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
usurped by any other so that any other man can become my Father or I owe him that Filial Duty and Respect as to him that begot me and brought me up And tho' I grant that God may confer a Regal Power on whom he pleases either by his express Will or the ordinary course of his Providence yet when such a person who was not a King before doth become so I utterly deny that the Power he hath then conferred upon him is a Paternal Power in relation to his Subjects which is evident from your own Instance of Saul's becoming a King over his Father Kish For tho' you say that God then conferred a Fatherly Power on Saul over his own Father this is a great mistake For then Saul would have been immediately discharged from all the Duties of Piety and Gratitude which he owed his Father and they were all transferred from Kish to Saul so that after he became King he might have treated his Father with no more Respect or Deference than any other Subject which is contrary to God's Commandment that bids all Men Honour their Father and Mother And I know not how Kings can be excepted out of this Precept So that your mistake arises from this preposterous confounding of Paternal Authority with Regal Power And because Adam Noah or any other Father of a separate Family may be a Prince over it in the State of Nature that therefore every Monarch in the World is also endued with this Paternal Power Which that they are distinct may farther appear from your own supposed Monarchical Power of Adam who tho' granting him to have been a Prince over his Posterity yet did not this discharge any of his Descendants from their Duty and Obedience to their own Father And tho' I confess you talked at our last meeting of a Fatherly Power to be exercised in subordination to the Supreme Fatherly Power of Adam yet this is a meer Chimera for Filial Honour and Obedience being due by the Commandment only to a Man 's own Natural Father can never be due to two different persons at once since they may command contradictory things and then the Commandment of Honour that is obey thy Father cannot be observed in respect of both of them and therefore granting Adam or Noah to have exercised a Monarchical Power over their Children and Descendants it could not be as they were Fathers or Grand-fathers when their Sons or Grand-children were separated from them and were Heads of Families of their own for the reasons already given so that if they were Princes in their own Families whilst their Sons or Grand-children continued part of them it was only as Heads or Masters of their own Families but not by any such Patriarchal or Paternal Authority as you suppose But as for the Conclusion of your Discourse it being all built upon this false Foundation that all Power on Earth is derived or usurped from the Fatherly Power I need say no more to it For if that be false all that you argue from thence concerning the subordination of all other Powers to this will signifie nothing M. I think I can yet make out my Hypothesis notwithstanding all you have said against it For tho' I grant the Paternal Relation it self can never be usurped or transferred yet you may remember I at first affirmed that Adam was not only a Father but a King and Lord over his Family and a Son a Subject a Servant or a Slave were one and the same thing at first and the Father had power to dispose of sell or Alien his Children to any other whence we find the Sale and Gift of Children to have been much in use in the beginning of the World when Men had their Servants for a Possession and an Inheritance as well as other goods whereupon we find the Power of Castrating or making Eunuchs much in use in old times And as the Power of the Father may be lawfully transferred or aliened so it may be unjustly usurped And tho' I confess no Father or Master of a Family ought to use his Children thus Cruelly and Severely and that he sins mortally if he doth so yet neither they nor any Power under Heaven can call such an Independant Father or Monarch to an account or punish him for so doing F. I am glad at last we are come to an Issue of this doughty controversie and tho I forced you at our last meeting to confess that Fatherly Power was not despotical nor that Fathers upon any account Whatsoever were absolute Lords over their Children and all their Descendants in the State of Nature Yet now I see to preserve your Hypothesis You are fain to recur to this Despotical Power of Fathers in the State of Nature Because without supposing it and that it may be transferred or usurped Princes at this day whom without any cause you suppose to be endued with this Paternal Despotick Power could never claim any Title to their Subjects Allegiance And then much good may do you with your and Sr. R F's excellent discovery For if as you your self acknowledge Princes are no longer related in Blood to their Subjects any nearer than as we all proceed from Adam our Common Ancestor that relation being now so remote signifies little or nothing so that the true Paternal Authority being lost as you confess the Despotick Power of a Lord over his Servants or his Slaves only remains since therefore you make no difference in Nature between Subjects and Slaves then all Subjects Lye at the mercy of their Kings to be treated in all things like Slaves when ever they please And they may exercise an absolute Despotick Power over their Lives and Estates as they think fit So that I can see nothing that can hinder them from selling their Subjects or castrating them as the King of Mingrâ—lia doth his Subjects at this day and as the Great Turk and Persian Monarchs do use those Christian Children whom they take away from their Parents to make Eunuchs for their Sâ—raglio's and then I think you have brought Mankind to a very fine pass to be all created for the Will and Lust of so many single Men which if it ever could be the Ordinance of God I leave it to your self to judge M. I was prepared for this objection before and therefore I think it will make nothing against this Absolute Power with which I suppose God to have endued Adam and all other Monarchs at the first So that I am so far from thinking that this Doctrine will teach Princes Cruelty towards their Subjects that on the contrary nothing can better inculcate their Duty towards them For as God is the Author of a Paternal Monarchy so he is the Author of no other He introduced all but the first Man into the World under the Subjection of a Supream Father and by so doing hath shewn that he never intended there should be any other Power in the World and whatever Authority shall be
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
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
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
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
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