be punished by the Civil Magistrate which before any of the Kin of the Person slain might have executed as appears by Genesis 4. v. 14. when Cain said unto the Lord I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond on the Earth and it shall come to pass that every one that findeth me shall slay me which had been a needless fear if none but Adam had a power to take away his life for the murther of his Brother as you suppose much less that God should have needed to have set a mark upon him to keep him from being murthered by his Brethren or other Relations Nor will that other place you cite out of Genesis prove Adam's sole dominion over the Earth and all the things and persons therein contained For if you please to consider it you will find That it is so far from proving your Opinion that it speaks the direct contrary pray therefore observe of whom Moses speaks in that place surely not of Adam alone when he says Male and Female created he them and God blessed them and said unto them Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it and have dominion over the Fish of the Sea and over the Fowl of the Air and over every living thing that moveth upon the Earth From whence we may observe First That these words being directed in the plural number both to the Male and Female were not intended to Adam alone but by way of anticipation not only to himself and Eve who was not then made but likewise to their Posterity that is all mankind Then that they should be fruitful and multiply and replenish the Earth and subdue it that is possess and enjoy it and have dominion c. over every living thing that moveth in the Hebrew creepeth upon the face of the Earth By which words it appears That not any dominion over Mankind but only over Bruit-beasts that move or creep upon the Earth is hereby conferred And that this must be the true meaning of this place is plain if you will but read the two next Verses that follow And God said Behold I have given you every Herb bearing seed which is upon the face of all the Earth and every Tree in which is the fruit of a Tree yielding seed to you it shall be for meat And to every beast of the Earth and to every Fowl of the Air and to every thing that creepeth upon the Earth wherein there is life I have given every green Herb for meat and it was so Which words are certainly directed to the same persons as the former that is to all Mankind by the same Argument as that every green Herb is here granted for meat to every Beast of the Earth and every Fowl of the Air c. that then was or ever shall exist in Nature So that this Text which you have cited to prove this absolute and sole dominion of Adam over the Earth and all thee Creatures therein contained is so far from proving any such thing that it seems to me to make out the direct contrary Doctrine viz. That the Earth and all the Creatures thâ—rein were not granted to Adam alone as the sole Lord and Master of them but in common to himself his Wife and all his Posterity who had as good a right to them `as he had himself So that I must tell you if you intend to bring me over to your Opinion you must produce some better proofs out of Scripture or Reason than those made use of by 〈◊〉 R. F. and therefore I desire that you would give me some plaineâ— proofâ— for Adam's absolute Power over his Wife and all his posterity than hitherto you have done since I cannot see any Divine Charter granted by God in Scripture of any absolute power or dominion over their Lives or Persons M. I shall Sir do my best endeavour to give you all the satisfaction I can possibly therein therefore I desire you farther to take notice That Mr. Selden in his Mare Clasum and all the Jewish Rabbins have understood this Text in Genesis to give Adam an absolute power over the Earth and all things therein contained exclusive to his Posterity as long as he lived And the said Author from the ancient Tradition of the Jews is of the same Opinion in his Mare Clausum So that if Sir R. F. and divers others have erred in the sense of this place I believe it is more than you or I can prove since sure they would not have put this sense upon it without they had some good reason for it But this much I suppose you will admit that Adam was created by God and is in Scripture called the Son of God as indeed he was and if so let your self or any other rational man considerâ— Whether it be at all likely that God should not endow this Son of his the Father of mankind with somuch Authority and Power as should enable him to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived without depending upon them for their consent and chopping Logick with them whetheâ— his Commands were reasonable or lawful or not And if a power of life and death was necessary as the murther of Abel by Cain shews it was whether Adam had no more share in that Power than any of his Children or Grand-children which is sufficient to shew you the absurdity of your Tenets That the Authority of Adam over his posterity was not absolute in its exercise as well as perpetual in its duration and this I think you cannot but admit because you have already acknowledged this Power of life and death to proceed from or to be granted by God to Adam and so consequently must have continued with him as long as he lived F. Well I perceive you find your Monarchy or absolute Dominion of Adam over Eve and all her Posterity as also over all the Creatures of