we not find that in every Family the Government of One Alone is most Natural God did always Govern his own People by Monarchy only The Patriarchs Dukes Iudges and Kings were all Monarchs There is not in all the Scripture Mention or Approbation of any other Form of Government At the time when Scripture saith There was No King in Israel but that every Man did that which was Right in his Own Eyes Even then the Israelites were under the Kingly Government of the Fathers of particular Families For in the Consultation after the Benjamitical War for providing Wives for the Benjamites we find the Elders of the Congregation bare only Sway. Iudges 21. 16. To them also were Complaints to be made as appears by Verse 22. And though mention be made of All the Children of Israel All the Congregation and All the People yet by the Term of All the Scripture means only All the Fathers and not All the Whole Multitude as the Text plainly expounds it self in 2. Chron. 1. 2. where Solomon speaks unto all Israel to the Captains the Iudges and to Every Governour the Chief of the Fathers so the Elders of Israel are expounded to be the Chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel 1 Kings 8. 12. 2 Chron. 5. 2. At that time also when the People of Israel beg'd a King of Samuel they were Governed by Kingly Power God out of a special Love and Care to the House of Israel did choose to be their King himself and did govern them at that time by his Viceroy Samuel and his Sons and therefore God tells Samuel They have not rejected Thee but Me that I should not Reign over them It seems they did not like a King by Deputation but desired one by Succession like all the Nations All Nations belike had Kings then and those by Inheritance not by Election for we do not find the Israelites prayed that they themselves might choose their Own King they dream of no such Liberty and yet they were the Elders of Israel gathered together If other Nations had Elected their own Kings no doubt but they would have been as desirous to have imitated Other Nations as well in the Electing as in the Having of a King Aristotle in his Book of Politicks when he comes to compare the several Kinds of Government he is very reserved in discoursing what Form he thinks Best he disputes subtilely to and fro of many Points and Judiciously of many Errours but concludes nothing himself In all those Books I find little Commendation of Monarchy It was his Hap to live in those Times when the Grecians abounded with several Commonwealths who had then Learning enough to make them seditious Yet in his Ethicks he hath so much good Manners as to confess in right down words That Monarchy is the Best Form of Government and a Popular Estate the Worst And though he be not so free in his Politicks yet the Necessity of Truth hath here and there extorted from him that which amounts no less to the Dignity of Monarchy he confesseth it to be First the Natural and the Divinest Form of Government and that the Gods themselves did live under a Monarchy What can a Heathen say more Indeed the World for a long time knew no other sort of Government but only Monarchy The Best Order the Greatest Strength the Most Stability and Easiest Government are to be found all in Monarchy and in no other Form of Government The New Platforms of Commonweals were first hatched in a Corner of the World amongst a few Cities of Greece which have been imitated by very few other laces Those very Cities were first for many years governed by Kings untill Wantonness Ambition or Faction of the People made them attempt New kinds of Regiment all which Mutations proved most Bloody and Miserable to the Authors of them happy in nothing but that they continued but a small time 11. A little to manifest the Imperfection of Popular Government let us but examine the most Flourishing Democratie that the World hath ever known I mean that of Rome First for the Durability at the most it lasted but 480 Years for so long it was from the Expulsion of Tarquin to Iulius Caesar. Whereas both the Assyrian Monarchy lasted without Interruption at the least twelve hundred years and the Empire of the East continued 1495 Years 2. For the Order of it during these 480 years there was not any One settled Form of Government in Rome for after they had once lost the Natural Power of Kings they could not find upon what Form of Government to rest their Fickleness is an Evidence that they found things amiss in every Change At the First they chose two Annual Consuls instead of Kings Secondly those did not please them long but they must have Tribunes of the People to defend their Liberty Thirdly they leave Tribunes and Consuls and choose them Ten Men to make them Laws Fourthly they call for Consuls and Tribunes again sometimes they choose Dictators which were Temporary Kings and sometimes Military Tribunes who had Consular Power All these shiftings caused such notable Alteration in the Government as it passeth Historians to find out any Perfect Form of Regiment in so much Confusion One while the Senate made Laws another while the People The Dissentions which were daily between the Nobles and the Commons bred those memorable Seditions about Vsury about Marriages and about Magistracy Also the Graecian the Apulian and the Drusian Seditions filled the Market-places the Temples and the Capitol it self with Blood of the Citizens the Social War was plainly Civil the Wars of the Slaves and the other of the Fencers the Civil Wars of Marius