have already given you an example of the Negroes in Africa and which of these two inconveniencies are most likely to happen between Children and Parents in the State of Nature I should leave is to any indifferent Man to judge between us And therefore I think it more conduces to the good and peace of Families and consequently the happiness and preservation of Mankind which are the end of all Laws that Children should be allowed these Rights I have alâ—erdy laid down of asserting this Natural Liberty from Slavery and defending their Lives and those of their Wives and Children from the unjust violence of their Fathers than that they should be left wholly at disposal to be maimed killed or ruined when over this coveteousness passion or malice may prompt them to it Sence if all Fathers were satisfied that their Children have a Right thus to defend themselves in these Cases against their unjust violence it would be a means to make them act more catiously and to behave themselves with greater tenderness and moderation towards them So than to conclude I utterly deny that these Principles I have here laid down do at all rend to countenance Rebellion or raising disturbances in Civil Governments since I cannot allow you have proved Parents to be Princes or Monarchs in the State of Nature or that Families and Kingdoms or Commonwealths are all one Or if I should grant them to be so yet would it not therefore follow that every private Subject in a Civil State hath the same Right to defend his life or that of his Wife and Children against the violence or injustice of the Supream Powers as a Son may have in the State of Nature to defend his life c. against his Fathers rage or violence since I grant no particular Subject can contradict or resist the Supream Power of the Lawfull Magistrate however unjustly exercised by force without disturbing or at least endangering the quiet and happiness of the whole Community and perhaps the dissolution of the Government it self which is against the duty not only of a good Subject but also of an honest Moral Man who will not disturb the publick tranquility for his own private security or revenge But in private Families the Case is otherwise and Children may resist their Father in the Cases already put without introducing either Anarchy or Civil War in the Family since it can scarce be presumed that either their Mother Brothers or Sisters will take part with a Son or Brother against their Husband and Father unless it ware that they might thereby hinder him from committing murder by defending their Son or Brothers life when thus violently and without cause assaulted and if it should sometimes happen otherwise yet this would be a much less mischief then that out of this fear the Lives and Liberties of an innocent Wife and Children should suffer without cause by his drunkenness or passion But as for the resistance which Sons may make in the State of Nature and when separated from their Fathers Families it is of a much larger extent since they may then not only defend their own Lives but also those of their Wives and Children with their Estates against their Fathers unjust violence Thò I do here likewise restrain this self-defence only to cases of actual invasion or asault of such Fathers upon the Lives and Estates of his Children in which cases I also absolutely condemn all actions and proceedings done by way of prevention before such violence or assault is actually begun to be made upon them much less do I allow of any revenge or return of evil for evil by such Children when the danger is over since however such revenge may be Lawful between Persons in the State of Nature no ways related or oblieged to each other yet do I by no means allow the same Priviledge to Children against their Parents since I look upon the obligation they have to them to be of so high a Nature that it can never totally be cancelled thô in those cases of self-preservation and defence they may be suspended for a time As if I owed my life and all that I have to some great Person who hath either saved the one or bestowed the other upon me thô I should be very undutiful and ungratful too if upon his becoming my Enemy thô without any just cause I should go about to return his injuries in the same kind yet were I not therefore obliged to give up that Life and Estate he had before bestowed upon me when ever he thought fit without any just occasion to take them away and I am confident that Resistance in these cases and with these restrictions doth neither derogate from that Gratitude and Piety which Children always ought to pay their Fathers nor yet can tend to encourage either Anarchy or Rebellion since such Sons when once married and are become Masters or Heads of Families themselves they then cease to be under their Fathers Subjection as they were before tho I confess they are always to honour and reverence him according to Gods Command in all cases when they will deal with them as Fathers and not as Enemies M. I shall no longer dispute this Right of Resistance in Children in the Cases you have put since I see it is to little purpose to argue longer with you about it but this much I think is still true that all Supream Powers whatever cannot without Rebellion and absolute