the Earth not to be proved from any of these Places of Scripture you have brought for this extravagant Opinion and therefore you now urge upon me my own concession of this Supream and Absolute Authority of Life and Death which I do not deny but Adam might have exercised in some cases over his Wife and Children as long as they continued part of his Family But that he was not endued with this Prerogative as a Father but as a Head or Master of his own Family I think I have sufficiently proved and therefore need not repeat it And indeed your own instance of the murther of Abel by Cain which for all we can find past unpunish'd by Adam sufficienly proves That this Power of Life and Death over his Children or Grand children when once they were separated from his Family was not a necessary Prerogative of his Government or else that his Children and Grand-children when they have erected 〈◊〉 milies of their own had it as much from God as he and that from the same reason which you
thou hast the knack to wheadle or persuade him Would not this have been a mighty matter for God Almighty to have appeared to Cain about and an excellent Argument to comfort him and to appease his Wrath against his Brother So that it seems apparent by this Law given by God to Cain and Abel that this Regal and Paternal Authority was not to dye with him nor â—o be equally divided amongst all his Children at his Death or that from thenceforth no man should have a Right by Birth of commanding another for this command to Abel could not be supposed to take place in the Life of Adam for then Adam was Lord over all his Children and so none of them without his permission could rule over the rest and if it were otherwise by Adam's appointment then Adam was the Soveraign still and the Son or Grand-Son so exercising this Power was but his Deputy but after Adam's decease then it became a real Soveraignty in his Eldest Son as having none but God Superior to it F. I hope you will judge more charitably of me than to believe that the sense that I have put upon these words tho' different from yours is out of any love of Anarchy or confusion much less out of any design to pervert or wrest this place of Scripture and if I should be so severe as you are perhaps I might with more reason lay this charge at your Door for in the first place I am not satisfied with your Argument that these words could not be meant personally or concerning Abel only because the same words when spoken of Eve do likewise concern her Posterity and therefore when spoken concerning Abel they must likewise relate to all Younger Brothers in Hereditary Monarchies which consequence I may with very good reason deny for whatsoever subjection may be due by vertue of the like words from Eve and her Posterity to Adam and all other Husbands is to be supposed to have been enjoyned because all Women are descended from Eve and so were represented by her as their first Parent Thus St. Paul supposes all men to be in a state of Sin and Death as represented by Adam their Ancestor by whose disobedience all have sinned But no man will affirm that all the Elder Brothers or Monarchs in the World were represented by Cain and all younger Brothers by Abel no man at this day being as appears in Scripture descended from either of them and I cannot but take notice that the better to strengthen your Notion you again foist in out of the margin of our English Bible His desire shall be subject to thee whereas in the Hebrew it is no more than His or its desire shall be to thee And that the words Rule over are to be interpreted according to the subject and do not always mean a ruling by force or command appears by the same Hebrew words made use of in the first of Genesis concerning the two great Lights that God set in the Firmament to give Light upon the Earth to rule over the Day and over the Night which cannot signifie a ruling by force or command but only by a natural influence or preheminence of the Sun and Moon above the Stars or Planets And tho' you are pleased to ridicule this explanation of mine yet I think I may with as much reason treat yours with the like contempt for since your self grant that this Power of Cain over Abel was not to commence till after the Death of Adam and that this Murder of Abel was committed above a hundred years after Adams Creation appears by the time of the Birth of Seth who was born sometime after Abel's Death would not this thing have been a mighty comfort to Cain when he was in his dogged humor if God had bid him chear up for the time should come that if he behaved himself well about eight hundred years hence when his Father Adam should die he should then Lord it over his Brother and be revenged of him for the affront he had received in having his Sacrifice preferred before his own So that this interpretation of yours is so absurd that I do much rather agree with divers learned commentators as well Jews as Christians who make not only a quite different interpretation but also a different version of these words from the Hebrew Text and if you have the Learned Jesuit Menochius his Notes upon the Bible I pray let me see them Here pray observe what he says upon this place Seâ— sub te erit appetitus ejus in Hebraeo apud LXX est ad te conversio ejus sensus est Peccatum ejusque appetitus concupiscentia te sollicitabit ad consensum sed ita ut ad te converti a te conseusum petere impetrare debeat id noster interpres ad sensum clare vertit sub te erit appetitus ejus by all which he means no more than that sin should tempt or sollicit him to offend but that he should rule over it that is had a power so to do if he would use it as he ought So likewise Mr. Ainsworth upon this place as you may see in Pool's Criticks puts a liâ—e sense upon the following words referring the whole sentence to the sin in these words Peccatum ponitur pro poena Peccati juxta Hebraeos ita accipitur Gen. 19.15 Lev. 20. 