equal as he is indeed in all the Rights of Nature considered only as a Man Such as are a Right to live and to preserve himself and to use all lawful means for that end Therefore since as I have already shown that a Father hath no higher Right or Authority from God over the person of his Child but as it tends to his good and preservation or as it conduces to the great end of Nature the common Good and preservation of Mankinde So when the Father transgresses this Authority his Right ceases and when that ceases the Sons Right to preserve himself and in that to pursue that great end begins to take place Therefore out of a Civil state if a Father will endeavour evidently without any just cause to take away his Sons Life I think the Son may in this case if he cannot otherwise escape nor avoid it and that his Father will not be pacified neither with his submission nor entreaty defend himself against his Father not with a design to kill him but purely to preserve his own Life and if in this case the Father happen to be kill'd I think his Blood is upon his own head But if any object to me the Example of Isaac's submission to his Father when he intended to sacrisice him To this I answer that as this act of Abraham's is not to be taken as an Example for other Fathers so neither does the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons For as Abraham had no right to offer up his Son but by God's express Will so it is rational to suppose that Isaac being then as Chronologers make him about nineteen or twenty years of Age and able to carry wood enough upon his back to consume the Sacrifice and of years to ask where the Lamb was for the Offering was also instructed by his Father of the cause of his dealing so with him and then the submission was not paid to his Father's but to God's Will whom he was perswaded would have it so But if any man yet doubts whether resistance in such a case were lawful I leave it to his own Conscience whether if his Father and he were out of any civil estate whose assistance he might implore he would lie still and suffer his Father to cut his throat only because he had a minde to it or pretended revelation for it So likewise if a Father in this state should go about to violate his Sons Wife in his presence or to kill her or his Grandchildren I suppose he may as lawfully use the same means for their preservation if he cannot otherwise obtain it as he might for his own since they are delivered to his charge and that he only is answerable for them For since the Father doth not acquire any property in the Sons person either by begetting or educating him much less ought he to have it over those
the Son hath begotten But though Children may have this Right of defending their own Lives or those of their Wives and Children from their Fathers unjust violence when they can by no means else be preserved Yet I would not be here understood to give Children this right of resisting upon any less occasion as if the Father should only go about to correct his Son though without just cause it were therefore lawful for him to resist or beat his Father For we are obliged by the Law of Christ to bear smaller Injuries from others much more from a Father neither yet would I give them any right to continue this state of War and to revenge upon their Parents the Injuries they have formerly received at their hands For all Revenge taken in this sence as a satisfaction of the minde in returning of an evil or injury already received without any respect to a mans own preservation or the good of the person that did the wrong is unlawful even in the state of Nature Therefore this returning Evil for Evil which some improperly call Revenge is only justifiable for one or both of these ends either to make the party that hath done the Injury sensible of his Errour and seeing the Follies and Inconveniences of it to alter his minde and resolve to do so no more or as it may conduce to a mans own preservation for the future and be a warning to others not to injure him in like manner since they see he will not take injuries tamely But all this is still left to a mans own prudence how far he will pass them by And he is certainly obliged to leave off returning them assoon as he can be safe without it since otherwise quarrels would be perpetual Neither ought one who hath been highly obliged to a man perhaps for his life to return him evil for evil since scarce any Injury being great enough to cancel so great an Obligation Therefore since a Father who hath truely performed his Duty is the greatest Benefactor we can imagine in this life so no man ought to revenge an Injury though never so great upon him since it is not only undutiful but ungrateful and cannot serve either of those two ends for which alone this returning evil for evil is allowable For first it cannot make the Father see his fault since this correction being from a Son whom he looks upon as one highly obliged to him and so much his inferior will rather serve to exasperate than amend him Secondly Neither can this bearing of the Injury encourage others to attempt doing the like since all that know the case will likewise consider the person that did the wrong So that Patience alone is the only lawful means to make the Father see his Errour and be reconciled to his Child who ought to embrace