dissolution of the Government be risisted by the Subject so that if the Government of Fathers or Heads of Families be Supream as you seem to grant that cannot be resisted neither without bringing all things therein to Anarchy and confusion F. Pray give me leave Sir to interrupt you a little I desire you to remember that I do not allow the Power of Fathers or Masters of Families to be any more then Oeconomical and not Civil Power and I have already shewed you how Resistance of such a Power when violently and unjustly exercised may be resisted without any Anarchy or confusion in the Family but as for Resistance of Civil Powers in some Cases it is not the Subject of this discourse and therefore I desire you would now mind the Subject in Hand and not pass off to any other till we have dispatcht this so that I would rather if you have any fresh objections to make that you would now do it because it groweth late M. I must confess ingeniously your Arguments have much sâ—aggered me since I see great inconveniencies may happen on either side for if the Father or Master may be the sole Judg when and how he may exercise this absolute Power I grant all those mischiefs may sometimes fall out which you have here set forth so on the other side if the Children may be Judges in their own case those evils may often happen which I have already alledged And therefore pray pardon me if I am not too hasty in altering my opinion in
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
Subjection to Adam since they could never have quitted his Family without his consent and when they did quit it unless he pleased to manumit them they their Wives and Children were still as much Subject as they were before Since I do not see if they were once Subjects to him how any thing but his express will and consent could ever discharge them from it Nor was that Authority which every one of these Sons of Adam might Exercise over their Wives and Children though they were not freed from the power of their Father any more inconsistent with that Subjection and Obedience they owed him as their Prince than in an absolute Monarchy the power of Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children as to the things relating to the well-ordering and governing their Families is inconsistent with that supreme predominant power which the Monarch hath over the Father himself and all his Family or than the power of a Master of a Family in the Isle of Barbadoes over his Slaves that are Married and have Children is inconsistent with that Marital and Paternal power which such a Slave may exercise over his Wife and Children within his own Family though still subordinate to the will of the Master who may forbid any such Slaves or their Children to Marry but where he hath a mind they should and may likewise hinder them from correcting or putting to Death their Wives and Children without his consent Though such Subjects in an absolute Monarchy or Slaves in a Plantation cannot have or enjoy any Property in Lande or Goods but at the Monarchs or Masters will And so likewise at first none of these Sons of Adam though they set up distinct Families from their Fathers could enjoy or inclose any part of the Earth without his Grant or Assignment to whom the whole was given by God before It seems likewise to be a great mistake when you at first affirmed that all Civil Government was Ordained by God for the benefit and advantage of the Subjects rather than the Governours Whereas from the first and most Natural Government it appears that Children who were the Subjects were Ordained as much for the benefit and help of their Parents who were the first Monarchs as their Parents for them From all which we may draw these Conclusions First that from Gen. 3. v. 6. already Cited we have the Original Charter of Government and the Fountain of all Civil Power derived from Adam as the Father of all Mankind So that not only the Constitution of power in general but the special limitation of it to one kind viz. Monarchy and the determination of it to the individual person of Adam are all Ordinances of God Neither had Eve or her Children any Right to limit Adam'â— Power or joyn themselves with him in the Government Now if this Supreme Power was setled and sounded by God himself in Fatherhood how is it possible for the people to have any Right to alter or dispose of it otherwise it being God's Ordinance that this Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam and as large as any Acts of his Will So that he was not only a Father but a King and absolute Lord over his Family a Son a Subject and a Servant or Slave being one and the same thing at first the Father having power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants at his pleasure and though perhaps he might deal too severely or cruelly in so doing yet there was none above him except God in the state of Nature who could call him to an account much less resist or punish him for so doing F. You have Sir made a very long Speech upon the Monarchical power of Adam which you have made of so large an Extent that this imaginary Kingship will swallow up all the other more dear and tender Relations both of a Husband and of a Father So that were I not satisfied you were a very good natured