Subjection to Princes but by the Mediation of an Human 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 And that this is not the Doctrine of Christianity alone but was also believed by the best Moralists amongst the Heathen may appear by this remarkable passage out of Seneca de Clementia which is so put to this purpose that I took the pains to translate it into English in my Common-place-book Some of which I will now read to you What is the Duty of a Prince That of kind Parents who use to chide their Children sometimes sweetly and at other times with more sharpness and sometimes correct them with blows And after having shewn that a good Father will not proceed to disinherit his Son or inflict any more severe punishments upon him till he is past all hopes of amendment He proceeds thus No Parent proceeds to Extirpation till he hath in vain spent all other Remedies That which becomes a Parent becomes a Prince who is stiled without flattery The Father of his Country in all our other Titles we consult their i. e. the Emperours Honour We have called them the Great the Happy the August and heaped upon ambitious Majesty all the Titles we could invent in giving thâ—se to them But we have stiled him The Father of his Country that the Prince might consider the Power of a Father was given him Which is the most temperate of all Powers consulting the Welfare of the Children and preferring their Good before its own And as for your Objection why Princes should not be loved and reverenced as if they were our Fathers because not being our Natural Fathers they may possibly want that Natural and Fatherly Affection to their Subjects and consequently may Tyrannize over them I think this is easily answered For First God who is and ever was the True Disposer of Kingdoms hath in his hands the hearts of all Princes and endows them with such Affections as he thinks fit not only towards the People in general but towards each particular person And therefore as he was the Author of all Government and is still the Preserver of it so no inconvenience can happen but he is able to redress it 2. That there was as great or rather greater Inconveniencies which sprung at first from the too great Lenity of these Natural Princes for want of Power or Will to punish the Disorders of their Subject Children as have ever sprung since from the Tyranny and Cruelty of the worst Princes And I believe to this was owing that excessive wickedness which forced as it were God Almighty to put an end to the first World by that time it had stood about 1600 years And we see afterwards Eli and Samuel good men and severe Judges towards others were yet too indulgent to their own Children which shews the weakness of your Reasons and the greatness of the Wisdom of God in making all Government to spring from Paternal Power which is the mildest of all Powers and to descend by degrees to Hereditary Monarchies which are the Divinest the most Natural and the best of all Governments and in which the People have the least hand F. I see plainly that you think the Laws of Nature or Reason are not on your side and therefore you are forced to recur not to the express words of Scripture but to the Paraphrase or Explanation of them in our Church Catechism which certainly never was intended to have that consequence drawn from it which you have made for tho you are pleased to omit one part of the Commandment with an c. Yet the Words are as you your self must acknowledge Honour thy Father and thy Mother and if from Honour thy Father you will gather that all Power was Originally in the Father it will follow by the same Argument that it must have been as Originally in the Mother too Father and Mother or Parents being mentioned together in all Precepts in the Old and New Testament where Honour or Obedience is enjoyned on Children And if these Words Honour thy Father must give a right to Government and make the form also Monarchical 〈◊〉 if by these Words must be meant Obedience to the Political Power of the Supream Magistrate it concerns not any Duty we owe to our Natural Fathers who are Subjects Because they by your Doctrine are divested of all that Power it being placed wholy in the Prince and so being equally Subjects and Slaves with their Children can have no Right by that Title to any such Honour or Obedience as contains in it Civil Subjection But if Honour thy Father and thy Mother Signifies the Duty we owe our Natural Parents as by our Saviours interpretation Matth. 15.4 and all the other places 't is plain it doth then it cannot concern Political Obâ—dienâ—â— but a Duâ—y that is owing to Persons who have no Title to Soveraignty noâ— any Political Authority as Monarchs over Subjects For Obedience to a Private Father and that Civil Obedience which is due to a Monarch aâ—â— quite different and many times contradictory and inconsistent with each other And therefore this Command which necessarily comprehends the persons of our Natural Fathers and Mothers must mean a Duty we owe them distinct from our Obedience to the Magistrate and from which the most absolute Power of Princes cannot absolve us And to make this yet plainer suppose upon your Hypothesis that Seth as Eldest Son of Adam was Heir of all his Patriarchal Power how could all his Brethren and Sisters Honour that is Obey Eve their Mother at the same time supposing Seth and her to have commanded them things contradictory at the same timeâ— So that tho' I grant the Compilers of our Church Catechism did intend in this Explanation to comprehend all the great Duties towards our Governours Yet it is plain they never dreamed of this far-fetched inference that you have drawn from their Explanation of it for tho under this Command of Honour thy Father and thy Mother they do indeed comprehend Obedience and Honour to be due to the King c. this no more proves that they believed all Kingly Power to be Paternal than that because they likewise there Infer from this Command a Submission to be due to all Governours Teachers Spiritual Pastors and Masters that therefore all these Parties here named do likewise derive their Authority from Adam's Fatherhood or that because under the Command against bearing False-Witness we are taught to refrain our Tongues from Evil Speaking Lying and Slandering that therefore all Lyes and Evil Speaking whatsoever is down-right bearing False-Witness against our Neighbour Since nothing is more certain than that a man may commit either of the formerr without being guilty of the latter And to Answer your Query if Obedience to Parents be immediately due by a Natural Law
have been no more than that of the Husband over his Wife or that of Parents over their Children the former of which would not have been an Absolute Coercive power neither but rather such a power as his understanding then had over the inferiour Faculties of his Soul join'd with a voluntary submission of her will to his the Coercive power of the Husband and his more absolute Rule over her being conferr'd by God on Adam and in him on all his posterity after the Fall for the regulating and restraining the unreasonable desires and passions of the Woman which then began to exert and shew themselves in her and as for paternal Authority that would have been so far from being Coercive that Children having no Inclination to disorder either in their Wills Appetites or Passions there would have been so little need of punishments that they would not have required so much as reproof or correction God having planted the Laws of Nature or Reason in every Mans Breast then free from Rebellions Motions against it so that Children then could have had no more to do than to pay their Parents all that Gratitude Duty and Obedience which was due to them as the subordinate Causes of their Being which could only consist in performing those indifferent things which they then would have had occasion to command them since Mankind being Immortal and the Earth bringing forth of it self all Necessaries for Humane Life there could have been no occasion of attending and relieving their Parents when Sick Old or Decrepit and unable to keep themselves and so likewise upon the same grounds all other Men would have been equal by Nature in respect of any civil difference for when there was no necessity of Mens Service there would have been no distinction between Master and Servant But after the Fall the stare of Mankind was altered and Self-love and the desire of Self-preservation grew so strong and exorbitant above all Natural Equity that the inordinate passions of Men blinding their Reasons they began to think they had a Right not only to the Necessaries of Life but to whatever their unruly Appetites dâ—sired or that they thought they could make themselves Masters of To remedy which Inconveniences I suppose the Fathers and Masters of Families and other Freemen in whom alone then resided that little Government that then was in the World were forced after some time to agree upon one or more Men into whose hands they might resign all their particular powers and to make Laws for the due Governing and Restraining those disorderly Appetites and Passions and also endowing them with a sufficient Authority to put them in Execution But which of the Governments now extant or that have been formerly were Prior in Nature I think cannot well be known whether it was a Monarchy or an Aristocracy consisting of all the Heads or Fathers of Families or Freemen is not material since the SS are silent in it but it being sufficient to suppose that it was at first begun by the perswasion or mediation of some one or more Wise and Vertuous persons and was consented to by thy whole number consisting of many Families who were sensible of those great Inconveniences and Mischiefs they lay under for want of Civil Government But be it which way it will 't is most certain that it was principally intended by God for the God and Preservation of the Governed and not for the Greatness or Advantage of the Person or Parsons appointed tâ— Goverâ— since God designed all Civil Government for the restraining of Mans inordinate Passions and Lusts after the Fall and procuring by sufficient rewards and puniâ—â—ments that Peace and Happiness which could now no longer be obtained by Mens Natural Inclinations to that which was equitable and honest and besides it is absolutely impossible to suppose that any great number of people not pressed by the Invasion of a powerful Enemy from abroad which could not be supposed in this early Age of the World would ever be brought to consent to put themselves under the absolute power of others but for their own greater Good and Preservation or to part with their Natural Liberty without advantaging themselves at all by the Change M. I will not take upon me to assert after what manner Mankind would have been governed in case our First Parents had continued in their Primitive state of Innocency But this much I think I may boldly affirm in opposition to what you have already said that Civil Government after the Fall was not alike in all the Fathers and Masters of Families but that Adam alone was by God endued with it as the great Father and Monarch of Mankind so that not only Civil Power in genere but in specie viz. Monarchical was immediately after the Creation conferred by God upon him And Adam was Monarch of the whole World even before he had any Subjects F. Sir not to interrupt you it seems somewhat hard to conceive how Adam could be a Father before he had Children or a Monarch before he had Subjects M. If you please to consider it you will find no absurdity at all in this Assertion For though I confess there could be no actual Government without Subjects nor Fatherhood without Sons yet by the Right of Nature it was due to Adam to be Governour of the World when as yet he had neither Sons nor Subjects so though not in act yet at least in habit or in Potentia as they say in the Schools Adam was a King and a Father from his Creation and even in the state of Innocency he had been Governour over his Wife and Children for the Integrity or Excellency of the Subjects doth not take away the Order or Eminency of the Governour For Eve was subject to Adam before he sinned and the Angels who are of a most pure Nature and cannot Sin are yet Subjects to God and perform all his Commands Which will serve to conâ—ute what you say in Derogation of Civil Government or Power that it was introduced by Sin or the Fall of Man Government I grant as to co-active Power was not till after Sin because Co-action supposeth some disorder which was not in the state of Innocency but as for directive Government the State of Humane Nature requires it since Civil Society cannot be imagined without a Power of Government For although as long as Men continued in the State of Innocency they might not need the direction of Adam in those things that were necessarily and morally to be done Yet things indifferent that depended meerly on their Free-will might well be directed by Adam's sole Command F. Pray Sir give me leave to settle this Point-between us before you proceed farther and I doubt not when you better consider what I say you will not think we have any just occasion to differ So far then you and I are agreed that even before the Fall Adam was superior over his Wife and Children and that they owed
also for their own advantage and in hopes of having a share in what Goods of Estates they may leave behind them when they dye But if when they come to years of discretion they can better their condition by marrying and leaving their Fathers Family their Parents are bound in conscience to let tehm go since it is their duty to better the condition of their Children and not to make it worse Always provided that such Children either take care of their Parents themselves or else hire others to do it for them in case they want their assistance by reason of their old age Poverty or Sickness but if children may not quit their Fathers Families thô they are never so hardly or severly dealt with the consequence will be that Fathers may keep their children as Slaves as long as they live thô it were a hundred years or else may sell them to others to be used worse if possible the absurdity of which assertions and how contrary to the common good of Mankind I might leave to any indifferent Person to judge of Therefore I think I may very well according to the learned Grotius divide the lives of children into three Periods of ages The first is the Period of Infancy or imperfect Judgment before the child comes to be able to exercise his reason The Second is the Period of perfect Judgment or discretior yet whilst the child continues still part of his Fathers Family The third is after he has left his Fathers and entered into another Family or sets up a Family himself In the First Period all the actions of children are under the absolute Government 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 bâ— preserv'd unless their Parents judged for them what means best conduced to this end yet this power is still to be directed to the principal end viz. 