it assoon as the Father offers it But as for the places of Scripture brought for absolute Obedience to Parents viz. the fourth Commandment Honour thy Father and thy Mother Children obey your Parents in the Lord Ephes 6.1,2 and Children obey your Parents in all things Col. 3.20 God did not intend here to give us any new Law or Precept concerning this Duty but to confirm and explain the fifth Commandment as that was but a confirmation of the Law of Nature by which men were obliged to reverence and obey their Parents long before that Law was given Therefore since the Laws of Nature which are but Rules of right Reason for the good of Mankinde are the foundation of this Commandment and of all those commands in the New Testament they are still to be interpreted according to that Rule Neither are other places of Scripture understood in any other sence such as are those of turning the right Cheek of giving away a mans Coat to him that would go to Law and the like all which we are not to Interpret Literally See Grotius and. Dr. Hammond's Annot. upon these places but according to Reason And so are likewise these words of St. Paul to be understood Children obey your Parents in all things that is in all things reasonable and lawful And this sence must be allowed of or else Children were bound to obey all commands of their Parents whether unlawful or lawful being comprehended under this general word All. Nor will the distinction of an active or passive Obedience help in this case for passive Obedience cannot be the end of the Fathers command and consequently his will is not performed in suffering since no Father can be so unreasonably cruel as to command a thing meerly because he would have occasion to punish his Son whom he thinks must not resist him Neither do these places appoint a Son when an infant a man of full age and perhaps an old man of threescore to be all governed the same way or that the same Obedience is required of them all And this brings me to a fuller Answer to the Author's Argument and to shew that though Children are indeed always bound in Gratitude to please their Parents as far as they are able without ruining themselves and to pay a great reverence to them yet that this submission is not an absolute subjection but is to be limited according to the Rules of right Reason or Prudence And to prove this I will produce instances from the case of Adam's Children since the Author allows no Father to have had a larger authority than himself We will therefore consider in the first place Adam's power as a Father in respect of his Sons marriage Suppose then that he had commanded one of his Sons never to marry at all certainly this command would have been yoid since then it had been in Adam's power to have frustrated Gods Command to mankind of increase and multiply and replenish the Earth which was not spoken to Adam and Eve alone since they could not do it in their persons but to all mankind represented in them And likewise Adam had been the occasion of his Sons incontinency if he had lain with any of his Sisters before marriage Secondly Suppose Adam had commanded Abel to marry one of his Sisters that being the onely means then appointed to propagate mankind which he could not love can any man think that he had been obliged to do it Certainly no for it would have been a greater sin to marry a wife he knew before-hand he could not live with than to disobey his Father for else how could this be true Therefore shall a man leave Father and Mother and cleave to his Wife Since then Adam could not force his Sons affections but onely recommend such of his Sisters as he thought would best suit with his humour therefore if the Son could not live without marriage and that Adam could not force a Wife upon him it was most reasonable that he should chuse a Wife for himself And to come to that other great point that the Son can never separate himself from his Fathers Family nor subjection
as his Lord and Master without his consent Suppose then that Adam had been so cruel and unnatural as some Fathers are and being sensible of the profit he received from his Sons labours would never have given them leave to have left his Family and have set up for themselves nor to have had any thing of their own but onely allowing them and their Wives a bare subsistance have kept them like slaves as long as they lived the Author I suppose would reply That he might have done so if he had pleased and that the Sons had no lawful means to help themselves since he onely was Judge when or whether ever it was fit to set them free or no. But I desire to know whether Adam had this power by a natural Right or an acquired not by the latter for I have already proved that neither Generation nor Possession can confer an absolute Right over the person of another Nor yet could he have it by the Sons consent for they would never give their consent to such an absolute slavish subjection Nor yet could he have any such Right by the revealed Will of God since I have also proved that such an absolute subjection is nowhere requir'd by him in Scripture But now to return to the acquired Right of Education neither can that confer so absolute a power over any mans person as that therefore he should be a slave to his Fosterer as long as he liv'd since admitting that the Father or