Man and spoke more the sense of others than from your own Natural Inclinations I should be apt to believe that if you had sufficient Power you would prove as great a Tyrant over your Wife Children and all that should be under your Command as such Arbitrary Tenets would give you leave but since I hope your Errour lyes rather in your Understanding than in your Natureâ— I shall make bold to shew you the mistakes you have committed in those Principles you here lay down I might first begin with the place of Scripture you farther insist upon 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 and tho' you are pleased to think my exposition of this place so ridiculous yet I doubt not but I be able to prove when I come to speak of this pretended Divine Author of Elder Brothers over this younger that this place cannot be understood in any such sense according to the best Interpretation that both the reason of the Subject and the sense the best Commentators put upon it can allow but I shall defer this till we come to discourse concerning the successors of Adam in this Monarchical Power you suppose And therefore I shall only at present pursue that absolute Power which you suppose Adam to have had not only over Eve but all her descendants So that your Argument of Eve's and consequently all her Childrens absolute Subjection to Adam depends upon a very false supposition For if the Subjection of Eve to Adam and of all Wives to their Husbands is not servile or absolute neither can that of the Children be so since according to your own simile if the streams are of the same nature of the Fountain they can never rise higher than it and tho' I grant Adam might in some cases have put his Wife or Children to death for any enormous crime against the Law of Nature yet I allow him that power not as a Husband or Father but only as a Lord or Master of a separate Family who having no Superiour in the state of Nature I grant it is endued by God with this Prerogative for the good of his Family and preservation of Mankind lest such horrid crimes so much to its prejudice should pass unpunisht But that the Husband or Father doth not act thus in either of these two capacities I can easily prove First Because the Scripture tells us the Husband and Wife are one Flesh and that no man ever yet hated his own Flesh so that it is impossible for a Husband to put his Wife to death till by the greatness of her Crimes she becomes no longer worthy of that tender affection he ought to bear her Then as to the Father he as a Father ought not to desire to put his Son to death whose being he hath been the cause of and who is principally made out of his own substance and on whom he hath bestowed nourishment and education for
Superior to both of them and him interposed and diverted or rather over-ruled it For 1. If a Priority of Being gave Adam a power over his Wife it gave him much more so over his Children 2. If God's taking Eve out of Adam the forming her of one of his Ribs without his concurrence did yet make her his Inferiour his Children were much more so which were derived from him and by his Act. 3. If she were formed for him not he for her and that was another reason this extended to his Children too who were begotten for the comfort and assistance of both him and her 4. When God put Eve under the Subjection of her Husband after the Fall her Children must needs be so too if they were not excepted but we Read of no exception 5. Is it not an Eternal Law of Nature that all Children should be subject to their Parents And did not this Law spread it self over the Face of all the Earth as Mankind encreased And whereas you would limit this Power of Parents over their Children both in its Extent and Duration this is purely owing to the Civil Laws of Nations and not to the Laws of Nature and is different in different places some having restrained the Poweâ— of Parents more and some less But God gave the Parents a Power of Life and Death over their own Children amongst his own People the Jews and that not limited in Duration neither for the Fathers Power over his Son was not determined but by his Death though they could not execute that Power but in the presence of a Magistrate And I am also sure that in all the Histories and Relations I have met with amongst civiliz'd Nations where it is not otherwise order'd by the Civil Laws of the Country all Husbands and Fathers have Power of Life and Death over their Wives and Children and so it is at this day amongst many Eastern Nations and was antiently amongst the Romans Gauls and Persians c. Which power I take not to have been given or conferred on them but rather left to them by the Civil Laws of their Country in the same state as it was establisht by the Law of Nature or rather Nations Now if such Husbands and Fathers antiently had and still have a power of Life and Death in divers Countries over their Wives and Children I desire to know what higher power they could enjoy since he that hath power over a Man's Life which is of the highest concern to him may certainly command him in all things else But as for your last Scruple that you cannot see if Monarchy be of Divine Institution how any Government but that can be lawfully set up or obeyed by Men I think it may