9. 1 Rep. 7.9 sinsus est prope te punitio peccati ad te desiderum ejus i. e. cupit te poena peccati tui ut solet post peccatum admissum Sed tu si vis dominaberis illi i. e. potes declinare peccatum q. d. poena haec sicut canis est qui ad ostium cubat cupiens ingredi sed in potestate Domini est vel claudere ostium ne ingrediatur vel aperire ut intret Probatur hic sensus 1. Prius membrum de praemio lâ—quitur reportabis scil praemium ergo posterius loquitur de poena peccatum jam inerat ipsi punitio vero nondum sed ad fores erat So that according to these learned Comentators this place is to be thus turned out of Hebrew If thou dost not well sin lyeth at the door and to thee is its desire but thou mayst or shalt rule over it which seems to me to be a much more Genuin and Rational Interpretation than that of our English or Latin Bibles so that I think I may justly except against the Authority of so doubtful and obscure a place as sufficient to found your Monarchical Power of Elder Brothers in the State of Nature M. Well Sir since you are no better satisfied with this Testimony oâ—â— of Genesis for the Divine Right of Primogeniture I will no longer insist upon it tho' I am not yet convinced but that my Interpretation of this place is truer than yours since I have likewise great Authorities on my side both Antient and Modern besides our common versions to authorize it and
not only Kingly Power in General but also the succession to it by the Eldest Son or his next Brother is of Divine Right or Institution or else all that you urged concerning the Natural right of Dominion of Cain over Abel was to no purpose But now you insist that succession by a Testament or Will of the Father is also as much by the Law of Nature as the other in which I think you are very much mistaken since the right of bequeathing Kingdoms or any thing else by Testament is neither prescribed by the Revealed Will of God nor the Laws of Nature since all setled Property in Lands or Goods before the institution of a Civil Government proceeding only from occupancy or possession must cease in the State of Nature with the life of the occupant or possessor Therefore in that state a Testament cannot take place by the Testators Death since as soon as he Dyeth his right in the thing bequeathed is quite lost and extinguished so that the Dead not having an interest in any thing the Legatee cannot sustain the person of the Testator whose Right ceases before that of the Legate can take place And therefore the Testament or Disposition of such things may then without any Crime be neglected or altered by the Survivors unless all those who pretend an interest in it do agree to it or swear to see it fulfilled during the Testators Life time And for this cause we find Abraham binding his Servant that ruled over his House with an Oath not to take a Wife for his Son of the Daughters of the Land And Iacob taking an Oath of Ioseph not to bury him in Egypt because they doubted whether they could oblige their Sons or Servants to do it by their Testaments So that it appears evident to me that the Power of making Testaments and bequeathing Lands or Goods is but a consequence of that Propriety in Lands Goods or Dominions which arises from compact or common consent in a Kingdom or Common-wealth after it is instituted as I think I am able to prove whenever you please to discourse with me farther about it But as for the Right of bequeathing Crowns or Kingdoms by Testament as I will not deny but that some Kingdoms may have been bequeathable by their Original Constitution and others become so by Custom yet I cannot grant that this Right belonged to the Prince or Monarch by the Laws of God or Nature but proceeded pâ—rely from the received Law or continued Custom of that Kingdom so that you must either confess that there is no such thing as a Divine Right of Succession or else it is such a one as signifies as much as nothing since humane Laws or Constitutions can alter it or take it away So that after all this Pother about this Divine Right it is not so good as an old Estate Tayle which formerly no fine could bar And I must farther tell you that I cannot assent to your opinion that succession by a Will or a Testament is so certain as that by Inheritance since all such Testaments must depend upon the Credit of the Witnesses whose Credit may often be questioned by the Subjects and who may very well for their own ends make a Younger Son to have the whole or at least a share in the Kingdom to whom his Father never intended any and which was likewise more easie to be done before such time as Written Wills or Testaments solemnly published according to forms of Law came in use But because you suppose that the Natural Laws of Succession to Kingdoms are so plain and certain that I may a little convince you of your mistake in this matter I shall for the present suppose that the Succession of an Elder Son or Brother is