other person that takes upon him that care may perhaps justly claim a Right in the service or labour of the Childe to satisfie them for their trouble and charge in bringing him up Yet it does not therefore follow that this service is due as long as the Childe lives but rather until such time as they can make his labour satisfie them for their charge and trouble in keeping him which may very well be by that time the Child attains to twenty five years of age at farthest And there are those that have offered to breed up and maintain all the Foundlings and Bastard-children in England if they may be bound to serve them until about that age So that I see no reason why a few years Education should give any man a Right over another person as long as he lived But if it be urged that the Childe owed his life to his Father or Fosterer since without his assistance he must have perisht and therefore the service of the Child 's whole life is but little enough to recompence it to this I answer That the Parents are under an absolute obligation by the Laws of God and Nature to breed up their Childe and they sin if they do not perform it as they ought the end of a Father not being chiefly for the breeding up and preservation of the Child and therefore there is no reason he should acquire such a property in him meerly because he did his duty and the intent of a Father being to better the condition of his Son and not to make it worse I doubt whether an absolute or perpetual Servitude or Death it self were the better bargain and if this Right will not hold for the Father himself much less will it for a Fosterer since he is likewise obliged by the Laws of Nature and Humanity if he be able to breed up the Child he finds and not to let it perish So that the advantage he may make of the Child ought not to be the principal end of his undertaking but the doing of good to mankind and the advantage is to be considered onely as an encouragement not as the onely motive to his duty since he is obliged to do the same thing though he were sure the Childe would either die or be taken away from him before it could be with him half long enough to satisfie him Neither does this reason hold true according to the Scripture-rules of Gratitude that a man hath Right to exact of one to whom he hath done a Courtesie or bestowed a Benefit a Return as great as the Benefit bestowed since this were not beneficence but meer bartering or exchange And a man who had his life saved by anothers assistance suppose by pulling him out of the water was obliged by this principle to leave his life at his disposal ever after Therefore I see no reason from all that hath yet been said why a Son when he comes to be a man able to shift for himself may not in the state of nature marry and separate himself from his fathers Family even without his Fathers consent if he cannot otherwise obtain his liberty by his entreaty and all fair means Not but that the Father may if he please disinherit his Son for so doing or for marrying without his consent since every man is free to dispose of his own upon what conditions he thinks fit And the Son was to have considered before-hand which he valued most his own Liberty or his Fathers kindness and the hopes of his share of his Estate after his death But I now come to the Author 's main Argument from Scripture-Examples That the Patriarchs by a Right derived from Adam did exercise as Heads of their respective Families a dominion as absolute as that of any Monarch And so instances in Thamar brought out to be burnt by her Father-in-law Judah Touching War Abram 's commanding an Army of 318 Souldiers of his own Family Esau 's meeting his Brother with 400 men at Arms For matter of Peace Abram 's making a League with Abimelech And that these acts of judging in capital Crimes of making War and Peace are the chiefest marks of Soveraignty that are found in a Monarchy All which I shall endeavour to answer First The instance of Judah rather makes against him for he confines this power before to the chief Father of the Family and will never have Children to be free from subjection to their Fathers whereas in this case Judah as Head of his own Family exercised an absolute power of Life and Death and so was free from subjection to his Father Jacob who was then living And suppose as the Text Gen. 38. expresses Judah went down from his Brethren to a certain Adullamite and there married and set up a distinct Family yet this will not help the Author since p. 33. he will not allow the Fatherly Authority to be confined to one Family if the Families were at such a distance as they might receive their fathers commands which lies upon him to prove And therefore this subjection was not perpetual Secondly I shall shew by another Example that the Head of a Family hath not absolute power of the lives of his Children and Grandchildren and that is from Reuben's pathetical Speech Gen. 42. to his Father Jacob when he refused to send Benjamin with him into Egypt Slay my two sons says he if I bring him not unto thee Now if Jacob had this absolute power as a Father it had been impertinent