and Sylla of Cataline of Caesar and Pompey the Triumvirate of Augustus Lepidus and Antonius All these shed an Ocean of Blood within Italy and the Streets of Rome Thirdly for their Government let it be allowed that for some part of this time it was Popular yet it was Popular as to the City of Rome only and not as to the Dominions or whole Empire of Rome for no Democratie can extend further than to One City It is impossible to Govern a Kingdom much less many Kingdoms by the whole People or by the Greatest Part of them 12. But you will say yet the Roman Empire grew all up under this kind of Popular Government and the City became Mistress of the World It is not so for Rome began her Empire under Kings and did perfect it under Emperours it did only encrease under that Popularity Her greatest Exaltation was under Trajan as her longest Peace had been under Augustus Even at those times when the Roman Victories abroad did amaze the World then the Tragical Slaughter of Citizens at home deserved Commiseration from their vanquished Enemies What though in that Age of her Popularity she bred many admired Captains and Commanders each of which was able to lead an Army though many of them were but ill requited by the
Patriarchal Power continued in Abraham Isaac and Iacob even until the Egyptian Bondage so we find it amongst the Sons of Ismael and Esau. It is said These are the Sons of Ismael and these are their Names by their Castles and Towns Twelve Princes of their Tribes and Families And these are the Names of the Dukes that came of Esau according to their families their places by their nations 7 Some perhaps may think that these Princes and Dukes of Families were but some petty Lords under some greater Kings because the number of them are so many that their particular Territories could be but small and not worthy the Title of Kingdoms but they must consider that at first Kings had no such large Dominions as they have now adays we find in the time of Abraham which was about 300 years after the Flood that in a little corner of Asia 9 Kings at once met in Batail most of which were but Kings of Cities apiece with the adjacent Territories as of Sodom Gomorrah Shinar c. In the same Chapter is mention of Melchisedeck King of Salem which was but the City of Ierusalem And in the Catalogue of the Kings of Edom the Names of each King's City is recorded as the only Mark to distinguish their Dominions In the Land of Canaan which was but a small circuit Ioshuah destroyed Thirty one Kings and about the same time Adonibeseck had 70 Kings whose Hands and Toes he had cut off and made them feed under his Table A few years after this 32 Kings came to Benhadad King of Syria and about Seventy Kings of Greece went to the Wars of Troy Caesar found more Kings in France than there be now Princes there and at his Sailing over into this Island he found four Kings in our County of Kent These heaps of Kings in each Nation are an Argument their Territories were but small and strongly confirms our Assertion that Erection of Kingdoms came at first only by Distinction of Families By manifest Footsteps we may trace this Paternal Government unto the Israelites coming into AEgypt where the Exercise of Supreme Patriarchal Jurisdiction was intermitted because they were in subjection to a stronger Prince After the Return of these Israelites out of Bondage God out of a special Care of them chose Moses and Iosuah successively to govern as Princes in the Place and Stead of the Supreme Fathers and after them likewise for a time he raised up Iudges to defend his People in time of Peril But when God gave the Israelites Kings he reestablished the Antient and Prime Right of Lineal Succession to Paternal Government And whensoever he made choice of any special Person to be King he intended that the Issue also should have benefit thereof as being comprehended sufficiently in the Person of the Father although the Father only was named in the Graunt 8. It may seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Iurisdiction 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 And therefore we find that God told Cain of his Brother Abel His Desires shall be subject unto thee and thou shalt rule over him Accordingly when Iacob bought his Brother's Birth-right Isaac blessed him thus Be Lord over thy Brethren and let the Sons of thy Mother bow before thee As long as the first Fathers of Families lived the name of Patriarchs did aptly belong unto them but after a few Descents when the true Fatherhood it self was extinct and only the Right of the Father descends to the true Heir then the Title of Prince or King was more Significant to express the Power of him who succeeds only to the Right of that Fatherhood which his Ancestors did Naturally enjoy by this means it comes to pass that many a Child by succeeding a King hath the Right of a Father over many a Gray-headed Multitude and hath the Title of Pater Patriae 9. It may be demanded what becomes of the Right of Fatherhood in Case the Crown does escheate for want of an Heir Whether doth it not then Devolve to the People The Answer is It is but the Negligence or Ignorance of the People to lose the Knowledge of the true Heir for an Heir there always is If Adam himself were still living and now ready to die it is certain that there is One Man and but One in the World who is next Heir although the Knowledge who should be that one One Man be quite lost 2. This Ignorance of the People being admitted