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 I allow the Father has a Right to make his Children work as well â—â— enable them to get their own living as also to recompence himself for the pains and care he has taken and the charge he may have been at in their Education and also to correct them in case they refuse to work or obey his Commands But in other actions the Children have a Power of acting freely yet still with a 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 attain'd to that age But this duty being not by force of any absolute subjection but only of Piety Gratitude and Observance it does not make void any act thô done contrary to their duty The third and last Period is when the Son being of years of discretion either by marriage or otherwise is seperated from his Fathers Family In which Case he is in all actions free and at his own disposal thô still with respect to those duties of Piety and Observance which such a Son must always owe his Father the cause thereof being perpetual M. I must beg your pardon if I cannot come over to your opinion notwithstanding all you have said in this long discourse since I cannot conceive how in any Case Children can naturally have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave since they are always bound to study to please them and thô by the Laws of some Nations Children when they attain to years of discretion have a power and Liberty in many actions yet this Liberty is granted them by positive and humane Laws only which are made by the Supream Fatherly Power of Princes who can regulate limite or assume the Authority of inferiour Fathers for the publick benefit of the Common-wealth So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceases by any seperations thô by the permission of the transcendant Fatherly power of the Supream Prince Children may be dispens'd with or priviledged in some cases from obedience to subordinate Parents F. And I must beg your pardon Sir if I cannot alter my opinion in this matter for all that you have now said since you can give me no better Reasons than what you did at first and thô you say you cannot conceive how Children can ever in any case have a power or moral faculty of doing what they will without their Parents leave yet they may have such power in many cases whether you can conceive it or no. For thô I do grant that Children are always bound to study to please their parents yet doth not this duty of gratitude or complacency include a full and perfect Dominion of Fathers in the state of Nature over the persons of their Children and an absolute power over them in all cases whatsoever so that the Children can have no right to consult their own good or preservation however it may be endangered by their Fathers passion or ill nature since a Wife is always obliged to this duty of complacency to her Husband yet is not this so absolute but that in a State of Nature she may quit his Family in those Cases I have already mentioned and against which you had nothing to object and I deny your position that Children when they attain to years of discretion derive that power and liberty they use it many actions from positive Humane Laws only or that the power which Parents naturally have over their Children can never cease by any seperation but only by the permission of the Father For as for Bodin and divers others that have written on this Subject they do no more than follw others who have asserted this absolute power of Fathers upon no better grounds than the Civil or Roman Municipal-Laws without ever troubling themselves to look into the true Original of Paternal Authority or Filial Subjection according to the Laws of Reason or Nature And most Treatises of this Subject being commonly writ by Fathers no wonder if they have been very exact in setting forth their own power over their Children but have said little or nothing of the Rights of Children in the State of Nature and therefore I shall farther let you see that this duty of Children even of pleasing or obeying their Parents can only extend to such things as they may reasonably or Lawfully command For suppose that Adam had commanded some of his Sons or Daughters never to Marry you cannot deny but this command had been void that being the only means then appointed to propagate Mankind for when there then lay a higher obligation upon them to encrease and multiply than there is
appears that Adam had not only an absolute Power granted him by God over his Wife but all the posterity that should be born of her For in the first place it here appears that Eve was to yield an absolute subjection to her Husband who was to rule over her as her Lord from these Words and thy desire shall be subject to thy Husband as it is better exprest in the Margin and he shall rule over thee And if his Wife was thus to be subject to him then likewise by a party of reason all her Children were to be so too it being a maxime in the Law of Nature as well as in the Civil Law that Partus sequitur ventrem so that if Eve was to be absolutely subject to Adam the Issue by her must be so too as in the case of a Master of a she Slave not only the person of the Woman but all that are begotten of her either by her master or any other man are likewise his servants otherwise the Children would be in a better condition than their Mother for Adam having no Superiour but God both his Wife and Children must have been a like subject to him There is likewise another rule in the Civil Law which is a voice of Nature too quicquid ex me uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est and tho this is true in some sense in all Fathers whatsoever yet it was so in a more superlative degree where the Father had no Superiour over him but God as Adam had not and farther it seems apparent to me from the very method that God us'd in Creating Mankind that Adam's Wife and Children should be subject to him for if Adam and Eve had been Created at once it could not have been known which of these two had the best right to command and which was to obey For Adam's strength or wit alone would not have given him any Authority over her and it might be that Eve was as strong and as wise as he or at least she miâ—ht have thought her self so and if these two had differ'd and fought nought but the event could have declared which of them should have been Master So when they had Children born between them the Children could have told as little which of the Parents they should have obey'd in case they had differ'd in their commands so that it had been impossible this way that any Government could have been in the World But when God Created only one Man and out of him one Woman was made sure he had some great design in this for no other Creature was thus made at twice but Man Now St. Paul shews a reason for Gods acting thus when he says the Woman should not Teach nor usurp Authority over the Man c. And mark the reason for Adam was Created and then Eve So that in the Apostles Judgment this was one main cause why Adam should be Superiour to his Wife and all other Husbands to their Wives and in the Corinthians from the History of the Creation the same Apostle deduces two other Reasons for the Superiority of the Man over the Woman For says he the Man is not of the Woman but the Woman of the Man that is Eve was formed out of Adam neither was the Man Created for the Woman but the Woman for the Man So that you see here is Adam stated in a degree Superiority over his Wife before the Fall and immediately after it God again renewed Adam's Title when he told Eve as I have but now mention'd thy desire shall be subject to thy Husband and he shall rule ever thee now I so far agree with what you at first lay'd down that if the fall had not disordered her faculties and rendered her apt and prone to disobey her Husband this command need not have been given her but she would have known her duty from the order and end of the Creation without this explicite positive Command F. You have Sir taken a great deal of pains to prove that which I do not at all deny that as well before as after the Fall Adam and consequently all other Husbands and Fathers ought to be Superiour to their Wives and â—hildren and likewise Govern and Command them in all things relating to their own good and that of the Family as long as they continue Members of it nay that after Children are separated from their Fathers Family they still owe their Parents all the gratitude duty and respect imaginable but yet I deny that this power which Adam had over Eve and his Issue by her and all other Husbands have over their Wives and Children is a regal despotical power or any more than Conjugal in respect of his Wife and Paternal in respect of the Children nor is that filial reverence and obedience which Children yield their Fathers the same with that respect and duty which a Wife owes her Husband or the same with that servile subjection which slaves owe their Lord and Master neither is the duty of a Wife of the same kind with that which Sons pay their Fathers or Slaves their Lords nor did Sarah when she called Abraham Lord who was then Master of a separate Family and so subject to none ever suppose that her Husband had the same Authority over her as he had over Hagar her Bond-woman to sell her or turn her out of doors at his pleasure but to make it more apparent to you that this power granted to Adam over Eve was not regal nor despotical but only conjugal and for the well ordering of the Family where some one must command in chief and the rest obey to avoid confusion will appear first If you consider that this Subjection of Eve to Adam was not enjoyn'd till after the Fall and is part of Gods Judgments denounc'd against Her for tempting Her Husband to eat the forbidden Fruit and certainly included somewhat more than that Superiority which he had over her by his Creation or else God should not have made it any part of the Judgment denounc'd upon her If this submission she ow'd to her Husband before the Fall had been of the same Nature with that Subjection she was to be under after it which yet I take to be neither servile nor absolute but only a conjugal Obedience or Submission of her will to his in all things Relating to the Government of the Family and the carriage of her self though I do not deny but the Husband may sometimes restrain her by force in case she carries her self unchastly or indiscreetly to the loss of her Reputation and prejudice of his Interest when she will not be directed or advis'd by his persuaâ—ion or commands which before the Fall when she was in a state of Innocency there was no need of since as your self grant before the Fall she know what was her duty and performed it without any force or 〈◊〉 c. And therefore that Text which
you have now quoted out of Genesis thy desire shall be Subject to thy Husband and he shall rule over thee is not fairly cited for as for the Marginal addition viz. Subject to thy Husband it is not warranted from the Hâ—brew Original or Version of the LXX The Hebrew having no more than thy desire shall be to thy Husband which the LXX renders i. e. the conversion or inclination of the desire by which some Interpreters understand no more than the carnal Appetite so likewise from the words rule over thee they likewise observe that Moses makes use of the same Hebrew word when he makes mention of the Sun and Moon ruling the Day and Night tho they do not do it by any violence or corporeal force so likewise by this ruling of the Husband is not to be understood any absolute despotick power whereby he hath a right to dispose of the person and actions of his Wife in all things at his pleasure but that she may in many cases refuse nay controul his commands and resist his actions in case they prove unlawful or destructive to her self and Children But that this Argument of St. Paul of the Husband's Superiority over his Wife was not granted to Adam alone but equally extends to all Husbands whatsoever appears from the very Text it self or otherwise St Paul had argued very impertinently of the duty of all Wives and if so it will follow that every one of Adam's Sons as soon as he took a Wife had the like Authority over her as Adam had over their Mother And if over their Wives then by your Maxims of partus sequitur ventrein quicquid eâ— me uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est all the Sons of Adam must have had the same Power over their Children as their Father had over them So that the same consequence will still follow from theses places of Scripture and also from you Civil Law Maxims that either Adam had no Civil or Despotick Power over his Wife and Children or else if he had that every one of his Sons when Married an separated from his Fathers Family had the same and consequently there were as many Princes as distinct Masters of Families and then what would become of Adam's Monarchy I give you leave to Judge M. I must beg your pardon if I am not satisfied with your answer to my last argument For I am still of opinion notwithstanding what you have said that Eve was to yield an absolute subjection to her Husband from that place already cited That her viz. Eve's desire i. e. will should be subject to her Husband c. To which you answer that this subjection of Eve to Adam was not the same which Sons owe their Fathers or Slaves to their Lords And that Eve owed Adam not a filial or servile but a conjugal subjection For I would â—ain know the difference in the State of Nature between one and the other For if you please to compare that place of Genesiis I but now quoted with that other where God gives Cain power over Abel his Younger Brother you will find them the same in words as also in sense For in this God likewise tells Cain That unto thee shall his desire be subject and thou shalt rule over him And â—ure God could not intend by these words that Abel should yield a Conjugal but a filial subjection to his elder Brother and these words are not capable of two senses but must be understood a like in both places i. e. That the Desire which is a Faculty of the Soul and that the most active too was to be subject and the body and all the Powers of it were to be over-ruled by him which is as full and absolute a subjection as can be express'd in words and whereas you say that these words were not spoken till after the Fall and thence seem to infer that Eve did not owe Adam so much as a Conjugal Subjection before that St. Paul hath given you an answer to that already which it is needless to repeat and therefore upon the whole matter I think your distinction of a Conjugal Subjection different from a Filial or Servile one will signifie nothing F. I doubt not Sir but I shall be able to make good this distinction of a Servile and a Filial Obedience and in order to it shall reply to the consequence you have made for Eve's absolute subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel as is us'd here to Eve concerning her Subjection to her Husband and that because the Subjection of Abel was absolute that therefore her Subjection must be so too I must crave your pardon if I deny your Assumption for I think I am able to prove that neither Abel nor any other younger Brother was or is obliged by vertue of this Text to yield an absolute Obedience to his Elder Brother in the state of Nature or that he is therefore his Lord and Master Nor can I see any absurdity but that the same words might be spoken to several Persons yet in different senses which according to the Nature of the Persons to whom they were spoken might have different Effects As here these words when spoken to Eve enjoyn a Conjugal Submission of Eve's Will to Adam as her Husband but when spoken to Abel they may signifie a Fraternal Submission of Abel's Will to Cain's as the Elder and perhaps the wiser of the two but without giving any absolute or despotick power over either M. I cannot be yet satisfied with your Reply for methinks this is but to play the Fool and trifle with God's Word when he told Cain thy Brother's desire shall be Subject to thee that is say you Thou shalt rule over him only as far as he thinks sir or if thou hast the knack to wheedle or perswade him Was not this a mighty matter for God Almighty to appear to Cain about An Excellent and Rational way to appease his Wrath towards his Brother Whereas God here plainly enjoyneth a subjection from Abel to his Elder Brother and if so by Vertue of the same words a like Subjection of Eve to Adam and then it will likewise follow that as the streams are of the same Nature with the Fountain the Subjection of all her Posterity will likewise be included in hers which I have sufficiently proved already had you not mistaken the true sense of those two Maximâ— I laid down For first if Partus sequitur vontrem and the Mother be a Subject as Eve was all her Posterity must be so to all Generations And if Quicquid ex me uxore mea nascitur in potestate mea est be true then Adam's Grand-Children and Great-Grand-Children deriving themselves from him and Eve must be likewise under Adam's power Nor caâ— I see how his Sons or Grand-Children by setting up separate Families could ever discharge themselves from this absolute