in Reuben to have spoke thus since he knew his Father had power to slay his Sons if he thought fit whether he gave him such an authority or not But if it be replied that Jacob when his Sons married might set them at liberty and so give them power of Life and Death that is make them absolute in their respective Families This is gratis dictum and no proof brought of it out of Scripture and therefore may as well be otherwise Nor is it likely that Jacob should thus manumit his Sons since it is apparent they did not then set up distinct Families for we finde Jacob still commanding them as Head of the Family to go down and buy Corn in Egypt saying Go down and buy us that is the whole Family whereof they were Members a little food And yet these Sons did not think their Fathers command so absolute but that they tell him plainly they will not go down unless he send Benjamin with them As for the other Examples of Abram's exercising the full power of a Prince in making War and Peace I will not deny that the Heads of separate Families being out of Commonwealths have many things analogous to them though they are not Commonwealths themselves And the reason why I do not allow them to be so is because the ends of a Family and a Commonwealth are divers and so many parts of a Monarchical Empire are not to be found in Families yet the Heads of such Families may notwithstanding exercise a power of Life and Death in great Offences and also of making War and Peace And this being for the good of the Family they govern and by their implyed consents no body will contradict him in the exercise of this power But this being matter of fact does not prove an absolute and unquestionable Right in the Father of such a Family of doing whatsoever he please and that no Member of the Family hath power in any case to contradict his will for it is rational to conceive that this Father of a Family having had an authority over his Children and Servants born perhaps in his house from their very Infancy and if he be a wise and a good man and hath carried himself as a good Father or Master ought to do toward them should even by their consents as knowing none more worthy than himself retain the exercise of that Authority after they are gown up to be men in which he cannot be contradicted without disorder and mischief to the whole Family So that indeed this submission of the Children and Servants is by a tacite consent to obey the Father or Master in all things tending to the common good of the Family But this proves not this absolute despotick power the Author contends for but onely the most reasonable way of acting for the Families good and whilst the Father exercises this Authority onely for that end which when he transgresses his Right to govern ceases for if this Author would have but considered the state of some parts of Africa he should have found that where the Father will exercise this absolute power and sell his Children for slaves the Children make as little scruple where they are strong enough to put the same trick upon their Fathers Nor can they be justly blamed for so doing until any man can shew me that the Father hath some better Right than meer Custom or Power I shall now proceed to the consideration of those other places he produces out of Scripture for the natural Right of Fathers to be Kings over their Descendants Patriarcha p. 16. First As for the example of Nimrod that makes against him for here the Grandson of Ham who ought to have been a Servant to the Children of Shem and Japhet interrupting this Paternal Empire domineers and tyrannizes not onely over his own Family but the Descendants of the elder Brethren But Sir Walter Rawleigh of which opinion the Author himself is will have him to be Lord over his own Family by Right of Succession but to enlarge his Empire against Right by seizing violently on the Rights of other Lords of Families But however after the confusion of Tongues the Author will have it revive again and the distinct Nations thereupon erected were not confused Multitudes without Heads or Governours and at liberty to chuse what Governours they pleased but they were distinct Families which had Fathers for Rulers over them whereby it plainly appears that even in this confusion God was careful to preserve the Fatherly Authority by distributing the diversity of Languages according to the diversity of Families For so it appears by the Text Gen. 10.5.20.22 But these places will not prove what the Author quotes them for viz. the Monarchical or Kingly power of Fathers for neither does the Scripture or Josephus mention that this division of the World by Noah's Posterity was performed by the Fathers of these Families as absolute Monarchs but it rather seems that their Children and Descendants followed them as Volunteers as retaining a Reverence and Affection to their persons for their great age experience and care of their Families Which * Sir Will. Temple's Essay of Government p. 67. an ingenious modern Author conceives to be the natural original of all Governments springing from a tacite deference to the Authority of one single person And of this opinion is excellent Pufendorf And of this kind were those first Kings which Aristotle calls Heroical whom the People did obey of their own accord because they deserved well of them and either by teaching them Arts or by warring for them or by gathering them together when they were dispersed or by dividing Lands among them Secondly If it were true that these Fathers of Families were so many absolute