it doth not by any means follow that for want of Heirs the Supreme Power is devolved to the Multitude and that they have Power to Rule and Chose what Rulers they please No the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and independent Heads of Families for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made By the Uniting of great Families or petty Kingdoms we find the greater Monarchies were at the first erected and into such again as into their first Matter many times they return again And because the dependencie of ancient Families is oft obscure or worn out of Knowledge therefore the wisdom of All or Most Princes have thought sit to adopt many times those for Heads of Families and Princes of Provinces whose Merits Abilities or Fortunes have enobled them or made them fit and capable of such Regal Favours All such prime Heads and Fathers have power to consent in the uniting or conferring of their Fatherly Right of Sovereign 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 Vniversal Father though testified by the Ministry of the Heads of the People If it please God for the Correction of the Prince or punishment of the People to suffer Princes to be removed and others to be placed in their rooms either by the Factions of the Nobility or Rebellion of the People in all such cases the Judgment of God who hath power to give and to take away Kingdoms is most just yet the Ministry of men who execute God's Judgments without Commission is sinful and damnable God doth but use and turn mens Vnrighteous Acts to the performance of his Righteous Decrees 10. In all Kingdoms or Common-wealths in the World whether the Prince be the Supreme Father of the People or but the true Heir of such a Father or whether he come to the Crown by Usurpation or by Election of the Nobles or
answered by some That if either the Greatest part of a Kingdom or if a smaller part only by Themselves and all the Rest by Proxy or if the part not concurring in Election do after by a Tacit Assent ratifie the Act of Others That in all these Cases it may be said to be the Work of the whole Multitude As to the Acts of the Major part of a Multitude it is true that by Politick Humane Constitutions it is oft ordained that the Voices of the most shall over-rule the Rest and such Ordinances bind because where Men are Assembled by an Humane Power that power that doth Assemble them can also Limit and Direct the manner of the Execution of that Power and by such Derivative Power made known by Law or Custom either the greater part or two Thirds or Three parts of Five or the like have power to oversway the Liberty of their Opposits But in Assemblies that take their Authority from the Law of Nature it cannot be so for what Freedom or Liberty is due to any Man by the Law of Nature no Inferiour Power can alter limit or diminish no One Man nor a Multitude can give away the Natural Right of another The Law of Nature is unchangeable and howsoever One Man may hinder Another in the Use or Exercise of his Natural Right yet thereby No Man loseth the Right of it self for the Right and the Use of the Right may be distinguished as Right and Possession are oft distinct Therefore unless it can be proved by the Law of Nature that the Major or some other part have Power to over-rule the Rest of the Multitude It must follow that the Acts of Multitudes not Entire are not Binding to All but only to such as Consent unto them 7. As to the point of Proxy it cannot be shewed or proved That all those that have been Absent from Popular Elections did ever give their Voices to some of their Fellows I ask but one Example out of the History of the whole World let the Commonweal be but named wherever the Multitude or so much as the Greatest part of it consented either by Voice or by Procuration to the Election of a Prince The Ambition sometimes of One Man sometimes of Many or the Faction of a City or Citizens or the Mutiny of an Army hath set up or put down Princes but they have never tarried for this pretended Order by proceeding of the whole Multitude Lastly if the silent Acceptation of a Governour by part of the People be an Argument of their Concurring in the Election of him by the same Reason the Tacit Assent of the whole Commonwealth may be maintained From whence it follows that every Prince that comes to a Crown either by Succession Conquest or Vsurpation may be said to be Elected by the People which Inference is too ridiculous for in such Cases the People are so far from the Liberty of Specification that they want even that of Contradiction 8. But it is in vain to argue against the Liberty of the People in the Election of Kings as long as men are perswaded that Examples of it are to be found in Scripture It is fit therefore to discover the Grounds of this Errour It is plain by an Evident Text that it is one thing to choose a King and another thing to set up a King over the People this latter power the Children of Israel had but not the former This Distinction is found most evident in Deut. 17. 