so many Years until he finds that instead of a Son he proves an Enemy to his Family or hath so laid wait against his Life that as long as he lives he cannot be safe or else commits some of those heinous crimes which by the Laws of God and Nature do justly deserve no less punishment than Death in short when he ceases any longer to deserve the name of a Son Yet this Authority holds no longer than whilst the Son remains part of his Fathers Family and so Subject to his Power and this I take to be the reason why we do not read that Adam took any notice of Cains's murdering his Brother because he was before freed from his Power by setting up another Family which certainly had been Adam's duty to have done had he been then under his jurisdiction Murder being as great a crime before the Flood as aâ—ter tho' the punishment of in by Death were not positively enjoin'd by God till then But I shall prove this point more particularly by and by as also that Adam's Children might enjoy or enclose some part of the Earth without any grant or assent from Adam to whom you suppose tho' without any proof as yet that the whole Earth was given by God To conclude I doubt you mistook me when you say I at first affirmed that all Civil Government was ordained by God for the benefit or advantage of the the Subjects rather than that of the Governours and therefore you undertake to shew me that in the first and most natural Government viz. that of a Family Children who are subjects in the state of Nature are ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents who are their Princes or Masters as their Parents for them in which assertion you fall in to more than on mistake for I do not assert that in Civil Government the benefit or advantage of the Subject is only to be considered For I shall easily grant that Princes may very well challenge a very great share in the honour and other advantages that may be reapt by their Government and yet for all that when the happiness and preservation of the Subjects is incompatible with that of the Prince the former is to be preferred and Bishop Sanderson is of this opinion when he tells us in his Lecture De Iuramento That the end of Civil Government and the obedience that is due to it is the safety and tranquillity of humane society and therefore the end is certainly to be preferred before the means when they cannot both consist together but this is no argument for the preferring the benefit or advantages of Parents before that of their Children since Paternal Government is not Civil Government nor are Fathers absolute Princes or Masters over their Children as you suppose and yet I think I may safely affirm that even in this Paternal Government tho' it be granted that Children are ordained for the benefit or help of their Parents yet when their happiness and preservation is inconsistent with that of their Children it may be a great doubt which is to be prefer'd since Gods chief intention in Parents was for the Preservation and Propagation of Mankind and therefore I cannot see how it could ever be any part of the Paternal Power for a Father to make his Child a Slave or to sell him to others at his pleasure as you suppose This being no part or end of the design or duty of a Father And whereas you lay to my charge my mistaking the true sense of those Civil Law Maxims you have quoted I think I can easily prove that the miâ—â—ake lyes on your side and that you have misapplied them to make them serve your purpose For as to your first Maxim Partus sequitur Ventrem from which you infer that the Child ought to be of the same condition with the Mother this rule in your Civil Law relates only to Bastards and not Legitimate Children who follow the condition of the Father according to your Digest Qui ex uxore mea nascitur filius mariti est habendus so likewise in your Code Cum legitimae nuptiae factae sunt patrem liberi sequuntur vulgo quaesitus matrem sequitur Nor is your second Maxim more true for tho' I grant according to your Roman Law the Father might have absolute power over his Wife and Children yet I cannot see how this word and nascitur can be extended beyond those that are born of a man and his Wife and therefore can never concern Grand-children much less any more remote Descendants and this very Law that a Son or Daughter might be killed by a Father seem'd so cruel and odious even to the Antient Romans themselves that neither the Law of the Twelve Tables nor the Iulian Law of Adulteries which were provided against Fathers Sons and Daughters ever extended it to the Grand-Father Grand-son or Grand-daughter by Interpretation or argument à casâ—â— consimili Nor do these words in Potestate mea est prove more than that all Children are born under the Power of their Parents tho' whether they shall always continue so as long as they live is not to be proved from this Maxim nor if it were doth that make it a Law of Nature For I must needs observe this of divers of you Civilians that what ever Maxim you find in your Civil Law Books that will make for your Notions you presently adopt them for Laws of Nature without ever enquiring by the strict Rules of Reason and the Good of Mankind by which alone any Law of Nature is to be tryed whether they are so or no. I shall not trouble my self to confute those false Conclusions you have brought from those weak Promises for if I have destroyed your Foundation I think your Superstructure cannot stand and therefore you must pardon me if I cannot find this Original Charter of Government and of all Civil Power to be derived from Adam by any Argument that yet you have brought either from Scripture or Reason only give me leave to observe thus much upon what you have said That if not only the Constitution of Civil Power in general but the special Limitation of it to one kind viz. Monarchy be the Ordinance of God I cannot see how any other Government but that can be lawfully set up or obeyed by Men since no Government can challenge this Priviledge against Divine Institution M. Since this Hypothesis doth not please you I shall be glad if you can shew me any better Original either of Adam's Paternal Power or of Civil Government than this that God gave Adam over Eve who indeed was as at the first Subject so the Representative of all that followed and it reaches not only to all her Daughters in relation to their Husbands but to all of them in relation to their Fathers and to her Sons too in relation to both their Father and their Eldest Brother after his Decease if no body
And of this he here gives us several Examples of different customs amongst Nations in making War upon each other according to diverse forms or tacit Agreements whereby War may be managed with a little Cruelty as may be but thus he proceeds These Customs altho' they may seem to contain some Obligation as arising from this sort of Tacit agreement amongst Nations yet if any Prince shall wage a lawful War or neglect them or should do quite contrary to them he would not be guilty of any sin against the Law of Nature but only of a piece of Roughness or Incivility that he did not make War according to those Rules of Honour which are used among them by whom War is looked upon as a liberal Art And a little farther proceeds thus Amongst the principal Heads of the voluntary Law of Nations Grotius reckons the right of Ambassadors where we also suppose that by the very Law of Nature Ambassadors are inviolable even with the Enemy as long as they appear Ambassadors and not Spyes and do not contrive Plots against those to whom they are sent and having shown the necessity of Ambassadors in order to Peace he thus goes on but there are other priviledges Attributed to Ambassadors especially to those who reside in a place rather to fish out the Secrets of another State than for Peace sake those priviledges depend from the meer indulgence of that Prince to whom they are sent and so if it seems good to him may be denied them without the violation of any Right if he will likewise suffer that his own Ambassadors should be Treated in a like manner M. I see whether this Author tends but do not understand what use you â—an make of it to your purpose F. But I will quickly shew you if you please to have a little Patience and therefore to apply what I have now read to the matter in hand in the first place it is apparent from this Author that the Law or Custom of Nations hath no Obligation as such but only as it agreeth with the Law of Nature and the Law of God and what Laws of Nations are founded on the Law of Nature can only be tryed by some rule which certainly is not to be learned from the Knowledge of the Customs or Laws of all Nations since who is able to know them all And therefore these Laws must be tryed either by the natural light of a Man 's own Conscience or else by considering whether this or that practice of a Nation conduces to the Honour or Service of God or the common good and happiness of Mankind and so may be known as well by the unlearned as the learned Now I suppose you will not affirm that this Law of the absolute Property and Dominion of Fathers in and over their Children can be discovered by either of these ways or that a Mans Conscience will tell him that it is his duty to let his Father Kill him or Sell him or use him like a Brute without any contradiction or resistance And as for the other I think I have sufficiently proved that this absolute power which you assert of Fathers over their Children doth not proceed from that great Law of Nature viz. the common good and preservation of Mankind to which the practice of it may prove very destructive which if proved I think I may easily answer all that you have now said about the particular Customs or Laws of diverse Nations concerning this Matter tho' your Instances were many more than they are For in the first place as for those you alledge out of the Scripture they do as I said before only regard thâ— Municipal Laws of the Iews those of the Romans touching this matter did only concern those Common-wealths whilst they were in being and no other Nations whatsoever and for this opinion I have both Grotius and Pufendrof of my side for the former in the beginning of the Chapter last quoted after having set down the different Powers which Fathers may exercise over their Children according to their different Ages thus affirms as you may here see Whatsoever is beyond these Powers proceeds only from a voluntary Law which is different in diverse places so by the Law which God gave the Iews the Power of the Father over his Son or Daughter to dissolve their Vows was not perpetual but only endured as long as the Children were parts of their Fathers Family And by the same Rule I may add that Children were not reckoned as part of their Fathers Goods and to be sold by him or seized upon by Creditors for his Debts any longer than they continued Members of their Fathers Family and consequently were not seized upon as his Sons but Servants And I desire you to shew me an Example where ever among the Iews the Children after they were Adult and parted from their Fathers House were sold or seized as Slaves for their Fathers Debts And as for the Romans it is plain they acknowledged their Patria Potestas to be in use amongst them neither by the Law of Nature or Nations but only from their own Civil Law as appears by this Title almost at the very beginning of Iustininian's Institutions as I suppose you know better than I Patria Potestas est Juris Civilis Civium Romanorum propria The Text follows in these words as I remember Jus Potestatis quod in liberos habemus proprium est Civium Romanorum nulli enim alii sunt homines qui talem in liberos habeant Potestatâ—â— qualem nos habemus And therefore they would not permit strangers to exercise it over their Children within the City of Rome And if the Power of the Father among the Jews and Romans was not by the Law of Nature or Nations no more could it be so tho' exercised amongst never so many other Nations since if it were one of the Laws or Preceps of Nature it could never have been taken away or restrained by any Civil Law without the express Consents of all Fathers And as for your Instance of Cymon amongst the Athenians it makes nothing to this purpose since if I take it at the worst it maketh no more than that the Athenian Common-wealth dealt very ungratefully and Tyrannically with Miltiades and his Son and it might be that they kept him Prisoner as being Heir to his Fathers Principality in the Thracian Chersonnese out of which they supposed he might pay the Debt as the King with us doth often put an Heir in Prison for his Fathers Debts where he hath Assets by Descent But for all your other Examples unless they have a reason in Nature to support them they will no more prove that by the Law of Nations Fathers should have a Right of Life and Death or of selling their Children than if you should argue from the Common Custom amongst the Lacedemonians the Aborigines in Italy the Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sophiris as amongst the Indians mentioned by Qu Curtius and
happen sometimes to abuse yet I suppose no person living hath any right in that state to resist him in the Execution of it much less to call him to an account or punish him for the Male-administration of his Power And you have granted that the Husband in the state of Nature hath a power of life and death over his Wife if she murthers her Children or commits any other abominable sin against Nature and that then she may be justly cut off from the Family and punish'd as an Enemy to Mankind and so certainly may his Children too But what need I say any more of this Subject when you have not as yet answered my former Arguments concerning the absoluteness and perpetuiry of this Conjugal Subjection and that which will likewise follow from it the constant service and subjection of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the state of Nature Therefore pray Sir let us return again to that Head and let me hear what you have to object against those Reasons I have brought for it F. I beg your pardon Sir if I have not kept so close to the Point as I might have done but you may thank your self for it who brought me off from what I was going farther to say on that Head by your discourse of Passive Obedience and Non-Resistance and I know not what strange unintelligible Power of Life and Death conferred by God on Adam as a Husband and a Father But first give me leave farther to prove that this subjection of the Wife is neither absolute nor irrevocable For proof of which I shall lay down these Principles 1. That the Wife in the State of Nature when she submits her self to the power of her Husband does it to live as happily as she did before oâ— rather to enjoy more of the comforts of life than in a single State 2. That therefore she did not renounce either her own happiness or Self-preservation 3. Neither did she make him the sole and absolute Judg of the means that may conduce to these ends for if this were so let him use her never so cruelly or severely she could have no cause to censure him or complain in the least against him 4. If she have not so absolutely given up her Will to his she is still Judge when she is well used by him or else so cruelly that it is no longer to be endured And therefore if such a Husband will not allow his Wife sufficient Food and Raiment and other necessaries or that he uses her cruelly by beating or other punishments or hath endeavoured to take away her Life in all these cases in the State of Nature and where there is no Superior Power to complain or appeal to she may certainly quit him and I think she is not bound to return to co-habit with him again until she is satisfied he is sorry for his former cruel Treatment of her and is resolved to make amends for the future But whether this Repentance be real or not she only can be Judge since she can only Judge of her own happiness and the means of her preservation And the end of Matrimony being for their mutual happiness and help to each other if he have broke his part of the Compact she is then so far discharged from hers and consequently in the meer state of Nature which is that we are now talking of the Vinculum Matrimonii as you Civilians term it will be likewise dissolved So likewise such a Husband for no just cause or crime in the Wife but