Kings yet it quite destroys the Author's Hypothesis who will have but one true Heir to Adam who if he could be known had a natural Right to be Monarch of the whole world And though Kings now Patriarch p. 19. are not the natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first natural Parents of the People and in their right succeed to the exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children but also of their Brethren and all others that were subject to their Fathers Whereas we see here no such right of Eldership observed neither among the Sons of Noah nor their descendants but every one as appears from the words of the Text was an independant Head Leader of his own Family by these were the Isles of the Gentiles divided c. and by these viz. the descendants of Shem were the Nations divided c. So likewise the other places he brings concerning the Sons of Ishmael and Esau do destroy the Authours notion of an Heir to the Authority of the Father or that any Son is more Lord of his Brethren than another For all the
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
Mankind Where subjection of Children to Parents is natural there can be no natural freedom and if any reply that all Children shall not be bound by their Parents consents but onely those that are under age it must be considered that in Nature there is no Nonage If a man be not born free she doth not assigne him any othere time when he shall attain his freedom or if she did then Children attaining that age should be discharged of their Parents contract So that in conclusion if it be imagined that the People were but once free from subjection by Nature it will prove a meer impossibility ever lawfully to introduce any kind of Government whatsoever without apparent wrong to a multitude of People It is farther observable that ordinarily Children and Servants are a far greater number than Parents and Masters and for the major part of these to be able to vote and appoint what Government or Governours their Fathers and Masters shall be subject to is most unnatural and in effect to give the Children the government over their Parents To which Objection I reply 1. That the Author is here mistaken and that there is really an Age of Nonage in nature as hath been already proved in which though the Child be indeed free yet by reason of his own want of strength and discretion to judge what is necessary for his own good and preservation is obliged to submit himself to his Parents judgment in all things conducing to that end 2. That Children neither Infants or others are obliged to the Acts or Agreements of their Ancestors in the state of Nature farther than it conduces to their benefit or preservation So that if a married man out of a Common-wealth should sell or yield himself to a Master of a Family for a Slave upon condition that his Master should provide him all the necessaries of life without which such a grant or sale of a mans self cannot be supposed good certainly if he had then no Children this could not bind his Issue that was to be born so that they should be perpetual Slaves to all Generations since natural Equity and the favour of Liberty will interpret that the Aliment which the Master affords the Children of this Slave are understood to be contained under that provision which the Master is obliged to make for him and his by vertue of their Contract Or admit that there was no express provision made in the Conditions for the maintenance of the Children yet in this case I see no Right the Master can claim in the persons of these Children longer than 'till he hath satisfied himself out of their labour for the charges he hath been at in feeding and providing for them which may very well be by twenty five years of age as I have already proved So that about that time I see no reason why such Children may not lawfully shift for themselves if they do not like their Master And if any Friend of theirs undertake to satisfie their Master before that time I think they are free though he should refuse to accept it since it was lawfully tendered Indeed for Slaves taken in a just War there may be some appearance of reason why their Children should also be Slaves since the Parents accepted of their lives upon that condition that they should live in perpetual servitude and their Master undertook to maintain them upon no other consideration So that these Children do implicitely owe their lives to their Master since he might by the Laws of War have slain their Parents and so they could never have been born But I will not assert that even this slavery is perpetual in relation to the Children But as for Subjects though they are not directly or expresly bound by the Acts or Consents of their Ancestors who first instituted the Government yet indirectly or consequentially they are obliged to stand to what their Ancestors have done For since as I said before no man will deny to accept of the Promise or Conditions of his Ancestor if it be for his advantage and since the Institution of Government was for the common good of mankind in general so this or that particular Government being for the preservation and security of every Subject that enjoys the priviledges thereof no man can believe that the Posterity of those that first instituted this Government will go about to undo what