15. where the Law of God saith Him shalt thou set King over thee whom the Lord shall choose so God must Eligere and the People only do Constituere Mr. Hooker in his Eighth Book of Ecclesiastical Policy clearly expounds this Distinction the words are worthy the citing Heaps of Scripture saith he are alledged concerning the Solemn Coronation or Inauguration of Saul David Solomon and others by Nobles Ancients and the people of the Commonwealth of Israel as if these Solemnities were a kind of Deed whereby the Right of Dominion is given which strange untrue and unnatural conceits are set abroad by Seed-men of Rebellion only to animate unquiet Spirits and to feed them with possibilities of Aspiring unto the Thrones if they can win the Hearts of the People whatsoever Hereditary Title any other before them may have I say these unjust and insolent Positions I would not mention were it not thereby to make the Countenance of Truth more Orient For unless we will openly proclaim Defiance unto all Law Equity and Reason we must for there is no other Remedy acknowledg that in Kingdoms Hereditary Birth-right giveth Right unto Sovereign Dominion and the Death of the Predecessor putteth the Successor by Blood in Seisin Those publick Solemnities before-mentioned do either serve for an open Testification of the Inheritor's Right or belong to the Form of inducing of him into possession of that thing he hath Right unto This is Mr. Hooker's Judgment of the Israelites Power to set a King over themselves No doubt but if the people of Israel had had power to choose their King they would never have made Choice of Ioas a Child but of Seven years old nor of Manasses a Boy of Twelve since as Solomon saith Wo to the Land whose King is a Child Nor is it probable they would have elected Iosias but a very Child and a Son to so Wicked and Idolatrous a Father as that his own Servants murthered him and yet all the people set up this young Iosias and flew the Conspirators of the Death of Ammon his Father which Justice of the People God rewarded by making this Iosias the most Religious King that ever that Nation enjoyed 9. Because it is affirmed that the People have power to choose as well what Form of Government as what Governours they please of which mind is Bellarmine in those places we cited at first Therefore it is necessary to Examine the Strength of what is said in Defence of popular Commonweals against this Natural Form of Kingdoms which I maintain'd Here I must first put the Cardinal in mind of what he affirms in Cold Blood in other places where he saith God when he made all Mankind of One Man did seem openly to signifie that he rather approved the Government of One Man than of Many Again God shewed his Opinion when he endued not only Men but all Creatures with a Natural Propensity to Monarchy neither can it be doubted but a Natural Propensity is to be referred to God who is Author of Nature And again in a Third place What Form of Government God confirmed by his Authority may be gathered by that Common-weal which he instituted amongst the Hebrews which was not Aristocratical as Calvin saith but plainly Monarchichal 10. Now if God as Bellarmine saith hath taught us by Natural Instinct signified to us by the Creation and confirmed by his own Example the Excellency of Monarchy why should Bellarmine or We doubt but that it is Natural Do
of the People or by any other way whatsoever or whether some Few or a Multitude govern the Commonwealth yet still the Authority that is in any One or in Many or in All these is the only Right and Natural Authority of a Supreme Father There is and always shall be continued to the End of the World a Natural Right of a Supreme Father over every Multitude although by the secret Will of God many at first do most unjustly obtain the Exercise of it To confirm this Natural Right of Regal Power we find in the Decalogue That the Law which enjoyns Obedience to Kings is delivered in the terms of Honour thy Father as if all power were originally in the Father If Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law and Subjection to Princes but by the Mediation of an Humane Ordinance what reason is there that the Laws of Nature should give place to the Laws of Men as we see the power of the Father over his Child gives place and is subordinate to the power of the Magistrate If we compare the Natural Rights of a Father with those of a King we find them all one without any difference at all but only in the Latitude or Extent of them as the Father over one Family so the King as Father over many Families extends his care to preserve feed cloth instruct and defend the whole Commonwealth His War his Peace his Courts of Justice and all his Acts of Sovereignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every subordinate and inferiour Father and to their Children their Rights and Privileges so that all the Duties of a King are summed up in an Universal Fatherly Care of his People CHAP. II. It is unnatural for the People to Govern or Chose Governours 1. ARistotle examined about the Freedom of the People and justified 2. Suarez disputing against the Regality of Adam 3. Families diversly defined by Aristotle Bodin and others 4. Suarez contradicting Bellarmine 5. Of Election of Kings 6. By the Major part of the People 7. By Proxy and by silent Acceptation 8. No Example in Scripture of the Peoples chosing their King Mr. Hooker's Iudgment therein 9. God governed always by Monarchy 10. Bellarmine and Aristotle's Iudgment of Monarchy 11. Imperfections of the Roman Democratie 12. Rome began her Empire under Kings and perfected under Emperours In danger the People of Rome always fled to Monarchy 13. Whether Democraties were invented to bridle Tyrants or rather that they came in by Stealth 14. Democraties vilified by their own Historians 15. Popular Government more bloody than Tyranny 16. Of a mixed Government of the King and People 17. The People