only to be rid of her should endeavour to take away her life as suppose to strangle her in her sleep or the like no doubt but she may notwithstanding your Conjugal Subjection resist him by force and save her life until she can call in her Children or Family for her rescue and assistance who sure may also notwithstanding this absolute Daspotick Power you place in their Father or Master rescure her from his rage and malice whether he will or not Nay they are bound to do it unless they will be Accessaries to her Murther M. These are doubtful Cases at best and do very seldom happen and a Husband can scarce ever be supposed to be so wicked as to hate and destroy his own Flesh and therefore we need not make Laws on purpose for Cases that so rarely happen F. Rarely happen I see you are not very conversant at the Old Bayly nor at our Countrey Assizes where if you please to come you may often hear of Cases of this Nature and I wonder you that are a Civilian and have so many Matrimonial Causes in your Spiritual Courts brought by Wives for Separation propter Saevitiam c. Should doubt whether Husbands do often use their Wives so ill that it is not to be endured But if the Wife have these Privileges pray tell me why the Children shall not have the same according to your own Maxime of partus Sequitur Ventrem since the Subjection of Children must be according to your own Principles of the same natere with that of the Mother and then pray what becomes of this absolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of M. Yet I hope you will not affirm but that Children are under higher obligations of Duty and Obedience to their Father than a Wife is to her Husband with whom perhaps she may in some cases be upon equal terms but Children can never be so in respect of their Father to whom they are always inferior and ought to be absolutely Subject in the state of Nature that is before Civil Laws have restrained Paternal Power F. I thank you Sir for bringing me so naturally to the other Head I was coming to and I agree with you in your other Maxim of Quicquid ex me â—xore mea nascitur in potestate mea est yet not in your sense For iâ— I should grant that the Father's Power over the Child commences from his Power over the Mother by her becoming his Wife and submitting her self and consequently all the issue that should be begotten of her to her Husband's Power yet as I have proved already in case of the Wife so I think I may affirm the same in that of the Children That they are not deliver'd by God so absolutely to the Father's Will or disposal as that they have no Right when they attain to years of Discretion to seek their own happiness and preservation in another place in case the Father uses them as Slaves or else goes about to take away their Lives without any just cause since when Children are at those years I think they are by the Laws of Nature sufficient Judges of their own happiness or misery that is whether they are well or ill used and whether their Lives are in danger or not by their Father's Cruelty For tho' I grant that Children considered as such are always inferior to their Parents yet I must likewise affirm that in another respect as they are men and
make a part of that great aggregate body of mankind they are in all points equal to them that is as the Parents have a right to Life Happiness and Self-preservation so have they likewise and consequentially to all necessary means thereunto such as Food Cloaths Liberty I mean from being used as Slaves which Principles if true will likewise serve for a farther proof against that absolute Property and Dominion you supposed to be conferred on Adam over the Earth and all things therein exclusive to that of his Wife and Children For if they had a right to a Being and Self-preservation whether he would or not so had they likewise to all the means necessary thereunto and he was not only obliged to provide Food and Raiment for his Children whilst they were unable to do it for themselves but also when they grew up to Years of Discretion they might take it without his assignment and this by Virtue of that Grant in Genesis I before quoted And God said Gen. 1. viz. to the Man and the Woman and in them to all mankind then in their Loins Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the face of the Earth c. Behold to you it shall be for meat So that sure you were too rash in affirming with Sir R. F. That a Son a Slave and a Servant were all one at the first For I hope I have proved the Father doth not acquire any absolute Property in the person of the Son either by his begetting him or bringing him up for then I grant a Son and a Slave would be all one But if you please better to consider it you will find that Fathers were never ordained by God for perpetual Lords and Masters over their Children but rather as Tutors and Guardians till they are of Years of Discretion and able to shift for themselves God having designed the Father to beget and bring up his Child nor for his own interest or advantage only but rather for the Child's happiness and preservation which by the Laws of God and Nature he is bound to procure For as it is the Son's Duty never to do any Action that may make his Father repent his begetting or bringing him up so on the other side the Father ought not to Treat his Son so severely as to make him weaay of his Family much less of his Life It is the Apostle's Precept Ephes. 6.4 Parents provoke not your Children to wrath which certainly he knew they were apt to do or else that precept had been needless Now pray tell me if Adam had used one of his Sons whom he loved worse than the rest so cruelly as to make him a Slave instead of a Son and when grown a Man should have put him to all the servile and hard labour imaginable with scarce Victuals enough to live upon or Cloaths to cover him What must this Son have done Born all patiently Or else do you think it had been a damnable sin if he had fled into the Land of Nod to Cain his elder Brother M. To answer your Question I think in the first place it had for I do not only take Cain to have been the first Murderer but Rebel too and in the next place this Question is needless for it can scarce be supposed that ever Adam or any Father can be so wicked and ill-natur'd as to use a Son thus cruelly without some just occasion but if he had I think he ought to have endured any thing from his Father rather than have left him without his leave since I cannot see how Children can ever set themselves free from their Father's Power whether they will or no. F. If that be the condition of Children they are then instead of Sons as absolute Slaves as any in Turkey whenever their Father pleases But you have already granted that Fathers ought not to use their Children like Slaves nor to sell them for such to others And tho I have no great kindness for Cain yet I know not what warrant you have to call him Rebel I am sure neither the Scripture nor Iosephus mention his going to the Land of Nod as an offence committed against his King and Father Adam but rather as a piece of compliance or obedience to God's Sentence who had made it part of his Curse so to do M. I shall not much trouble my self whether Cain was a Rebel or not I only tell you what some Learned men have thought of his quitting his Country but as for other Children tho I grant their Fathers ought not to use them like Slaves yet if they should happen to do so I think such Children ought to bear it as a Judgment inflicted by God for their Sins and should not by any means set themselves free tho their Fathers use them never so severely since it is God's will they should be Born and continue under the power of such severe Fathers F. But pray Sir tell me what if this Son had fallen into the power of a Stranger who would thus make a Slave of him Was he likewise bound to bear this as a punishment from God for his Sins and might he by no means set himself free Since this could not happen without God's permissive Providence at least and I think you will sâ—arce prove it more in the Case of the Father unless you will allow God to be the Author of Tyranny and Oppression M. I Grant that a Man that is made a Slave to a Stranger by force without just cause given by him may set himself free by what means he can But I deny he hath the same Liberty in respect of his Father since the Father's power over him is from God and so is not the Stranger 's F. What power of the Father do you mean That of making his Son a Slave or of using him as a Father ought to use a Son The latter of these I very well understand to be from God but not the former And if the Father hath no such power from God I cannot see how it can be any Act of disobedience in a Son to look to his own Liberty and Preservation since Cruelty and Tyranny can never be Prerogatives of Paternal Power as you your self confess M. I grant indeed a Father hath no such Power from God to treat his Son thus cruelly but if he does I say again That God having ordained the Son to be absolutely subject to his Father he must endure it let the consequence of it be what it will And I suppose you will not deny but that in case of necessity as when a Father hath not wherewithal to nourish and breed up his Children he may sell or assign his interest in them to any person who will undertake to provide for their Nourishment and Education and that the Children so sold or assigned do thereby become absolute Servants to the person to whom they were thus assigned as long as they lived and why this should be
their condition in respect of a Stranger and not so to their Father I can see no Reason since their Father would have been at as much trouble and charge for their Education as the Stranger F. I so far go along with you that in case of such necessity as you mention a Father may sell or assign the present interest in his Child to a Stranger yet I cannot see any Reason that this Sale or Assignment should confer so absolute a Property in the Person of this Child as that therefore he should be a Slave to this Master or Fosterer as long as he lived since admitting that the Father or other person who takes upon him that Care may perhaps justly claim a Right in the Service or Labour of the Child to satisfy them for their trouble and charge in bringing him up yet it doth not therefore follow that this Service is due as long as the Child lives but rather until such time as they can make their Labour satisfy 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 of Education should give any Man a right over another's person as long as he lived But if you urge that the Child owed his Life to his Father or Fosterer since without his assistance he must have perished 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 Child and they sin if they do not perform it as they ought the end of a Father 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 merely because he did his Duty And the Duty of a Father being to better the condition of his Son and not to make it worse I doubt whether an absolute and 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 be for a Fosterer since he is likewise obliged by the Laws of Nature and common Humanity as well as by his Contract with the Father to breed up this Child so assigned him and not to let him perish if he be able to breed him up Nor ought this Father's or Fosterer's temporal advantage which he may make of this Child to be the principal end of his undertaking but the doing good to mankind and the advantage he may reap thereby is to be considered only as an encouragement and not as the only motive to this Duty since he is Obliged to do the same thing tho he were sure the Child would either dye or be taken away from him before he could be with him half long enough to satisfy him for his Charge Neither doth this reason hold true even according to the Scripture Rules of gratitude That a Man hath a right to exact of one to whom he hath done a Courtesy 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 another's assistance suppose by pulling him out of the Water must be obliged by this Principle to submit his Life to his disposal ever after And therefore I desire you would give me some better Reasons why such a Son ought to be so absolutely subject to his Father's Power as that it is not lawful for him upon any account whatsoever to free himself from it let his Father use him never so cruelly or severely M. Well Sir since you desire it I will give you the best Reasons I have why God cannot permit so unreasonable a Liberty as this would give to all Children in case they should make use of it whenever they thought fit and therefore God hath ordained it thus to take away all those pretences of undutifulness and disobedience which Children might make should they be permitted to be their own Judges when they might quit their Father's Family without his leave which pretence of cruel usage they would be sure to make use of thereby to leave their Parents upon every slight occasion saying That their Fathers were so cruel and severe that there was no living with them any longer when indeed it was not so but on the contrary no just cause of complaint against them more than bare correcting them for their Faults and so the Father be Berest of any nay all his Children who should be helpful and serviceable to him in his old Age which would breed great confusion and inconveniences in Families especially in the State of Nature as in the Case you have put concerning Adam's Sons they being the only Servants he could have to make use of on all occasions F. I desire you in the first place to take notice That I put this Case concerning Adam by way of supposition only not but that I have a better opinion of our first Parent notwithstanding his Fall than to believe him so ill-nattur'd or that he was ever so cruel as to use his Children thus hardly But in this depraved state of Nature such unnatural Rigours and Cruelties in Fathers as well as Disobedience in Children is but too frequent which no man needs to doubt of that will but consult the Custom of divers Nations in Africa and other Countries at this day where they sell their Sons for Slaves and exercise this Fatherly Power with the greatest Tyranny and Rigor using them as Slaves or felling them to others for such things as they want And if you think it against the Law of Nature for such Children when they see themselves ready to be sold to work in the Mines in Peru or Sugar-works at Barbadoes to run away into another Countrâ—y to avoid such a Condition which is as bad or worse than death you may enjoy your own opinion but I am sure you 'l have but fâ—w Proselites but such as are of the like Arbitrary Principles and as for your Pretence that if Children should be allowed to judge when their Fathers treated them too severely or like Slaves they would all run away that is but a Subterfuge For first it is a needless Caution Children being when young not apt to leave their Parents who have bred them up â—pon whom they depend for their subsistence and to whom if they are treated like Children they seldom faâ—l to bear a natural Duty and Affection and if well used they will when of years of discretion be likewise willing to stay with them and look after them when Sick or Old not only for Duty but