their Ancestors have done so much for their benefit and reduce all things to the state of Nature again So that as long as they submit to and enjoy the benefits of the Government which was first establisht by the consent of their Forefathers they are supposed to yield a tacite Assent to those Compacts which they long since made and implicitely become Subjects to that Government under which they were born So that those that first instituted Government in any Country have no necessity expresly to promise or engage for the Subjection and Obedience of their Children or those who should succeed them And if any private persons will not own this Government and so take upon to resist it pretending they are not obliged by the Compacts of their Forefathers to obey it as established by them such persons if they enter into a state of War or make Confederacies to that end may justly be looked upon as Enemies to the Government and punished accordingly since they will go about to disturb the common Peace and Tranquility of the Nation for their own private Discontents or Advantage for the People being once entred into Society can never be supposed to alter their Judgments all at once without very good cause much less to die though the particular persons that constituted it do for as a River is still esteemed the same as long as the water runs in the same Channel though the same individual water never stays in the same place but one part still pushes out another so those are not less to be esteemed in the politick capacity of a Civil State the same people than those by whom the Commonwealth was at first founded And though it is true that Governments may have been at first begun by Fathers of Families and other Freemen who first submitted their Wills to that of one person or more and so the Women Children and Servants who had had no Votes in its Institution might be supposed as represented by their Husbands Fathers and Masters And since they enjoy all the common benefits of the Commonwealth and are likewise capable of enjoying all those priviledges and advantages which are proper and peculiar to Free Subjects whenever they come to be at their own disposal and that they owe their breeding up and preservation to its protection they may well be lookt upon as under an higher Obligation in Conscience and Gratitude to this Government than Strangers of another Country who onely staying there for a time to pursue their own Occasions and having no Right to the same priviledges and advantages of the
the World If any think that particular Multitudes at their own discretion had power to divide themselves into several Commonwealths those that think so have neither Reason nor Proof for so thinking and thereby a Gap is opened for every petty factious Multitude to make more Commonwealths than there be Families in the world In which Dispute I conceive the Jesuit hath gone too far in asserting an undivided Soveraignty in the whole Multitude collected together before any Civil Government instituted That being onely the Compact or Agreement of those that entred into it and binding none else at first So likewise this is a meer Chimera of the Author's that Adam or Noah were absolute Monarchs and Heirs of the World so that no man could withdraw themselves from the Obedience of their right Heirs without being guilty of Rebellion Whereas I have already proved that all the Sons of Noah and their Descendants were independant Governours of their Families without any subordination to the eldest Son or Heir And if every Brother had a Right to set up an Independant Family or Principality distinct from that of the eldest I would fain know what became of this absolute Right of Adam or Noah and by what authority this undivided Soveraignty which God had conferred on Noah was thus crumbled into parcels If by Gods appointment then it seems God did not countenance this notion of the right Heir of the world If they did it of their own heads then all the ancient Patriarchs or first Peoplers of the world were guilty of Rebellion and Usurpation against their elder Brother and his Descendants But if the Author's Friends think he hath the advantage because I grant that the World was peopled after the Flood under the conduct or government of distinct Heads or Fathers of Families this does not grant any natural Right in those Heads of Families to have an absolute power over their Descendants since perhaps God divided the Language of the World by so many Tribes or Families for the better conservation of the mutual Love and Concord of neer Relations since men would more readily obey their Ancestor or common Father than a meer stranger or for other reasons best known to his infinite Wisdom So that there was a necessity that those of the same Stock should upon the dispersion march off together since none else understood one another Yet the Scripture does not tell us whether in this division and plantation of the World the Headship of these Families was according to eldership of birth or whether they elected the fittest man of their Tribe or Family to be their Leader And if the eldest were the man it was not from any Right over them but either of reverence to his Wisdom or to avoid the Dissentions that might arise by other kind of choice on Eldership though indeed it confers no Right of it