may not judge or correct their King 18. No Tyrants in England since the Conquest 1. BY conferring these Proofs and Reasons drawn from the Authority of the Scripture it appears little less than a Paradox which Bellarmine and others affirm of the Freedom of the Multitude to chose what Rulers they please Had the Patriarchs their Power given them by their own Children Bellarmine does not say it but the Contrary If then the Fatherhood enjoyed this Authority for so many Ages by the Law of Nature when was it lost or when forfeited or how is it devolved to the Liberty of the Multitude Because the Scripture is not favourable to the Liberty of the People therefore many fly to Natural Reason and to the Authority of Aristotle I must crave Liberty to examine or explain the Opinion of this great Philosopher but briefly I find this Sentence in the Third of his Politiques Cap. 16. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It seems to some not to be natural for one man to be Lord of all the Citizens since a City consists of Equals D. Lambine in his Latine Interpretation of this Text hath omitted the Translation of this word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by this means he maketh that to be the Opinion of Aristotle which Aristotle alleadgeth to be the Opinion but of some This Negligence or Wilful Escape of Lambine in not translating a word so Material hath been an occasion to deceive many who looking no farther than this Latine Translation have concluded and made the World now of late believe that Aristotle here maintains a Natural Equality of Men and not only our English Translator of Aristotle's Politiques is in this place misled by following Lambine but even the Learned Monsieur Duvall in his Synopsis bears them company and yet this Version of Lambine's is esteemed the best and Printed at Paris with Causabon's corrected Greek Copy though in the rendring of this place the Elder Translations have been more faithful and he that shall compare the Greek Text with the Latine shall find that Causabon had just cause in his Preface to Aristotle's Works to complain that the best Translations of Aristotle did need Correction To prove that in these words which seem to favour the Equality of Mankind Aristotle doth not speak according to his own Judgment but recites only the Opinion of others we find him clearly deliver his own Opinion that the Power of Government did originally arise from the Right of Fatherhood which cannot possibly consist with that Natural Equality which Men dream of for in the First of his Politiques he agrees exactly with the Scripture and lays this Foundation of Government The first Society saith he made of Many Houses is a Village which seems most naturally to be a Colony of Families or foster Brethren of Children and Childrens Children And therefore at the beginning Cities were under the Government of Kings for the eldest in every house is King And so for Kindred-sake it is in Colonies And in the fourth of his Politiques cap. 2 He gives the Title of the first and Divinest sort of Government to the Institution of Kings by Defining Tyranny to be a Digression from the First and Divinest Whosoever weighs advisedly these passages will find little hope of Natural Reason in Aristotle to prove the Natural Liberty of the Multitude Also before him the Divine Plato concludes a Commonweal to be nothing else but a large Family I know for this Position Aristotle quarrels with his Master but most unjustly for therein he contradicts his own Principles for they both agree to fetch the Original of Civil Government from the prime Government No doubt but Moses's History of the Creation guided these two Philosophers in finding out of this Lineal Subjection deduced from the Laws of the First Parents according to that Rule of St. Chrysostom God made all Mankind of One Man that he might teach the World to be Governed by a King and not by a Multitude The Ignorance of the Creation occasioned several Errors amongst the Heathen Philosophers Polybius though otherwise a most profound Philosopher and Judicious Historian yet here he stumbles for in searching out the Original of Civil Societies he conceited That Multitudes of Men after a Deluge a Famine or a Pestilence met together like Herds of Cattel without any
Dependency untill the strongest Bodies and boldest Minds got the Mastery of their Fellows even as it is saith he among Bulls Bears and Cocks And Aristotle himself forgetting his first Doctrine tells us the first Heroical Kings were chosen by the People for their deserving well of the Multitude either by teaching them some New Arts or by Warring for them or by Gathering them together or by Dividing Land amongst them also Aristotle had another Fancy that those Men who prove wise of Mind were by Nature intended to be Lords and Govern and those which were Strong of Body were ordained to obey and to be Servants But this is a dangerous and uncertain Rule and not without some Folly for if a man prove both Wise and Strong what will Aristotle have done with him as he was Wise he could be no Servant and as he had Strength he could not be a Master besides to speak like a Philosopher Nature intends all things to be perfect both in Wit and Strength The Folly or Imbecillity proceeds from some Errour in Generation or Education for Nature aims at Perfection in all her Works 2 Suarez the Jesuite riseth up against the Royal Authority of Adam in defence of the Freedom and Liberty of the people