now they might then certainly have chosen Wives for themselves when they were of years of dicretion and capable of Marriage And farther to shew you that Children may in some Cases seperate themselves from their Fathers Family and Subjection without their Fathers consent is apparent as to the Daughters who if they were at first obliged by this precept to Marry might likewise do it whether he would or not and were to be obedient to their Husbands when they were Married the obedience which they before owed to their Father being now transferred to their Husband or also they must serve two Masters which is against our Saviours Rule by which it appears that the subjection of Daughters in the State of Nature is not perpetual And to prove that Sons have a like Right to separate from their Fathers Family let us suppose that Adam had been so cruel and unnatural as some Fathers are that being only sensible of the profit he received from his Sons labours he would never have permitted them to leave his Family nor to enjoy any thing of their own but would have kept them like Slaves as long as they lived if you affirm that he might have done so if he had pleased and that the Sons had no Lawful means to help themselves since he only was Judge whether ever he thought fit to set them free or not You your self have already granted the contrary when you affirmed that a Father had no Right to sell his Child as a Slave and then sure he can have as little Right to use him so himself But as for what you say against that natural equality of Children to their Parents considered as Men you might easily have understood it if your thoughts were not so wholly taken up with this transcendant imaginary Empire of Fathers in the State of Nature as if they were some what more than Men. For pray tell me are they not equal who have the same Right from God to the same things For if Fathers have a Right to live and be preserved so likewise have the Children and if they have a Right to the end they have likewise the same to the means necessary thereunto such as are food rayment freedom from Slavery c. And if they are thus equal they must likewise when they attain to years of discretion be endued with a Power of judging for themselves concerning what things are necessary to their happiness and perservation and what tends to their misery or destruction and consequently may very well judge whether their Fathers treat them kindly or cruelly for if the Father in the State of Nature in the sole Judge of the means that conduce to his Sons happiness and preservation without his consent he may determine that Poverty Slavery and Torment shall be fit means and conducing to this end which is against sense and reason and tho I grant that Sons may sometime be mistaken in the true means that may lead to these great ends of life yet doth not this take away their Right of judging for themselves any more than it doth the same Right from their Fathers who as Men are also lyable to the like mistakes Neither did any Slave or Subject ever give up his will so totally to his Master or Monarch as absolutely to renounce all Right to happiness and self preservation or to the means that may conduce thereunto But I think we have sufficiently debated this great point of the Natural Power of Fathers over their Children and therefore Let us in the next place consider whether Children may not upon these Principles in some Cases make use also of self defence even against their Fathers if they cannot otherwise avoid certain ruine and destruction therefore I will first ask you what you think of this Case A Son in the State of Nature being separated from his Father's Family and having Children and House of his own what shall he doe in Case his Father by the evil suggestions of a Step-mother or other wicked Persons be so far incensed against his Son as to send Men to burn his House plunder him of his Goods and destroy his Plantation M. If the Son be absolutely set free from his Fathers Family and Power with his consent I do not deny but that such a Son may resist those Persons his Father sends to ruine him and his Family and may repel their violence by force but I do not allow the Son the same power to resist the Person of the Father if he should come himself thus to destroy him F. Why so Do you think a Father by being so hath any greater Right to destroy his Son and ruine his Family then a Stranger M. No but because the Person of a Father ought always to be esteemed by the Son as Sacred as his Natural Prince and if he should have a Right to resist his Father by force he might happen to kill him in the scuffle which would be a sin against Nature F. Well suppose the worst would this be more a sin against Nature than to suffer himself Wife and Innocent Children to be turned out of all they have and left to perish by hunger and cold St. Paul says That he that doth not provide for his Family is worse than an Infidel and I think so would the Son be if for fear of hurting his Fathers Person he should permit all his Family to be exposed to certain beggery and ruine M. This precept of St. Paul obliges only when a Man may provide for his Family by Lawful means but not when it cannot be procured but by doing what is unlawful as I take this resistance of the Person of the Father to be F. I grant indeed that a Father acting as such is not to be resisted even when he corrects his Son but I suppose you will not say that in the Case I put he acts as a Father but an Enemy when he goeth about without any just occasion to kill or ruine him unless you can suppose that the will to preserve and destroy can consist together in the same Subject neither can you affirm that the Father hath any right to deal thus wickedly and violently towards his Son and his innocent Family By what Law then must the Son be obliged to Sacrifice his own life and that of Wife and Children and all that he hath to this imaginary Duty M. There seems to me two good reasons for it The first is that gratitude which the Son must always owe his Father for his Being and Educaâ—ion and therefore if he give up his Wife Children and all that he hath to his Will it would scarce be a sufficient requital for all the Benefits he hath received from him The second is because no circumstances whatsoever can take off or obliterate this Relation and thô 't is true your Father whilst acting thus doth not deal with you as a Father but an Enemy yet he is still your Father and you are and will be always his
this would introduce great mischief and confusion in privte Families so would it likewise prove a Foundation of Rebellion against all Civil Powers whatsoever if Subjects who are the same thing in a Kingdom that Children are in a Family in the State of Nature should take upon them to resist their Prince when ever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes which would likewise serve to justify all the most horrid Rebellions in the World since all Rebels whatsoever may or do pretend that their Lives Liberties and Fortunes are unjustly invaded when indeed they are not and Likewise upon the least hardship or injustice in this kind inflicted upon any private Subject either by the Prince or his Ministers which abuses and violences do often happen even under the Best Governments any such private Person who shall think himself thus injured may upon this principle take up Arms and endeavour to right or defend himself against such violence by which means under pretence of securing a few Men in their Lives or Estates whole Kingdoms if such Persons can find follows enough may be cast into all the mischiefs and confusions of a Civil War till the Prince and Government be quite destroyed F. I must confess the Arguments you now bring are the best you have yet produced since they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the common good and peace of mankind But I hope I shall make it plain to you that no such terrible consequences will follow from the Principles I have already laid down and therefore I must first take notice that you have in your answer confounded two Powers together which ought to be distingishued in the State of Nature viz. The Power which Fathers as Masters or Heads of Families may exercise over the Lives of their Children or Servants whilst they remain Members of their Family and that reverence and duty which Children must always owe their Fathers as long as they live even after they become Fathers or Masters of Families of their own In the first State I have already allowed that such Fathers as Masters of Families may Lawfully exercise a far greater Power over their Children whilst they are members of their Family than they can when they are seperated from it yet is not this Power in all Cases absolute or irresistible as I have already proved and therefore I do in the first place restrain this Right of self-defence only to such Cases where a Father would take away a Sons life in a fit of drunkenness madness or sudden passion without any crime committed or just cause given which I also limit to a bare self defence without injuring or taking away the life of the Father if it can possibly be avoided and in this Case if the Son who is like to suffer this violence may not judge when his life is really in danger to be destroyed because he may pretend so when really it is not This is no just reason to overthrow so great a Right as self Preservation since if this were a sufficient objection it would have the same force against all self defence whatsoever For it doth often happen that wicked and unreasonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take away the lives of others only to preserve their own when indeed it was altogether false and needless and they only killed them to satisfy their own malice or passion And therefore as there is no reason that the abuse of this natural Right should be used as an Argument against the use of all self-defence by any Man whatsoever So likewise neither ought the like abuse hereof by some wicked Children to be brought as an Argument against its being made use of at all by others who are never so unjustly assaulted and in danger of their Lives from their Fathers violence If the first principle be true on which this is founded that a Son may excercise this Right of self-defence in such Cases without any intrenchment upon his Fathers Paternal Authority or that Filial duty and respect which he must always owe him when ever he returns to himself and will behave himself towards him as becomes a Father and not like an Enemy or Cut-throat And as for the quarrels and confusions which you alledge may happen in Families between Fathers and Children in case such a liberty should be allowed those inconveniencies will prove very inconsiderable if you please to take Notice That first I do not allow this Right of resistance to be exercised by any Children before they attain to years of discretion Secondly that after they have attained to these years no resistance ought to be made against a Father whilst they remain part of their Fathers Family but only in defence of their own their Mothers Wives and Childrens Lives since I grant that a Son as long as he continues a member of his Fathers Family ought to bestow all his own labour for his Fathers profit and cannot acquire any property either in Lands or Goods without his Fathers consent And since you conceive this Right of self-defence if allowed to Children would be the cause of so great mischiefs in Families if Children should have no Right to judge when their Fathers abused their power over them let us a little consider on which side this abuse is most likely to happen for if you please but to look into the World and survey the Nature of Fathers and Children and set the faults of the one against the other you will find that as I confess it is the Nature of many Children to contradict and disobey their Fathers Commands and that most young people hate restraint and love too much liberty and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harsh or severe to them when really they are not yet doth such false surmises and disobedient actions seldom end either in absolute resistance or taking away their Fathers lives by force or if they do so it is really done for their own defence or whilst they are assaulted by them in their own Lives or those of their Children but is commonly acted privately to satisfie their own revenge or malice which I hold to be utterly unlawful so likewise let us consider on the other side those temptations that Fathers lye under of injuring their Children or taking away their Lives or uâ—ing them like Slaves without any just Cause you 'll find that they by reason of their age natural temper or infirmities may be easily transported to that degree of passion that not considering the follies of Youth they may oftentimes in their passion either beat them so cruelly as utterly to disable or maime them or else take away their Lives for little or no Cause And besides Fathers being often covetous and ill-natured which are the vices of old age may where there is no power over them to restrain them from it either keep them as Slaves themselves or else sell them to others for that purpose as I
with the Power of all such Masters of Families or Freemen taken together may for the sâ—me end viz. the good Government and Peace of â—heir Families and Commonwealths make Laws under no less a Penalty than Death it self against such offences as by the Law of Nature do not deserve it since without such a Power the wickedness of Man being come to this height it is no Family or Commonwealth could be long preserved in Peace or safety And therefore I suppose you will not affirm but that such a Master of a Family may very well inflict any punishment less than Death for such offences which if they find too gentle to amend those crimes they may likewise for the same reason encrease the punishments ordained for it And therefore I yield that tho Theft doth not in its own Nature deserve Death yet if the Master of such a separate Family shall find his Children or Servants to be so addicted to this vice as not to be amended by any less punishments than Death he may for the quiet of his Family make a general Law that whosoever for the future shall commit Theft shall suffer Death and I doubt not but such a Law when promulged may be Lawfully Executed since this Master of a Family is intrusted by God with the sole Power of judging not only what are crimes but also what are fit punishments for them since both are alike necessary for the happiness and preservation of the Family And I so far agree with you that such Masters of Families have as much Power over the Lives of their Children and Servants as the most absolute Monarchs have over their Subjects that is for their common good and no farther And upon the same Principles do all Kings and Common wealths inflict capital punishments for the Transgression of all such Laws as do any way entrench upon the common interest and safety of their People and upon this ground they may justly inflict no-less punishments than Death for Coyning of false Money which is but a sort of Theft from the publick Treasure of the Commonwealth And the same may be said for all capital punishments ordained against other offences of the same Nature M. If Fathers or Masters of Families are endued by God as you your self now own not only with this Power of Life and Death for enormous crimes against the Laws of Nature but also to make new Laws or ordain what punishments they please for such offences as they shall judg destructive to the quiet and happiness of their Families I see no difference notwithstanding what you have hitherto said to the contrary between Oeconomical and Civil Power For if we compare the Natural Rights of a Father or Master with those of a King or Monarch we shall find them all one without any difference at all but only in the latitude or extent of them For as the Father or Master over one Family So a King as a Father or Master over many Families extends his care to Preserve Feed Cloath instruct and Defend the whole Common-wealth his War his Peace his Courts of justice and all his Acts of Soveraignty tend only to preserve and distribute to every Subordinate and inferior Father and his Children their Rights and Priviledges Hath a Monarch Power to make new Laws and appoint what punishments he will to enforce their Observation So also hath a Father of a Family Hath an absolute Prince Power to command or dispose of the Goods and Estates of his Subjects for their common quiet and security So also hath a Father or Master of a Family So that all the Duties of a King are summed up in this Universal Fatherly care of his People and if the Soveraignty be the same I cannot see and Reason why the Rights and Prerogatives of it should not be so too And therefore if non resistance against their Authority be an unseparable Prerogative of Soveraign Power then if a Father or Master of a Family be endued with it he ought no more to be resisted than the most absolute Monarch F. I perceive your Head is very full of this Notion of the idintity of Natural and Civil