sufficiently easie to be known Yet I doubt it will not prove so in many other Instances And therefore to let you see I do not make this Scruple without cause suppose Abel for example to have left a Son or a Daughter behind him when his Brother murdered him pray tell me who was to succeed after the Death of Adam this Son or Daughter of Abel or Seth their Uncle M. We do not read of any Children that Abel had and therefore I cannot tell what to say to it F. Well but since it is probable he might have had Children pray tell me supposing he had whether this Child were it Son or Daughter or Seth the Uncle was to succeed M. Since you will needs have me speak my opinion in a thing so uncertain I think this Child were it Son or Daughter ought to have succeeded before the Uncle F. Pray Sir tell me by what Law or Rule you thus Judge Whether by the Law of God or Nature M. I must confess God hath prescribed nothing expresly concerning it more than what he says Numb 27. that if a man dies leaving no Sons ye shall cause his Inheritance to pass unto his Daughter with diverse other Rules of Succession to Inheritances there specified and besides it is more suitable to the Laws of Nature that the Children of the Elder Brother should inherit before their Uncle there being no reason that they should be punished for their Misfortune in having their Father Dye before he could succeed to the Government F. I doubt the place of Scripture you have cited doth not reach this Case of Kingdoms for first this being a Municipal Law of the Iews could only concern that Common-Wealth and secondly it only relates to Private Inheritances and that this is so may be proved from the next verse where it is said that a Mans Brethren shall be his Heirs that is all of them were to be Heirs alike only the Eldest was to have a double portion And if this Law concerning Daughters were to reach the Succession of Kingdoms at this day the Laws of France and other Countries where Women are barred from succeeding to the Crown would be against the Laws of God and Nature And the like may also be said concerning the Succession of the Nephews before their Uncles or of Uncles rather than the Nephews whose Fathers never injoyed the Crown diverse Nations having different Customs and that with a like appearance of reason concerning it For on the one hand if the Son of Abel might have pleaded that he was the first born of the Eldest Son of Adam and so ought to represent his Father Seth the Uncle might likewise with as good reason urge that he was more nearly related in Bloud to Adam as being his Son than the Son of Abel who was but his Grandson and besides being older than he was endued with more Wisdom and Experience and consequently was â—itter to Govern But if Abel left only one Daughter or more I doubt not but the question would have been harder to be decided since if Women are not permitted to Govern in Private Families they will not especially amongst Warlike Nations be admitted to Govern Kingdoms especially since
absolute or Tyrannical soever the Power be under which they live that they are safe in God's hands and all the Powers of Men and Devils cannot touch them till God by a positive Decree appoints and orders their sufferings There could not be greater nor more absolute Tyrants than the Roman Emperours were at this time and yet they had no Power over the meanest Christian but by an express Commission from Heaven This is the special Priviledge of the Christian Church above the rest of Mankind that they are God's peculiar Care and Charge that he doth not permit any Sufferings or Persecutions to befall them but what he himself orders and appoints It is a great security to the World that there is no evil happens to men but what God permits and that he permits nothing but what he can over-rule to wise and good Ends but it is a greater happiness to have our Condition immediately allotted by God God may permit a great many evils to befall us in Anger and Displeasure but when he takes us into his immediate Protection and under his own Government whatever evils he appoints for us whoever are the Instruments of them they are certainly for our good And therefore there is no such danger in the Doctrine of Non-Resistance as some Men imagine how absolute soever this may be thought to render Princes sincere Christians can suffer nothing by it for they shall suffer nothing more nor less than what God appoints for them to suffer but as for the absurdity you think you have brought me to by granting that no man wants Authority to defend his own Life against him who hath no Authority to take it away that does not extend to Supreme Powers since though I grant they have no Authority to take away mens Lives contrary to Law yet does it not follow that we may resist and oppose them if they do this I absolutely deny because God hath expresly commanded us not to resist them and I see no inconsistency between these two Propositions that a Prince hath no Legal Authority to take away mens Lives against Law and yet that he must not be resisted when he does so for both the Laws of God and of our Countrey suppose these two to be very consistent F. To answer this long speech of yours the best way may be to shew you first how far I agree with you and wherein I must differ from you and I will also tell you what reasons I have for it In the first place I grant that though our Saviour was indeed the Messias and true