and thus argues By Right of Creation saith he Adam had only Oeconomical power but not Political he had a power over his Wife and a Fatherly power over his Sons whilst they were not made Free he might also in process of Time have Servants and a Compleat Family and in that Family he might have compleat Oeconomical Power But after that Families began to be multiplied and Men to be separated and become the Heads of several Families they had the same power over their Families But Political Power did not begin until Families began to be gathered together into one perfect Community wherefore as the Community did not begin by the Creation of Adam nor by his Will alone but of all them which did agree in this Community So we cannot say that Adam Naturally had Political Primacy in that Community for that cannot be gathered by any Natural Principles because by the Force of the Law of Nature alone it is not due unto any Progenitor to be also King of his Posterity And if this be not gathered out of the Principles of Nature we cannot say God by a special Gift or Providence gave him this Power For there is no Revelation of this nor Testimony of Scripture Hitherto Suarez Whereas he makes Adam to have a Fatherly power over his Sons and yet shuts up this power within One Family he seems either to imagine that all Adam's Children lived within one House and under one Roof with their Father or else as soon as any of his Children lived out of his House they ceased to be Subject and did thereby become Free For my part I cannot believe that Adam although he were sole Monarch of the World had any such spacious Palace as might contain any such Considerable part of his Children It is likelier that some mean Cottage or Tent did serve him to keep his Court in It were hard he should lose part of his Authority because his Children lay not within the Walls of his House But if Suarez will allow all Adam's Children to be of his Family howsoever they were separate in Dwellings if their Habitations were either Contiguous or at such Distance as might easily receive his Fatherly Commands And that all that were under his Commands were of his Family although they had many Children or Servants married having themselves also Children Then I see no reason but that we may call Adam's Family a Commonwealth except we will wrangle about Words For Adam living 930 years and seeing 7 or 8 Descents from himself he might live to command of his Children and their Posterity a Multitude far bigger than many Commonwealths and Kingdoms 3. I know the Politicians and Civil Lawyers do not agree well about the Definition of a Family and Bodin doth seem in one place to confine it to a House yet in his Definition he doth enlarge his meaning to all Persons under the Obedience of One and the Same Head of the Family and he approves better of the propriety of the Hebrew Word for a Family which is derived from a Word that signifies a Head a Prince or Lord than the Greek Word for a Family which is derived from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which signifies a House Nor doth Aristotle confine a Family to One House but esteems it to be made of those that daily converse together whereas before him Charondas called a Family Homosypioi those that feed together out of one common Pannier And Epimenides the Cretian terms a Family Homocapnoi those that sit by a Common Fire or Smoak But let Suarez understand what he please by Adam's Family if he will but confess as he needs must that Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute power of Life and Death of Peace and War and the like within their Houses or Families he must give us leave at least to call them Kings of their Houses or Families and if they be so by the Law of Nature what Liberty will be left to their Children to dispose of Aristotle gives the Lie to Plato and those that say Political and Oeconomical Societies are all one and do not differ Specie but only Multitudine Paucitate as if there were no difference betwixt a Great House and a Little City All the Argument I find he brings against them in this The Community of Man and Wife differs from the Community of Master and Servant because they have several Ends. The Intention of Nature by Conjunction of Male and Female is Generation but the Scope of Master and Servant is Preservation so that a Wife and a Servant are by Nature distinguished because Nature does not work like the Cutlers of Delphos for she makes but one thing for one Use. If we allow this Argument to be sound nothing doth follow but only this That Conjugal and Despotical communities do differ But it is no consequence That therefore Oeconomical and Political Societies do the like For though it prove a Family to consist of two distinct Communities yet it follows not that a Family and a Commonwealth are distinct because as well in the Commonweal as in the Families both these Communities are found And as this Argument comes not home to our Point so it is not able to prove that Title which it shews for for if it should be granted which yet is false that Generation and Preservation differ about the Individuum yet they agree in the General and serve both for the Conservation of Mankind Even as several Servants differ in the particular Ends or Offices as one to Brew and another to Bake yet they agree in the general Preservation of the Family Besides Aristotle confesses that amongst the Barbarians as he calls all them that are not Grecians a Wife and a Servant are