Power or else you would never insist so long upon it as you do after what I have proved to the contrary And therefore since I see you look upon this as your topping Argument I shall do my endeavour to shew you more plainly the difference between them For tho I grant that such Fathers or Masters of Families as we here treat of are indued by God with divers Powers which are Analogous or perhaps the same with those of a King or Monarch that is of defending their Families as far as they are able from Forreign force and Domestick injuries and of revenging and punishing all offences that may prove prejudicial or destructive to the Peace and Happiness of their Families yet doth it not therefore follow that the Government of private Families and Kingdoms are all one since they differ very much not only in their Institution but also in their End For first the Fatherly Power by the Law of Nature is ordained only for the Generation and Education of the Children till they come to be grown up and his Authority as a Father is ordained by God only for those Ends and therefore this Relation of a Father is so inherent in him that it can never be parted with or assigned over to any other so as to make the Child or Son so Assigned to owe the same duty to him as he did to his Father There is also besides the Power of a Father that of a Master or Head of a Family over his Children and Servants whilst they continue Members or Subjects of it which Power I grant may be assigned or made over to one or more Persons when ever such Master shall think fit to institute a Kingdom or Commonwealth Yet as Dr. Sanderson very well observes this Power of a Master differs very much from that of the Civil Powers of a Kingdom or Commonwealth as well in the object as end of this Power For first the Power of a Father is only over one single Family whereas that of a Commonwealth is over divers Families united under one Civil Head Secondly in respect of the end the Power of the Master is chiefly ordained for his own interest and advantage but that of the Civil Power chiefly respects the good of the whole People or Community Lastly the Power of the Master of the Family is only for the maintaining his own Natural Property in those things which he hath acquired in the State of Nature whereas one great end of Civil Government is to introduce and establish Civil Property in things according to the Laws of the Commonwealth and also to maintain it when so constituted To conclude Fathers beget their Children and Masters acquire to themselves Slaves and Servants but it is from the consent of Fathers or Masters of seperate Families that any sort of Civil
a like Soveraignty by Right of Fatherhood over the same People divided into so many distinct Governments either then these seventy two Fathers were actually Rulers just before the Confusion and then they were not one People but an Aristocratical Common-Wealth and then where was your Monarchy Or else these seventy two Fathers had Paternal Authority but knew it not which is hard to suppose And if these seventy two Grand-children of the Sons of Noah had a Right to divide this Supreme Paternal Authority of Adam into as many distinct Governments as there were Heads of Families why might not their Sons have done 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 your Notion of the Divine Right of Primogeniture M. 'T is a very pleasant Notion methinks this of yours that the Posterity of the first Planters of the World should follow their Ancestors not as Children or Subjects but as Volunteers and from a Reverence forsooth and Affection to their Age Wisdom and Experience Indeed I am thus far of your mind that these Children followed their Fathers freely and were not driven afore them nor dragged after them with Chains But to infer from hence that they owed their Father none of this Service or Attendance but out of meer good Nature and Gratitude which are due to Strangers that have obliged us by being our Benefactors is a Notion that only becomes one that owns no Right to be derived from Patriarchal or Paternal Power and since there was none of these Patriarchs who were the Leaders of Mankind in this Dispersion but might be one or two hundred years old if not more can any thing in Nature look more ridiculous than for the Children and Descendants of these Old Men to elect them who begat them to be their Leaders and Governours at a hundred years of Age And to give you an Answer why Governments might not upon my Principles crumble into new ones in infinitum I think it may be sufficient to tell you that First God prevented it and that for the most part by Monarchs ever since the Creation of the World and altho' he was pleased to permit many Divisions after this time yet he would never suffer Mankind to be crumbled into such small Divisions as to make every distinct Houshold an Independent Government Secondly Those Monarchs prevented it who would be sure to reduce to their Subjection any person that should attempt to divide himself or Family from the rest and set up for an Independant State without his leave and liking Thirdly The necessity of Mankind prevented it such small parcels of Men not being able to preserve themselves but by uniting with the rest for their Support and Protection So that if you could never so clearly prove that here was no Subordination to the Eldest Son or Heir of Noah yet this signifieth nothing for God ordered it so to be and if these Grand sons of Noah were Independant Governours of their own Families with any Subordination to the Eldest Son's Son or Heir of Noah yet were they still Soveraign Princes and much less had any dependance upon their own Children and Descendants So that hitherto the Multitude were kept under Subjection and could not set up a Common-wealth without rebelling against those Independant Governours Now if in this horrible Confusion of Tongues the People by the Will of God still fell under the Monarchical Government of these Fathers of Families I desire to know when they could obtain their Freedom and in what Age it began F. I must confess you had some Reasons to look upon my Notion of the Descendants of the Sons of Noah following their Ancestors in this Dispersion not as Children or Subjects but as Volunteers to be as ridiculous as you are pleased to make it could you have any way proved at our last meeting that the Power of Parents over their Children and Grand-children to all Generations is as absolute and perpetual as that of a Master over his Slaves and that a Son and a Servant were all one at the first but since you failed in that Proposition which is the ground-work of all the rest I must beg your pardon if I cannot found the Descendants of Noah following their Fathers or Ancestors in the Dispersion upon any higher ground than meer Gratitude and Esteem I mean for all such of them who were themselves at that time Masters or Heads of separate Families and I desire to know of you by what other Motive or Obligation a Great Grand-son for Example was obliged to follow his Great Grand father to the World's end as his Prince or Leader when perhaps his own Father thought fit to lead him another way and I desire you to shew me if they had as they might very well have commanded different things which was to be obeyed And how Disobedience to a Man 's own Father in this case would have consisted with that Law of Nature which you so much insist upon of honouring a Man's Father But indeed all this mistake proceeds from your first false Notion which I see you cannot yet be quit of in still supposing the Obedience and Subjection of Children to their Fathers to be absolute and perpetual The contrary to which I have already made out at our last meeting And therefore I must tell you again that this Notion of these Grand-children or Descendants following their Fathers or Ancestors not out of Duty but Choice is not so ridiculous as you are pleased to make it and tho' I do not suppose that they Elected these Ancestors of theirs for their Leaders by a Balotting-Box yet this much I am sure of that they might prefer if they pleased the following of their Father or Grand-father rather than their Great Grand-father if they perceived that he had doted through Age or else by Weakness or Infirmities was unable to lead them or that his natural temper was so Imperious and Tyrannical that there was no living under his Government Neither doth the Scripture it self any where declare the contrary only says in general that by these Grand-sons of Noah the Isles or Countreys of the Gentiles were divided according to their Families and Nations without particularly telling us who were the Princes or Leaders of each Tribe or Family And to instance if this Division happened in the time of Peleg or Phaleg as the Greek LXX makes it then not Arphaxad the Great Grand-father or Selah the Grand-father but Heber the Grand-son was the Prince or Leader of his Family at this Division Since it is from him that Iosephus supposes the Hebrews not only to have descended but to have taken their Names Nor do you any better answer the other Difficulty how all these Seventy two Patriarchs or Great Grand-fathers could all of them claim alike Regal Power from Adam or Noah whose Right Heir could be but one Person
his People will no more prove that Government belonged to Adam's Heir as to his Fatherhood than God's chusing Aaron of the Tribe of Levi to be Priest will prove that the Priesthood belonged to Adam's Heir or the Prime Fathers since God could chuse Aaron to be Priest and Moses Ruler over Israel tho' neither of those Offices were settled on Adam's Heir or the first Patriarchs So likewise for what you say concerning God's raising up the Judges to defend his People proves Fatherly Authority to be the Original of Government just after the same rate and cannot God raise up such men unless Paternal Power give a Title to the Government But to come to your darling Instance the giving of the Israelites Kings whereby you suppose God re establisht the Antient Prime Right of Lineal Succession 〈◊〉 Paternal Government This I can by no means understand for if by Liâ—â—â—l Succession you mean to Adam I desire to know how you will make it out that either Saul or David could be Heirs of Adam's Power or how the Power that those Kings were endued with by God was the same Power which Abraham Isaac and Iacob enjoyed before For if you please to consider it your Hypothesis consists of two Propositions the first is that all Paternal Power is the same with Regal Power which if it be proved not to be true the other convertible Proposition which is but the Conversion of this will likewise be as false viz. that all Regal Power is Paternal Nor is what you said last of all any truer than the rest that whensoever God made choice of any person to be King he intended that the Issue I suppose you mean his Issue should have the benefit thereof For either Moses and Ioshua and the Judges were no Kings tho' you have asserted the former to be so or else they had not the benefit of this Grant But certainly Saul was a King and yet his Issue never succeeded but you speak very warily to suppose this Grant to be made to the Issue in general without specifying in particular who should enjoy it because I suppose you are sensible that Solomon whom God expresly appointed to be David's Successor and Iehoahaz whom the People of the Land made King in the room of Iosiah were neither of them Eldest Sons of the Kings their Fathers To conclude I desire you would shew me what Relation or Title all Kings or Princes now-a-days have or can claim as Heirs to Adam or Noah or how that Power with which God endued those Fathers of Mankind is the same which you say all Princes or Monarchs may now claim to be given them by God For I confess I can see no likeness or Relation at all between them M. It may indeed seem absurd to maintain that Kings now are the Fathers of their People since Experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings are 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 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 And tho' I have all along supposed that Paternal Government was at first Monarchical yet I must likewise grant that when the World was replenished with People that this Paternal Government by Succession ceased and a new kind of it started up either by Election Conquest or Usurpation yet this was still Paternal Power which can never be lost or cease tho' it may be transferred or usurped or it may be ordained a new in a person who otherwise had no Right to it before Thus God who is the Giver of all Power may transfer it from the Father to the Son as he gave Saul a Fatherly Power over his Father Kish So that all Power on Earth is either derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power there being no Original to be found of any Power whatsoever for if there should be granted two sorts of Power without any subordination of one to the other they would be in perpetual strife which should be Supreme for two Supremes cannot agree if the Fatherly Power be Supreme then the Power of the People must be subordinate and depend on it if the Power of the People be Supreme then the Fatherly Power must submit to it and cannot be exercised without the Licence of the People which must quite destroy the frame and course of Nature F. If this be all you have to say for the proof of so weighty an Hypothesis I confess I wonder how you or any rational Man can lay so great stress upon it For tho' I should grant you that some Fathers of Families at first became by the tacit or express Consent of their Children and Descendants to be Kings or Princes over them doth it therefore follow that all Kings Govern by Right of Fatherhood at this day 'T is true you tell me that all Kings tho they are not now the Natural Fathers of their People Yet are still to be esteemed as such by them as Succeeding either as Heirs or Successors to those that were so I grant indeed if any Kings now adays could prove themselves right Heirs to Adam or Noah this were somewhat to the purpose but to talk of a Paternal Power proceeding from Election Conquest or Usurpation is perfect Iargon to me for pray tell me can a Man become endued with Paternal Power over me by my Electing him to be my King or can a Man by Conquest or Usurpation oblige me to yield him a Filial Duty and Obedience for if this were so if a Father of a separate Family such as Abraham was should be conquered by the head of another separate Family nay tho he were a Thief or a Robber if once the true Father were Killed or destroyed all the Children and Descendants of the Family must pay the same Duty and Obedience to this unjust Conquerour or Robber as to their true Father and the same may be said in Usurpations in case after the death of such a Father of a Family a Younger Brother or Nephew should get possession of the House and Estate and force all his Brethren and Kinsmen to Submit to him they must then all own him to be endued by God with the same Paternal Power which their Father or Grand-father had and consequently must Honour and Obey him as their true Father Both which examples being contrary to the Common sense and reason of Mankind may shew you how absurd this Hypothesis is whereas indeed Fatherhood being a Relation of Blood and the Duty and Respect we owe to him that is our Father proceeding from that Piety and Gratitude we owe him both for our Generation and Education how can this Relation or these Obligations be ever transferred to or