be a satisfactory Answer if I tell you that if those who are Born under a Monarchy can justifie the Form they live under to be God's Ordinance they are not bound to forbear their own Justification because others cannot do the like for the Forms they live under let others look to the defence of their own Government If it cannot be proved or shewed that any other Form of Government had ever any Lawful beginning but was brought in or erected by Rebellion must therefore the Lawful and Just Obedience to Monarchy be denied to be the Ordinance of God F. I hope before I have done to give you a clearer Original from the Law of Nature as well of Paternal Authority as Civil Government without recurring to Divine Revelation which as I said before would oblige none but Jews and Christians or Mahometans whose Law is a mixture of both the other In the mean time give me leave to tell you that Eve's being the Representative of all Wives did not put either her self or her Daughters into any absolute Subjection either to Adam or their Husbands if it did then could not this Subjection be likewise owing either to Adam as the Patriarch or Grandfather of the Family or to his Eldest Son after his Decease since this would make every Wife in the state of Nature to have had two absolute Lords her Husband and her Husband's Father which is contrary to our Saviour's Rule That no man can serve two Masters that is in the same kind of Service And therefore it plainly makes out my distinction that there is a great deal of difference between a Conjugal Submission of a Wife to her Husband and a Servile Subjection of a Servant to his Lord as also of that Obedience or Duty which a Subject oweth his Soveraign since by your own Hypothesis it necessarily follows that either Cain's Wife for Example was not to be subject to her Husband or else must be free from all Subjection to her Father Adam But as for any Submission to Cain as Elder Brother after Adam's Decease I desire to be excused medling with it till we have dispatcht the Question in hand I come now to those fresh Considerations you bring for this Monarchical power of Adam for indeed I cannot call them new Arguments because most of them have been answered already The first Consideration is from the Priority of the Being which you suppose gave Adam a Power over his Wife and consequently over his Children but I think his Priority of Being could give him no such Power at all over her and consequently not over them for I desire to know whether if God had been pleased to have Created the same day that Eve was made twenty single Men and their Wives that therefore Adam must have been from his being first Created Monarch over them all unless God had particularly commanded it I grant indeed that from God's Creating Eve out of Adam it did render her inferiour to him and also from God's express command that she was to be subject to him in all Conjugal Duties yet did neither of these render her or her Children absolute of perpetual Subjects and Slaves to Adam And that their being deriv'd from him or by his Act doth not at all alter the Case I have already proved As for the third that if she wene formed for him and not he for her that this must be another reason which must extend to his Children too Here the Assumption is not only false but the Consequence too For she was not only formed for him but that they might be a mutual help to each other and therefore the Scripture tell us A Man shall leave his Father and his Mother and shall cleave unto hit Wife and they two shall be one Flesh which words in my Opinion are very far from proving any such absolute Subjection for no Man can ever tyrannize over his own Flesh and if such an absolute Subjection had been intended from Eve to Adam it had been more consonant to reason for the Scripture to have enjoyn'd her to have left her Father and Mother to cleave to her Husband Whereas indeed there was no more meant by this Text than that when a Man marries he may freely
it were granted him by God F. I promise to give you full satisfaction to this question by and by but in the mean time pray let me make it a little more plain to you that this Power of Life and Death which may be exercised by Masters of separate Families over their Wives and Children in some cases is not by any Power they receive from God as Husbands or Fathers but only as Heads or Masters of such Families may by proved by this instance suppose a Master of a Family independant on any other as in the Indies hath neither Wife nor Children yet sure he hath notwithstanding the same Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves for such great offences as you have mentioned in case there be no superiour Power over him to take Cognizance of such Crimes And to make this yet plainer suppose a Married Man having a Wife and Children will live together with them in the Family of such a Master as I have now described yet not aâ— a Servant but as an Inmate or Boarder and whilst he so continues his Wife Kills one of her Children or one of his Sons Murders his Brother who hath right to punish this offence but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate And this follows from your own supposed for if every separate Family in the state of Nature be a