self yet is often preferred as a kind of natural Lot So that every one of these Heads of Families being independant from each other they could never agree upon a Ruler over them but by Compact among themselves And if so he was their Leader that all the rest liked and agreed upon So that there needed no Compact of all the People of the world since every Father of a Family being independant upon any man else had a power to confer his Authority of governing himself and his Family upon whom he pleased which Power whether and how far it was from God and what kind of Authority it was we shall examine hereafter So that though I grant all Government might be at first instituted by Fathers of Families yet this does not prove any despotick Power that such Fathers had over their Children or Descendants and so consequently could confer no such Authority over them So that all the rest of the Authors Queries about the distinct power of the Multitude vanish since though there never was any Government where all the promiscuous Rabble of Women and Children had Votes as being not capable of it yet it does not for all that prove all legal Civil Government does not owe his Original to the consent of the People since the Fathers of Families or Freemen at their own dispose were really and indeed all the People that needed to have Votes since Women as being concluded by their Husbands and being commonly unfit for civil business and Children in their Fathers Families being under the notion of Servants and without any Property in Goods or Land had no reason to have Votes in the Institution of the Government So likewise all the Authors Objections and Cavils p. 44. how the greater part of a Multitude could over-rule the rest in the state of Nature signifie nothing since if many men meet to chuse a Governour the first Question must be whether the Votes of the major part shall not conclude the rest and then all that agree that they shall are bound by their own consent and those that will not agree to it are still in the state of Nature toward all the rest and are free to go and set up a Government by themselves that they all can agree to Nemine Contradicente And if they disturb those that have agreed that they will be concluded by the majority they may be lawfully used as Enemies And for Proxies or Representatives though the beginnings of most Kingdoms and Commonwealths like the head of Nilus are hard to be traced up to their Heads or Fountains and no man can positively tell the manner of their beginning yet if they began from some small quantity of men collected into one Army or City there needed no Proxies at all since every man might give his Vote himself But since the Author puts me to name any Commonwealth out of History where the Multitude or so much as the greatest part of it ever consented either by Voice or Proxies to the election of a Prince I will name him two Commonwealths The first was Rome where all the People or Freemen consented to the election of Romulus being formerly proposed See Dionysius Halicarnasseus lib. 3. And the second shall be that of Venice where though it is true the whole promiscuous Rabble did not chuse a Prince yet all the Masters of Families or Freemen at their own dispose had a Vote in the choice of the first Duke and Senate which plainly proves some Governments to have had their beginning by the consent of the People And though some Governments have begun by Conquest yet since those Conquerours could never perform this without men over which they were not always born Monarchs it must necessarily follow that those Souldiers or Volunteers had no obligation to serve them but from their own agreements with their General and for those advantages he proposed to them in the share of those Conquests they should make Read likewise our Historians of the manner of Will. the Conquerors coming over and you will finde those that helped him in that expedition were Volunteers to whom
Nature and constitute one Politick Body all the Members of it are obliged in Conscience to maintain this Government according to its first Institution But if it be to be constituted anew as upon his Escheat of the Crown among the Fathers of Families Who are to chuse one who must take upon him this Fatherly Power over them The inconvenience will be the same upon his own Principles For all Cities Towns and Families consting of so many independant Heads of Families if the major part of an Assembly cannot conclude the minor as this Author supposes then though all the Fathers of Families in a Nation should agree in the choice of a King and but those of one Town or Family dissent these Dissenters if they do not like the Prince the rest have elected may certainly if they are able divide from them and set up a distinct Government of their own since all these Fathers of Families being alike free and independant can in the state of Nature claim no Superiority over each other So that the Author from his own Principles falls into the same inconveniencies which he finds fault with in those of others whereas indeed there is no absurdity in this Supposition I shall now consider in the last place that part of his Hypothesis Patriarch p. 21. where he supposes That all such prime Heads and Fathers of Families have power to consent in the uniting or conferring their Fatherly