King of the Iews yet was he not such a Messias as they expected nor was he to have a Temporal but Spiritual Dominion and therefore would not be such a king though the Iews would have made him so I likewise yield that Christ submitted to the most unjust Sentence and to the most ignominious and painful Death rather than he would resist the Higher Powers though he could easily have called for Legions of Angels to his rescue As also that he rebuked Peter when he drew his Sword in his defence and tells Pilate the reason why he was so easily apprehended and without any Resistance oâ— Opposition My Kingdom said he is not of this World if my Kingdom were of this World then would my Servants fight that I should not be delivered to the Jews but now is my Kingdom not from hence All which plainly shews that our Saviour's Subjection was no matter of force or constraint because he wanted Power to resist but it was matter of choice that which was most suitable to the Nature of his Kingdom which was not to be propagated by Carnal Weapons but by sufferings yet though it may not be propagated sure it may be defended by force In some Cases as if we were invaded by a Foreign Power who made War upon the Account of Religion and also in those Kingdoms or Common-wealths where Christianity or the true Profession of the Gospel is established by Law and makes a part not only of the Ecclesiastical but Civil Constitution of a Nation In these Cases if thoâ—e who pretend to the sole Legislative Power but have it not should go about to alter the National Religion by force and put Men to death contrary to the former Laws and Constitutions of that Kingdom I think such Illegal Powers may lawfully be resisted by the People they having as much right to the free Exercise and Enjoyment of their establish'd Religion as they have to their Liberties Properties or any other Civil Rights since by this Legal Establishment Religion becomes a part of the Civil Constitution of the Kingdom and so may be maintained by the same means as other Rights 2 dly I grant that in all other Cases our Saviour hath so far proposed his sufferings to us for our Imitation as we are engaged by our Baptismal Vow to suffer in the same Cause for which he himself suffered that is for the bearing witness That Iesus is the Christ or true Messias and Son of God And this the Apostle calls speaking of Christ himself the witnessing before Pontius Pilate a good Confession The like I also hold of all such Truths as are the necessary consequences of this great Doctrine 3 dly I farther grant that when our God calls any Person to suffer for the Testimony of his Truth by the Cruelty of those who are the Supreme Powers as the Apostles and Primitive Christians were by a particular Providence that then those Powers are not to be resisted but patiently submitted to by Christians at this day whenever it proves necessary for the same great ends for which Christ at first enjoyned it viz. for bearing witness to the Truth of the Gospel and for the further Propagation thereof by our constant Sufferings and Example according to that saying of the Primitive Fathers Sanguis Martyrum semen Ecclesiae yet is not this absolute Submission to the Supreme Powers in matters of Religion due by the Law of Nature or that delivered to Moses but if at all purely from the express Example of Christ so that all the difficulty lyes in discovering when we are thus called by our Saviour to suffer and bear witness to the Truth though with the loss of our Lives and all that is dear to us And therefore if I should grant that when ever we lye under the same Circumstances of giving this Testimony as the Primitive Christians then did and that it may serve as much for the same ends design'd by God thereby we are also under the same Obligations otherwise I think we are lawfully discharged from it As for Example suppose the King should instead of a Papist have turned Mahometan and to propagate or set up his own abominable Superstition here should have sent for from Turkey or Morocco a great Army of Turks or Moors and by them would force all the Christians in England to turn Mahometans by the same Methods of Dragooning Men and
give why God endowed Adam with it viz. because without such a Power they could not have been enabled to Govern their Children and Families as long as they lived So that Adam's being created by God or called his Son gave him not a joâ— more power over his Children and his Descendents than what as a Master or Head of a Family he would have had by the Law of Nature however and it is all one in this Case whether you suppose Mankind to have been created by God or to have existed from all Eternity provided you hold the being of a God according to the Hypothesis of the more modern Platonists who tho they held the Eternity of the World yet likewise owned all things to be governed by God's Providence And therefore if on this Supposition Mankind could not be well governed nor preserved without inflicting of Capital Punishments for great Crimes and that they are necessary for its peace and preservation it is likewise as necessary that there should be some Judge appointed by God to inflict them which in the State of Nature can be only the Head or Master of a Family as after Civil Government is once instituted it belongs to the Civil Sovereign or Commonwealth And this I hope will serve to answer your Scruple how Adam or any other