distinct independant Government then all those that enter themselves as Members of such a Family must be subject to the Master or Governour of it Nor do you reduce me into any absurdity by your reply to my argument That if the Power of Life and Death were Originally in Fathers by the Law of Nature it could never be restrain'd nor taken from them without their consent that then this will make as much against the like Power of Masters of Families since I must grant this is taken away by Civil Laws And why not the other To this I reply that you do not observe the strength of these words Without their consent For I suppose that no Power whatever can take this out of the hands of such Fathers or Masters of Families in the state of Nature without they assign it to the Supream Powers of the Common-wealth upon its first Institution whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force as by Conquest or Usurpation not only over those that are not at their own disposal as Children and Servants but over their Fathers and Masters too without their consents which is contrary to the Law of Nature and Reason M. I see you take it for granted that I will admit your Instance of the Power of Life and Death to be in the Masters of Families and not as Fathers in the State of Nature But as plain as you think it since you question the Power of Life and Death which I suppose to be inherent in all Fathers I know not why I may not with more Reason question your allowing the like Power to Masters of separate Families since there is no reason in my Opinion which you can bring for such a Power in your Masters of Families which I cannot with like reason urge may be also exercised by Fathers and Husbands over their Wives and Children in case they deserve it For if it be for the good and preservation of mankind that great and enormous Crimes such as Murder and Adultery should be punished and that with Death Who is more fit to inflict these punishments or who can be supposed to judge more impartially of them than the Father or Husband himself Since he cannot put his Son or Wife to Death however they may deserve it without very great reluctancy since he aâ— it were thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body And therefore I cannot see any Reason why such a Married man as you describe should by coming under another Man's Rooâ— only as an Inmate or Boarder and not as a Slave which I grant would alter the Case should lose that Power of Life and Death which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wife and Children unless he had actually given it up to the Master of that Family with whom he came to Board And therefore as I do not deny but that a Master of a separate Family hath power of Life and Death and also of making Peace and War with other such Masters of Families nay with Princes themselves if there be occasion as we read in Genesis Chap. 14. That Abraham made War with the four Kings who had taken Lot Prisoner So likewise when Judah pronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-Law for playing the Harlot Bring her forth says he and let her be burnt Gen. 38. I own this was not done by the Authority of a Father alone she not being his own Daughter and his Son being then dead but as the Master of a separate Family who hath I grant power of Life and Death as he is Lord over the persons of his Children aâ— Servants and consequently over their Wives also for if he hath power over his Son he hath certainly the like over all that belong to him as long as they continue members of his Family and that he hath not thought fit to manumit or set them free But now I desire to know by what right these Patriarchâ— could exercise all these markâ— of Soveraignty especially this great Power of Life and Death unless it were derived from God at first since no Man hath any power to dispose of his own Life at his pleasure and therefore sure hath naturally no power over that of another man's So that not only this Power of the Patriarchs but also that of all Monarchs to this day must be derived from this Divine Original F. Well then I find you 're forced to quit the power of a Father as such by Generation since it plainly appears that this power of Life and Death which you affirm a Husband or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the state of Nature is not quatenus as a Father but Lord and Master over them which in the first place I cannot allow to be true in relation to the Wife nor that the submission of the Wife's Will to the Husband must imply a power of Life and Death over her for if she is not his Slave as certainly she is not for then a Man might sell his Wife when he pleased I cannot see how she her self could convey by force of the contract any such Power over her Life tho I grant indeed if she happen to commit Murder upon one of her Children or other Person of the Family he may proceed against her as an Enemy but not as a Subject and if it be for Adultery it self I cannot see that the Husband can by the Law of Nature punish her with Death for since that Crime doth really dissolve the bond of Matrimony Divorce or putting her away and deserting the Child born in Adultery
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
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