Right of Soveraign Authority on whom they please and he that is so elected claims not his Power as a Donative from the People but as being substituted properly by God from whom he receives his Royal Charter of an universal Father though testified by the ministry of the Heads of the People I have already pull'd up the foundations of this Notion in the beginning of these Observations by shewing that God hath not ordain'd or conferred any such Power on any particular Father or other Relation and therefore neither on all the Fathers of Nations or Countries taken together they not having any Ownership or Property in their Childrens persons but a Right to govern and direct them for their benefit and preservation which Fatherly Right cannot be transferred to another much less survive his person as I have already proved Yet to render this as clear as may be granting him what he contends for that this Fatherly Power may be transferred to another I should be glad to know though the Monarch so nominated by them may have a supreme Power over all their Children and Servants yet whence does he derive this Right of commanding absolutely over the Persons and Estates of these Fathers of Families themselves Not from succession from Adam for his right Heir cannot now be known nor from their transferring the power of governing their own persons upon him for then this Right commences from their own Act or Election and not from the Fatherly power supposed to be at first conferred on Adam And if they transfer onely their Fatherly or Masterly Authority upon this new Monarch then he hath onely a Right to govern their Children and Servants the Persons and Estates of these Father 's not being included in this Grant And again if this Election in the state of Nature could confer a Right then this Monarch must owe his Power to these Fathers of Families and so these being as I have already proved the representative Body of the People he must receive his Authority as a Donative from them which he will by no means admit of But since he will have him properly and immediately substituted by God from whom he receives his Power of an universal Father then these Fathers of Families do not create or constitute the Monarch but onely are Instruments or Ministers to put him in possession and if so it is the possession of the Crown and not their Election that gives him this Right But as the Author words it He receives from God this Charter of an universal Father Upon which Principle see not to what purpose this Nomination or Election â—rves for if any body during this interregnum can by â—rce or fraud slip into the Throne he is more proâ—rly Gods Substitute and to be obeyed accordingly â—an if he had come in by their Nomination or Eleâ—ion since he is in possession by the immediate Will 〈◊〉 God and declared by the success So that these â—athers are in a fine case after all their Priviledge to â—ect since whoever can usurp this Authority over â—…em must immediately be their Father and Master â—hether they ever give their consents or not For â—is Author says Obedience to Government p. 66 67. Paternal Power cannot 〈◊〉 lost it may be either transferred or uâ—rped but never lost But I have sufâ—…ciently exposed the absurdity of this â—otion before in what I have said about Obedience 〈◊〉 Usurpers and shall lay it more open when I come 〈◊〉 shew in what sence Princes owe their Authority to God Therefore since these Fathers of Families had in the â—ate of Nature an absolute Power of governing themselves I shall now enquire in the next place Whether â—…ey may not pass over this Power upon some certain Conditions and reserving some Rights and Priviledges 〈◊〉 themselves and Children upon the making of the Compact with their new Prince Secondly How the perâ—n so elected owes his Authority to them and in what â—ense to God As to the first I see no reason but that â—hese Fathers of Families may if their number be not â—oo great agree to govern all alike together and that whoever is a Master of a distinct Family or a single â—…an at his own dispose and not a Servant shall have 〈◊〉 Vote in the Government and that the major part of â—he Votes shall conclude all the rest and then it will be â—s perfect a Democracy as ever was since as I have granted already there was never such a Governmenâ— where all Women and Children promiscuously haâ— Votes with their Husbands Fathers or Brothers Sâ— that if ever there was any such thing as a Democracâ— in the world this would be one Or lastly if they maâ— all govern themselves they may as well agree to chusâ— a certain number of their own Body to represent them and to meet in a common Council or Assembly anâ— to govern them either for life or yearly as they shaâ—… make the Conditions with them and then this Government will become an Aristocracy where a few oâ— those that are reputed the best do govern though by aâ— Power derived from these Fathers of Families Anâ— if they may bestow this Power upon more than one under certain Conditions I see no reason why they may not do the same if they confer it upon one man after the same manner either by making a Compact with him upon his accepting the Government how much 〈◊〉 this Power he shall exercise and how much they wilâ— reserve to themselves If they agree that he shall have no more but a Presidency