seize upon some Territory or Island sufficient for them to Inhabit in Yet doth not the Text tell us whether the Countrey they lived in was by them divided into particular shares or whether they made use of it in common as the Indians of America do at this day where the Quantity of Land doth far exceed that of the Inhabitants that live in it Nor lastly Supposing that a Division was made of these Countries they then inhabited doth it tell us whether it was done by the Sole Authority of their Prince or Leader claiming as his own the whole Dominion of it so that no Man could have Right to a foot of Ground in it but himself or whether this Division was made by the Joynt Consent and Agreement of all the rest of the Heads of Families and other Freemen that went along with him The Scripture is silent in these Circumstances that only telling us that the Great Grand-sons of Noah mentioned Gen. 10. The Isles of the Gentiles were divided in their Lands every one after his Tongue after their Families in their Nations And that this Division was in the days of Peleg but no where declares whether every particular Region or Countrey was then divided into distinct Shires or not And as for what you say that all Princes and Conquerors of Territories and Countries have the like Absolute Dominion and Property in them as Adam and Noah had over the whole World if it were no more than that I doubt it would be very little since I have already proved and I think you must grant that no Monarch at this day can claim his Crown as the Right Heir of Adam or Noah or as their Representatives and it will I think be much harder to prove that the Sole Property of an acquired Country or Kingdom must be in them by vertue of any such Right But as for your Instance of William the Conqueror's having a Right to all the Lands in England by Conquest since it requires somewhat a longer Answer than the time will now afford I shall refer speaking farther of it till another opportunity But pray Sir at present make me see a little plainer what those Inconveniences and Absurdities are that will follow from my Hypothesis that God at first gave the World and all Creatures therein to Mankind to be used and enjoyed in common if they thought fit M. I shall shew you some farther Absurdities that will follow from it than I have done already For tho' Grotius and Selden indeed maintain that a Community of things was by the Law of Nature of which God is the Author and yet that such a Community should not be able to continue seems to derogateâ— from the Providence of God to ordain a Community of things which could not continue And it seems also an Act of high presumption in the Descendants of Noah to abrogate the Natural Law of Community by introducing that of a Propriety in things F. I pray give me leave to interrupt you that you may not run on in a mistake for let Grotius or Selden assert what they please I am not tied to submit to it and therefore when I say that God gave the World and all the Creatures therein to Men to be used in common if they please I thereby understood that God hath by the Laws of Nature commanded nothing in this matter but hath left the Earth and all things therein to be used in common or in several as may best consist with the Convenience Necessity or Customs and Laws of each particular Nation or Common-Wealth who God designs should live peaceably together and make the best use of the Country where they inhabit and the things therein contained for their own common maintenance and safety according to the expression of the Royal Psalmist But the Earth hath God given to the Children of Men i. e. all the Descendants of Adam M. Well suppose it were so the prime Duties of the Second Table are chiefly conversant about this Right of Propriety but if this Propriety were introduced by Human Laws or Agreements as Grotius and you your self suppose then both the Moral and Divine Law would depend upon the Will of Men so that there could be no Law of Nature against Adultery or Theft if Women and all things else had been in common F. This Objection wholy proceeds from your not having any distinct or true Notions of the Nature and true Original of Propriety and therefore if you please to hear my Account of it I hope you will grant when I have done that your Objection against the Community or things will be to no purpose I do therefore in the first place distinguish between a Natural and a Civil Propriety By the former Mâ—n might be guilty of Theâ—t before Civil Propriety was instituted But as for Adultery that was always unlawful both by the Laws of God and Nature which abhâ—rs Community of Women and Promisâ—uous Copulations and God hath particularly ordained that the Man and his Wife should be one Hesh and no Man that maintains a Natural Community of things ever supposed that Women were amongst those things that were to be in common or that a Man had the same kind of Propriety in his Wife as in his Horse so that the Command against Adultery might very well consist with the Community of things M. Suppose I grant this I do not understand how there can be a Natural Propriety and yet a Community in things as you suppose F. I wonder you should not be able to apprehend this and have been so often at an Ordinary and a Play-house at the former you know tho' a Man hath a Right to his Dinner yet all the Meat at the Table being in common he cannot call any part of it his own till he hath cut it or divided it from the rest And at the latter a Man hath a Right to a Place either in the Box or in the Pit and yet he cannot tell where it is till he hath placed himself in it or sent some body to keep it for him M. I do apprehend what you mean but pray explain to me the manner of this Natural Propriety â— little more at large F. I would readily do it since if that were well done I grant it would be a great step to the clearing of the Original and Nature of all Civil Power I would readily do it were it not now too late to enter upon so long a Subject and therefore I think we may both be sufficiently 〈◊〉 with Talk so as to put it off until another opportunity when I shall give you my thoughts of the 〈◊〉 Original of Civil Government in what sense it proceeds from God and yet how far the Consentus the People is necessary to make it obligatory on the Consciences of the Subjects which when it is once well setled I hope there will be little need of disputing farther whether this great Alteration hath been brought about by Lawful means
secure in what he enjoys but by it nor can he have a right in a Countrey that is already possess'd to property but by owning the Government of that Countrey and when by enjoying the Rights and Priviledges of the Subjects of that Common-wealth he has own'd himself a member of it and a Subject to its Government he is then bound to maintain this Government and also the King that administers it from a double obligation the one particular in respect of himself and that protection he receives from him the other more universal proceeding from that duty which is incumbent upon every particular Subject to maintain the peace and happiness of the Common-wealth as long as he continues a Member thereof So that he is bound never to disturb it as long as the main ends of Government can be had and enjoy'd therein and this is the only means that I know of by which any man except by express Oaths and Promises can consent to become Subject to any single person or Government Now this tacit consent of particular persons being separately and singly given unthinking people take no notice of it and suppose they are as naturally Subjects as men and consequently that they have no more right to free themselves from their Subjection than from their Humane Nature nay must suffer themselves to be destroyed rather than endeavour it let the Government oppress them never so unmercifully which is indeed to reduce men to the condition of brute Beasts who belong to this or that Owner because he either bought them with his Money or else because they happen'd to drop from their Damâ— upon his ground From what has been here spoken I think we may deduce this general Conclusion that every ordinary Subject who enjoys the common benefits and protection of any Government iâ— bound in gratitude not only to obey it but also to be true and faithful to it during the time he lives under it and is bound likewise not to conspire against it and therefore that Oaths do not alter the nature of Allegiance or make it due where it was not before or any ways extend it but only add a new tye to pay that Allegiance which is due upon the account of protection He that lives under a Government though he has not sworn to it owâ— it the same Allegiance as he that has and if he should deny his Allegiance to it would be equally guilty of Treason though not of Perâ—ury It is evident by the universal practice of Mankind that no Subjects ever thought themselves obliged by those Oaths of Fidelity which all Governments have constantly imposed on them when they could not be protected by them and that this failure of Protection did not proceed from any fault in the whole Nation or People themselves And this may be prov'd by the common and constant practice of all the Subjects of Europe for who does not know that the Subjects of the King of France's last Conquests in Flanders have been forced to swear Allegiance to him though they were satisfied that his Title was unjust and that their Natural Sovereign the King of Spain to whom they had formerly sworn Allegiance is still living We have had also a late Example of the Subjects of the Duke of Hâ—lsâ—ein Goâ—torp who having both his person taken Prisoner and his Territories unjustly seiz'd upon by the King of Denmark in time of Peace the Subjects of the said Duke were forced to swear Allegiance to the King notwithstanding their former Oath to their Master nor do our Modern Casuists as I know of blame them for so doing And why the People of England should be tied to harder terms than all the rest of Europe I wish you could give me a sufficient reason since the Legislative Power of England wherein it is certain the People have a share are presum'd to recede as little as possible from natural equity and therefore design by imposing such Oaths only the good and preservation of the Civil Society whose interest it is that they who have the publick Administration of Affairs should not be disturbed but it is not at all material to that end whether this or that Man hath this power provided they are well managed nor can it without the greatest absurdity be suppos'd that such numbers of Men as Societies are compos'd of who are by nature equal should oblige themselves by the most solemn ties to become most miserable by living without protection nay to lose even their lives rather than own the Government that can and does protect them for no other reason but such an extraordinary fondness to this or that Person or Family as to fancy to be inseparable from him not to the necessaries or real conveniencies of life but only an Office for Government is no other which is but an imaginary happiness I grant therefore that People should be true to those that have the present administration of Civil Affairs is all that all Oaths of Fidelity require and it is evident from the intent of it that the late Oath of Allegiance required no more and to extend it farther than the King in Being is not reconcilable with the reason end and design of paying obedience which is the peace and happiness of the Civil Society which can never be maintain'd if people may for the sake of a single person disturb him that has the administration of their common Affairs and it would require impossibilities because private persons are incapable of paying Allegiance to a King when out of possession of the Government M. Notwithstanding what you have said I think I am able to convince you of divers great mistakes you have now committed in this Discourse of Natural Allegiance as also in the obligation we are under by the Oath of Allegiance to King Iames. For first as to Natural Allegiance you are very â—old to suppose there is no such thing when all your Law-Books hold so expresly that there is I am sure this is to be guilty of the fault for which you have already reprov'd me of being wiser than the Laws you are also much mistaken to suppose that this Natural Allegiance meerly springs from hence that the persons oblig'd by it are only such as are born within the Kings Dominions for persons born without the Realm may be also his natural Subjects as are the Children of Embassadors born beyond Sea and the Children of Aliens born within the Kingdom are not therefore Natural Subjects of the King so that the meer circumstance of Birth does not alone entitle any one to the priviledges of a Natural Subject nor consequently bind him to all the duties of Natural Allegiance But it is therefore called natural in our Laws because as the best Lawyers have affirm'd it is â—ounded upon the Law of Nature which gives the Sovereign power a right to the Allegiance of every one who is Born under the Jurisdiction of it As every Son is born a Subject to his Parents
cited it to you at the beginning of this Evenings Conversation so that I confess I much wonder considering what he has there said how he can so positively maintain as he doth in the place you have also quoted that Allegiance is due to the King de Facto and not to Him de Iure whilst the former is possest of the Crown since it seems a flat contradiction to me how a Subject is to pay Allegiance as long as he lives to the King and his Heirs of life and member that is until the letting out of the last drop of our dearest Hearts-blood and that in all places whatsoever And yet that this Obligation should last no longer then whilst the King de Iure is in actual Possession of the Throne and therefore I think I have still very good reason to maintain that we are still oblig'd by our former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames so as not to take a new one to any other King unless we had been constrain'd to it by an absolute Conquest which you your self will not maintain to be our present Case F. I confess you have now argued this point very stifly and I confess what you have said carries with it the greatest appearance both of Law and Reason of any thing you have yet urged upon this Subject and therefore if I can fairly answer it I hope you will come over to my Opinion and take the Oath which is now required of you In the first place therefore I cannot deny that all you have said concerning a natural Allegiance due by Birth to the King is true according to our Laws and I do my self allow the thing viz. That Allegiance is due to him though not for the Reasons upon which our Lawyers have founded it but upon those I have already given and therefore though granting it was held to be Law in the Case of Dr. Story that his Plea of his becoming a Subject to the King of Spain was over-rul'd by the Judges and he refusing make any other Plea was condemned upon a Nihil Dicit Yet this being only a Penal Law I think obliges the Subject to the penalty if he be taken but does not oblige him in Conscience never to change his Prince or the Government he was born under without their consent let his Circumstances become never so uneasie under it and that this is so I need go no further then the late Case of the French Refugees who thought they are strictly commanded by their King not to stir out of France whatsoever persecution they may suffer yet I think no Man of Sense can blame them if being persecuted there they remove themselves into other Countries and become perfectly Naturaliz'd Subjects or Denisons at least in that Government whereunto they remove and this is so known a thing that no Casuist as I know of thinks it a sin in such Subjects of England as finding it for their advantage go over into another Country to settle and make their Fortunes or are there Naturaliz'd or made free Denisom in those Kingdoms or Common-wealths whereunto they remove nor are such Persons oblig'd in Conscience to return Home upon the Command or Summons of that Prince to whom you suppose them to be Subjects by Birth nor is your Argument at all convincing that because a Mans owes a duty to his Parents by the law of Nature and by being Born their Child that therefore the subjection to the Prince under whose Government he is Born must be alike perpetual since the ground upon which you found this Consequence is altogether false since I have already prov'd at the first meeting we had to discourse of these matters that a Man's being Begotten and bred up by his Parents does not make him become their Subject or Servant in the state of Nature as long as he lives so that he may never withdraw himself from their subjection without their leave But in the next place I think I am as little mistaken in my Notion