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
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
quit his Fathers Family and joyning himself to his Wife may set up another of his own But as for the Children that were begotten between them tho' I grant they might be intended both for the comfort and assistance of him and her yet I have already proved that the Parents are more chiefly intended for their Childrens Propagation and Preservation than the Children are for their Interest and Happyness Your fouth consideration is only a supposition of the question which is yet to be pâ—oved that Eve was under an absolute subjection to Adam after the Fall I have already proved this supposition not to be true and therefore the consequence as to the Children is false likewise Your fifth is rather an interrogation than an Argument whether Children ought not to be and have not always been subject to their Parents all over the World In answer to which I grant that it is true that they have ever been so tho' not in your sense For I hold this subjection neither to be servile or absolute nor yet perpetual as long as they live but in reply to this limitation of the Power of Parents over their Children both in its extent and duration you tell me this is purely owing to the Civil Laws of Nations and not to the Laws of Nature and for a proof of this you produce Gods own people the Jews for an example that the power of the Father over his Son was not determined but by his Death But your self confesses that he could not exercise this Power of Life and Death but in the presence of the Magistrate the circumstances of which if they be considered will rather make against you for first the Father could not have this rebellioâ—s Son put to Death till he had accus'd him before the Elders of the City that is the Judges who were establisht in every Precinct who upon a solemn hearing were to sentence such a rebellious Son to be stoned to Death by all the People of the City where you may observe that the Father had no power to put him to Death himself and therefore acted in this case as an accuser or a witness not as a Judge But if you 'l believe Maimonides one of the most Learned of the Jewish Rabbins he will tell you that by the Municipal Law of the Jews this power of the Father did scarce extend beyond the thirteenth year of the Son's Age after which the Son was reckoned Adult and Emancipated from his Fathers Powers and could not after that incur this punishment of a Stubborn and Rebellious Son and a Father who did but strike his Son after he was Adult incurr'd Excommunication for that he offended against the Law And tho' I grant that the Nations you mention did exercise a Power of Life and Death over their Wives and Children yet will not the Practice of some particular Nations tho' never so much civiliz'd amount to a proof of a Law of Nature which is only to be made out from evident Rules of Right Reason and the great end of this Law the common good of Mankind and especially when against the Examples of those Nations which you produce I can likewise set those of many more Nations where this Custum was not allowed after once Civil Government was establisht And as for the Romans themselves amongst whom the greatest Examples of this kind are to be found they will not all of them amount to above three or four in six or seven hundred years and then tho' there might be very good cause for it yet the People of Rome never so much esteemed or loved such Fathers after they had put their Sons to Death as they did before but counted them too severe and cruel for so doing And you read in Valerius Maximus and Seneca that they killed Erixiin a Roman Gentleman for whipping his Son to Death like a Slave so much did they abhor all such Cruelty of Parents towards their Children and afterwards when by the General Corruption of Manners amongst the Romans Fathers grew more cruel to their Children and often put them to Death without cause Those of your Faculty suppose that some of the Roman Emperous tho' it is uncertain who took away this Power from Fathers and made it as it is now among us Murder for a Father to put his Son to Death tho' others since there are no particular Edicts to be found concerning this matter do suppose this Law to be changed by degrees and to be left off by common consent of the Romans themselves for it seems dangerous to grant to a private person the cognizance of any crime which might belong to publick Authority and they thought it better to strengthen both the Paternal and Marital Power by other Laws than putting to Death And therefore Simplecius upon Epictetus his Enchiridion says that the Romans allowed Fathers this Power because they thought they might very well trust their Natural Affection to their Children for the exercise of that Power of selling them or putting them to Death which 't was supposed they would rarely use unless compelled by extream necessity or unpardonable crimes and therefore if a Father would put his Son to death he was to do it with his own hands that he might suffer as well as his Son but when this render affection â—oo failed it was no wonder that the Roman Emperors did not think it for the common good of their People to trust