Master of a separate Family may very well be endued with this great Power of Life and Death by the Law of Nature without supposing any Charter granted him for it by Divine Revelation or else depending upon his Childrens consent for his exercise of it But before I farther consider whether this Power of Adam or of any other Father or Master be perpetual or not and extends any farther than his own Family give me leave to examine Whether or no Children when grown to years of Discretion and even whilst they continue Members of their Father's Family may not in some Cases chop Logick with him as you call it and not only question but judge whether their Commands be reasonable or lawful or not or else Abraham for example mut have sacrificed to Idols because his Father bid him Whereas Josephus tells us He rather chose to quit his Country and his Father's house than to sin against God And therefore I think you cannot deny but if Husbands or Fathers command their Wives or Children to do any thing that is morally unlawful or contrary to the Laws of God or Nature they may lawfully nay are obliged not to obey such unlawful Commands M. I shall so far agree with you That if the thing commanded be apparently contrary to the Laws of God and Nature that they are not obliged to obey their Commands but they must be evidently and apparently so before they thus take upon them to refuse obedience to them otherwise I deny that their Conscience however misguided ought to be any excuse or just ground of their disobedience For if their Conscience be truly grounded upon the Laws of God or Nature that will excuse them but if it be not Conscience without such a Law can never do it And yet this non-performance of the unlawful Commands of the Husband or Father may very well consist without any Anarchy or disorder in the Family since the Wife and Children must always yield him an active-obedience in performing all his Commands or else a passive one in submitting to whatever harsh usage or punishment such a Husband or Father shall please to exercise or inflict upon them for their non performance of them tho never so unlawful But yet certainly in all possible and indifferent things Children are bounâ— yeild not only a passive but an active obedience to their Father's commands For if his Children should have a liberty to judge of his commands whether they are reasonable or not what can ensue but Anarchy and Confusion in all Families F. Well I am glad we are so far agreed that a Wife and Children in the state of Nature have liberty to Judge of their Husband's and Father's Commands whether they are lawful or not and also to disobey them when they are not so And I think I may carry this a little farther and affirm That such Wife and Children ought not to obey the Commands of such a Husband or Father though they are not really contrary to such Divine or Moral Laws but only erroneously supposed so by them and therefore most Casuists agree That even an erroneous Conscience does oblige as long as a man lies under that mistake For St. Paul tells us Whatsoever is not of faith is sin Rom. 14. Nay farther Such an erroneous Conscience may excuse a man before God if his ignorance was not wilful but invincible and not proceeding from his own fault but of this no man can Judge but God alone and the Party whose Conscience it is and therefore such a Husband or Father can have no Right or Authority to compel their Wives and Children to perform such Commands because the Will ought always to follow the Dictates of the Understanding and therefore they should not be forced to do that which they Judge contrary to God's Moral or Divine Law since Conscience may be instructed but can never be forced Neither will your distinction of an Active and Passive Obedience help you in this matter For Active Obedience I understand well enough but as for Passive Obedience I think it is next door to that we call a Bull or Nonsense And to prove this I shall give you this plain instance Suppose you had a Iew to your Servant and should command him to do you some work or other on a Saturday which he judged a Breach of the Fourth Commandment that forbids him to work on the Seventh Day or Sabbath and you being very angry should cudgel him soundly for this refusal whereupon he tells you That you may beat him as long as you please he would not resist but yield a passive Obedience but yet could not perform your Commands I ask you now Whether you would rest satisfied that this Iewish Servant had sufficiently performed what you bad him by submitting to your cudgelling And whether your Dinner or Horse would not be as much undress'd after this sort of passive Obedience as it was before M. Perhaps indeed this Phrase of Passive Obedience may be somewhat improper and may be more properly termed an absolute Subjection or Submission but it is all one what we call it as long as you understand what we mean since such Submission doth sufficiently avoid that Anarchy and confusion which would necessarily follow in case it were lawful for Wives or Children in any case whatsoever to resist their Husbands or Fathers though for the defence of life it self since no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed have a right to resist their Superiors or Governors in any case F. I grant indeed that no Government can be maintained where the Parties governed resist their Superiours or Governors in the due exercise of their