of Allegiance which I suppose every Person who is a true and perfect Subject of the Government owes to the King or Sovereign Power thereof for tho' I grant there is a great deal of difference between that imperfect Allegiance or bare Submission which every Foreigner owes the King or Government under which he resides and that more perfect Allegiance which every Subject owes the King who enjoys all the Rights and Previledges of a true English Man yet to let you see that this distinction proceeds not from the bare protection of his Person and Goods by the Government under which he lives but by his being Naturaliz'd and becoming thereby a perfect Member of this Civil Society is plain from your own showing and therefore whosoever not only enjoys the common protection of an Inhabitant but also all the Rights and Priviledges of a true English Subject is bound to swear Allegiance if requir'd to the King or Queen de facto without enquiring into their Right or Title for if they are strangers or have never taken any Oath of Allegiance before they cannot be under any former Oath and as for natural Allegiance I have already prov'd it to be a meer legal Notion and this Allegiance I have also prov'd to to be due to the King and Queen de facto not only from the Opinion of the Judges in Bagots's Case but also from my Lord Cokes interpretation of the Statute of Treason which though you suppose to be contradictory to what he had before laid down in Calvins's Case yet if you please better to consider of it you will find it not to be so for though it is true the Judges do there assert That the Obligation of the Oath of Allegiance is indefinite and without Limitation as being made to the King and his right Heirs and also that it extends to the venturing of life and members and to the letting out of the last drop of our Blood yet is this still to be understood only of such a one and his Heirs who still continues to be King in a legal Sense which can be only he who is King for the time being as he is stil'd in this Statute of the 11 th of Henry the 7 th and only during the time that he continues in actual Possession of the Throne And therefore the word King or Majesty being indefinite and without having any respect to his Title whether by descent of Blood or else by his being Crown'd and Recogniz'd by Parliament it is no contradiction to suppose this Allegiance is only due to the King in this limited Sence according to this Statute of Henry the 7 th where pray take Notice that I have made this Allegiance to be only due to Kings and Queens de facto because they only are within intent and letter of this Statute as also of that of Treason according to the legal Government of this Nation by the Fundamental Laws thereof and can no ways be extended to any other
and Rights of Princes and the absolute obedience of Subjects when they saw even the Kings just and lawful Prerogatives in danger to be taken from him by force And altho' they may perhaps stretch several of these points too far yet this may be very excuseable since it is a hard matter to Write so exactly against any error as not to fall into the contrary Extream which nevertheless may sometimes prove useful enough As those who would set a stick straight are forced to bend it to the other side and so these Doctrines which might then be seasonable whilst the People carried on their animosities against the King farther than in Justice they ought have not now the same reason and cogency when this King hath so manifestly endeavoured to pull up the very foundations both of our Religion and Government So that I am perswaded could those good Bishops have lived by the course of Nature to our times and have seen the ill and fatal use hath been made of those Doctrines by those in Power they would either absolutely have renounc'd them or at least have been very cautious how they publish't such doubtful opinions to the World M. I must beg your pardon Sir if I am not of your Opinion for I look upon the absolute subjection of the subjects to the higher or supream Powers to be a thing of such constant and eternal Obligation that no change of times or circumstances can ever dispense with us in or discharge us from it and I am so far from believing that those good Bishops would ever have recanted their opinions in this particular that had thâ—y lived until this time I think they could not without the imputation of time servers have forborn publickly to declare and maintain them for sure we must not deny or lay aside true Principles because of some inconveniences or hardships that may thereby happen to our Religion Persons or Civil Liberties since that were the ready way to give a Licence to the rankest Rebellion and the highest disobedience to the Supream Powers for so the Primitive Christians might have claimed a right to Rebel against the Heathen Emperors pretending they were not bound to submit themselves unto them because they persecuted Gods Church and put the Christians to death for no other reason than that they were such Whereas we may plainly see St. Peter and St. Paul teach us another lesson and command absolute subjection without reserve to the higher Powers which were then the Tyrannical persecuting Emperours and that the Primitive Christians who immediately followed the Apostles understood them in this sense and altho' they had sufficient strength yet thought it unlawful to resist those â—eathen Emperor 's under which they liv'd I refer you to that vast Treasure of Quotations out of the Fathers and Antient Church Historians collected with such Learning and Industry by the Lord Primate Usher in the second Treatise F. It is not my intention Sir at present to fall into a severe examination of so many Texts of Scripture and Quotations of Fathers and other Authors as are made use of by those Learned Men you lately mentioned which require more consideration than our short time will now afford therefore the best method I can propose to you for the true stating and understanding this Noble Controversie were first to look into the Natural state of Mankind after the Fall of Adam and enquire First If God has appointed any kind of Government by Divine Institution before another Secondly If he has not how far Civil power may be lookt upon as from God and in what sense as deriv'd from the people Thirdly Whether Resistance by the Subjects in some Cases be incompatible and absolutely destructive to all Civil Government whatsoever Fourthly Whether such Resistance be absolutely contrary to the Doctrine of Christ contain'd in the Scriptures and that of the Primitive Church pursuant thereunto Fifthly Whether such Resistance be contrary to the Constitution of this Government and the express Laws of the Land Sixthly Whether what has been done by the Prince of Orange and those of the Nobility Gentry c. in pursuance of these Principles has been done according to the Law of Nature the Scriptures and Ancient Constitutions of this Kingdom which material Points if we can once suttle and discover where the Truth lyes it will prove the clearest Comment and best Interpretation of all those places of Scripture and Quotations of Fathers and other Authors which are Cited by Divines or other Writers for the Doctrines of the Divine Institution of Monarchy and the Absolute Subjection of Subjects without any Resistance For when we have once discovered what the Law of Nature or right Reason dictates I think we may rest satisfy'd that that is the true Sense of the Scripture God not having given us any Precept or Command in Moral or Practical things that can be contrary to the Law of Nature or Reason or incompatible with the happiness and welfare of Mankind in this Life as the Reveal'd Will of God does chiefly regard that which is to come M. I do very well approve of your Proposal and therefore pray give me first your Opinion on those Heads that I may see how far I may agree with you and wherein I must differ from you for I do assure you my Intention is not to argue with you meerly for disputes sake but that we may correct the Errors of each others understanding and discover if it be possible where the Truth lyes therefore pray Sir begin first with the Natural state of Mankind but remember to do it like a Christian and one that believes that we are all deriv'd from one first Parents and that we did not at first spring up out of the Earth like Mushrooms or as the Men whom Ovid â—eigns to have been produc'd of the Dragons Teeth Cadmus is feigned to have sown who as soon as they sprung out of the Earth immediately fell a Fighting and Killing each other F. I thank you Sir for your honest and kind advice and shall therefore in the first place suppose that the necessity as well as being of all Civil Government proceeded from the Fall of Adam since if that had not been we had still liv'd as the Poets fancy Men did under the Golden Age without any need of Kings or Common-wealths to make Laws against Oppression Theft Adultery Murder and those other Injuries which Men are now too apt in this lapsed corrupt state to commit against each other much less would there have been any need of Judges or Executioners either to sentence or punish Offenders for if Man had continued as free from Sin as he was in Paradise there could have been no need of a Supream Coercive Power since every Man would have perform'd his Duty towards God and his Neighbour without any punishment or constraint So that all the Authority that can be suppos'd could have been then necessary for the Good and Happiness of Mankind would
Government commenced at first so that the People at first made Kings and not the Kings the People And further it is the duty of Fathers and Masters to provide for their Children and Servants but the People ought to provide for their Kings not only for their necessities but for their Magnificence and Grandure so that the Power of Fathers and Masters is Natural whereas that of Kings and Republicks is Political and Artificial as proceeding from compacts or the consents of divers Heads of Families or other Free-men And as Kingdoms and Families differ in the manner of their Intitution so do they likewise in their ends which is of a far larger extent in the latter than in the former the maine design of instituting Kingdoms and Common-wealths before not only to defend their Subjects from such injuries or violence that they may do each other but chiefly by their united Forces to Guard them from the violence and invasion of Foreign Enemies For thô I grant it may be sometimes happen that a Family may consist of so great a number of Children Servants or Slaves as may make a little Army such as Abraham's was when he made War againk the four Kings yet is this purely accidental and not at all essential to the being of a Family which is as perfect in all it s constituted parts if it consists of three or four Persons as of three or four hundred Whereas a Kingdom or Commonwealth cannot subsist unless it can either by its own Power or united Forces defend its Members from Foreign Force and Invasions So also in private Families in the State of Nature there can be no property acquired in Lands or goods by any Members of it without the Masters express will or permission But in all Civil Governments the very institution and preservation of Civil Property was one of its chiefest ends which may be easily proved by experience Since in all Nations where there is any property either in Lands â—or Goods there is a necessity of some Civil Government to maintain iâ— Whereas in divers parts of Africa and America where there is no distinct property in Land and where there are no other Riches than every Man's Cottage and Garden with their Hunting and Fishing Instruments there is no need of any Common or Civil Power over them higher than that of Masters or Fathers of Families who own no Superiority among themselves unless it be when they go to War and then they chuse out of their own numbers for their Captains or Leaders those whom they know to be stoutest and most experienced whose Power determines as soon as the War ceases But to make an end of this long Discourse suppose I should grant all you can desire the Oeconomical and Civil Government do not differ in kind but in largeness or extent yet will it not follow that therefore it must be in all Cases irresistable since I think I am able to prove that no Power whatever except that of God himself can be endued with this Prerogative if once it goes about to frustrate and destroy all the main ends of Government viz. the happiness and safty of the Subjects either by dowright destroying of them or else by reducing them to a condition of Slavery and Misery as the Great Turk uses his Christian Subjects But to let you see I would deal fairly with you I will discourse this point of Adam's Soveraignity no farther but will at present take it as the Lawyers say de bene esse or for granted and I desire you would shew me in the next place when Adam dyed by what Law either Divine or Natural Cain or Seth chose which you will could command over all the rest of his Brethren and their Descendants And then again if you could do this what benefit this Doctrine would yield to all Princes and States at this day or how you intend to deduce a Title for them from Adam or Noah or any of their Sons to their respective Kingdoms and consequently to an absolute Subjection of their Subjects without which all your Hypothesis will signifie nothing M. I must return you thanks Sir for your candid dealing and for the great pains you have taken to enlighten my understanding in this important question And thô I doubt you have laid down Principles not so suitable to Gods Will revealed in the Holy Scripture yet I will not imput it to any want of sincerity in your self who I hope are satisfied of the truth of what you have maintained so on the other side I desire you not to take it ill if I cannot leave my own opinion which I have always hitherto lookt upon as most suitable to the Doctrine of the Church of England and to the Practice of the Primitive Church and to the Laws of the Land and must continue therein till I am convinc'd I am in an Error But since I desire to have a further Conversation with you upon this important Subject pray let me know when we shall meet again that I may prove to you from Holy Scripture as well as those Authors I have perused that there is a Divine Right of Blood instituted by God for the Succession of Kingdoms which cannot without a kind of Sacriledge or the highest Injustice be taken away from the Right Heir F. I kindly accept your profer and if you please shall Discourse this important Question with you to Morrow in the Evening if your Occasions will give you leave M. I expect you between seven and eight and in the mean time am your Servant FINIS ADVERTISMENT STate Tracts Being a further Collection of several Choise Treatises relating to the Government from the Year 1660. to 1680. Now published in a Body to shew the Necessity and clear the Legality of the Late Revolution and Our present Happy Settlement under the Auspicious Reign of Their Majesties King William and Queen Mary Printed for Richard Baldwin Bibliotheca Politica Or a DISCOURSE By way of DIALOGUE WHETHER There can be made out from the Natural or Revealed Law of God any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right Collected out of the most Approved Authors both Antient and Modern Dialogue the Second LONDON Printed for R. Baldwin in Warwick-Lane near the Oxford-Arms where also may be had the First Dialogue 1692. The Subject of the Second Dialogue WHether Hereditary Succession to Crowns be by Divine Right or Institution or not Authors made use of in this Discourse and how denoted in the Margin 1. Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha F. P. Preface to his Political Observations F. P. O. Observations on Forms of Government F. O. G. Directions to Obedience F. D. O. 2. Patriarcha non Monarcha P. N. M. 3. Mr. Bohun's Preface to Sir R. Filmer's Patriarcha B. P. P. Conclusion to the same B. C. P. 4. Two Treatises of Government together T. T. G. 5. Grotius de Iure Belli Pacis G. I. P. 6. Bishop Sanderson's Preface to Arch-Bishop Usher's Power of the Prince