Fathers with this Power any longer which they had hitherto exercised not so properly by right of Fatherhood as that of the Master of a Family who governed his Servants and his Sons by a like Authority To conclude I cannot but observe how slyly you wave my objection against the Divine Institution of Monarchy for tho' you seem loth expresly to condemn all other Governments as unlawful yet the consequence will be the same upon your principles For if it be a good argument which some make use of for the Government of the Church by Bishops because that Government being supposed by them to have been instituted by the Apostles by Divine Precept therefore that no other Government but Episcopacy can be lawful or any true Church where that Government is not in use so the same argument will likewise hold in Civil Governments that all others must be unlawful if Monarchy alone were ordained by God and that all other forms whatsoever began from Rebellion or the Fancies of Men. M. To answer what you have said in the first place I cannot so slightly pass over this argument of the Law of Nations by which I supposed the Power of Fathers over the Persons of their Children is sufficiently established and from whence also it appears that among the Iews as well as Romans the Children were lookt upon as part of the substance of their Father and consequently that they had a perpetual right in their Persons as long as they lived that the Romans had the power of selling their Children
three times your self do not deny that the Iews also had it in use among them appears first by the story of the poor Woman the Widdow of one of the Sons of the Prophets who complained to Elisha in the second of Kings telling him that her Husband is dead and the Creditor is come to take her two Sons to be Bond-men And so likewise in the New Testament our Saviour in St. Matthew supposes it as a thing commonly practised in those parts of the World where he lived For in the Parable of the King who would take account of his Servants amongst whom one owed him Ten thousand Talents But for as much as he had nothing to pay his Lord commanded him to be sold and his Wife and Children and all that he had and payment to be made Which was founded upon that Law amongst the Jews that Fathers might sell their Children for Bond-servants until the year of Iubilee as appears by Nehemiah Chap. 5. where he relates the Complaint of those poor Jews who had been forced for want to bring their Sons and their Daughters into Bondage Neither was it in their power to redeem them for other Men had their Lands and their Vineyards And amongst the Romans this Power of selling their Children continued till it was forbidden by the Emperour Iustinian And as for the Grecians Plutarch in his Life of Solon relates that till his time it was lawful amongst the Athenians for Fathers to sell their Children to pay their own Debts And I suppose it was upon this account that Cymon the Son of the great General Miltiades was kept in Prison by the Athenians till he had paid the Fine of ten Thousand Talents which his Father died indebted to the Common-wealth And Philostratus in his Life of Apollonius Thyanaus relates that it was common amongst the Phrygians to sell their own Sons And to come to more Modern Times a Son amongst the Muscovites may by sold four times but after the fourth Sale the Eather hath no longer a Right in him as the Baron of Heberâ—lein tells us in his Relation of Muscovy and it is not only in use amongst them but also amongst the Tartars East-Indians Chineses and the People of Japan not only to sell their Children themselves but also that they are liable to be sold by the Prince or his Officers for their Fathers Debts or Offences So that you see here is the Consent of most of the Civiliz'd Nations in the World who sure in this follow the Dictates of Nature and Reason in the exercise of a full and absolute Propriety and Dominion in and over the Persons of their Children so that if it be a received Custom or Law amongst most Nations it is also from Reason too since the Law of Nations is only that which receives its obligation from the Consent of many Nations as Grotius well observes And Aristotle lays it down as one of the strongest proofs when all men agree in any thing And Cicero tells us That the Consent of most Nations is to be looked upon as a Law of Nature and therefore these Customs are to be esteemed as obligatory amongst all Civiliz'd Nations where the Municipal Laws of those Countreys have not restrained or altered this Natural Power and Interest which Fathers had originally over the Persons of their Children But as for what you say that according to my Principles no other Government can be Lawful besides Monarchy I shall give you the same Answer that some of the most Moderate of our Divines have given to those who would make the like Objection against us of the Church of England thaâ— believe Episcopacy to be Iure Divinâ— viz. That God may for the necessity of some Ecclesiastical Order and Government in a Church allow that Form of Government to be Lawful which himself never Instituted Nay which perhaps was unlawful to have been set up in the Church at all and so likewise in Civil Governments I will not deny that those Forms may be lawfully obeyed as the Ordinance of God which he never Instituâ—ed but have wholly proceeded from the Rebellions or Inventions of Men. F. I must confess Sir I cannot see how any Law of Nations can be supposed to lay any Obligation upon Mankind different from the Law of Nature and Reason or the revealed Law of God in Scripture And tho' I confess there is some division amongst Learned Men about this matter yet I think it is far more rational to suppose that there are but two Law that can be Rules of Humane Actions the Natural Law and the Divine And of this Opinion is the Learned Grotius himself in the place you but now cited where he says he added the words many Nations because there can scarce be found any Natural Law which is also wont to be called the Law of Nations that is common to all Nations Yea that is often lookt upon as a Law of Nations in one Country which is not so any where else as says he we shall shew in its due place concerning Captivity and Postluminium And for a farther confirmation of this I will make bold to read to you in English some part of what thâ— Excellent Puâ—endof hath written upon this Subject in his Learned Work De Jure Naturae Gentium Lib. 2. Cap. 3. which you may here read with me The Law of Nature and the Law of Nations is accounted by many one and the same which only differ by an extrinsick denomination And form hence Hobbs De Cive C. 14. § 4. Divides the Law of Nature into the Natural Law of Men and the Natural Law of Common Wealths which is commonly called Jus Gentium And then adds that the Precepts of both are the same but because Common-Wealths when once instituted do put on the personal properties of Men that Law which speaking of the duty of particular men we call Natural being applied to all Common-Wealths or Nations is called Jus Gentium to which opinion we do likewise subscribe neither do we think there can be any other voluntary or positive Law of Nations which can have the power of a Law properly so called and which may oblige all Nations as proceeding from a Superiour But most of those things which amongst the Roman Civil Lawyers and others are referred to the Law of Nations as suppose about the manner of acquiring of Contracts and the like do either belong to the Law of Nature or else to the Civil Laws of particular Nations which agree together for the most part in these things yet from which nâ— new or distinct sort of Law is Rightly constituted because those Laws are common to Nations not from any Agreement or Mutual Obligation but in that they do by accident agree from the peculiar Will of the Law-givers in each particular Common-Wealth from whence the same things may be changed by one People or Nation without consulting the rest and often times are found to be so changed
the Chineses and the Inhabitants of Formosa at this day all which either did or now do destroy their Children as soon as they are brought forth or else in the Womb afore they are born if they please so to do And as for some of these Nations you have instanced in and particularly the Muscovites who can â—ell their Children but four times it is apparent it is only a Municipal Law for if the Property of the Father over the Sons Persons were by them looked upon as perpetual he might not only sell him four times but forty if it were possible But on the other side I have against this Custom of your Nâ—tions the Examples of divers altogether as Wise and Civiliz'd who did not permit Fathers to exercise this absolute Power over their Children and therefore against your Example of the Jews I set that of the Egyptians who did not Permit Parents to put their Children to Death nor yet to sell them unless in case of great necessity and when they could not otherwise maintain them and then I grant it may be necessary So likewise against your Roman Law I set that of all the Greek Nations none of whom permitted Fathers to put their Children to Death except the Spartans and that was only in one case and that was only in one case and that with the judgment and consent of the eldest Men of the Family yet when their new born Infants were so weak or ill shaped as to be thougt not worth the rearing So likewise against your examples of the Antient Gauls I set that of the Germans a Nation altogether as wise and civilized as the other to whom I could likewise add the Antient Britains Spaniards and divers others and to the more Modern examples of the Eastern Nations where this custom is permitted of selling or killing their Children I shall oppose the Turks and Persians amongst whom it is forbidden as also amongst all the Nations of Europe who believe Christianity and if we go over to America we shall find that they are there so indulgent to their Children that no fault whatsoever tho' never so great shall make them put them to Death And to let you see that this is most suitable to Reason the two greatest Philosophers amongst the Greeks Plato and Aristotle have condemned it The former in his Laws where he expresly forbids it supposing that in no case whatever a Father ought to put off all Piety and Humanity towards his Son and that a Son should be rather led by Nature than driven by force to obey his Father especially since his Power is sufficiently established by the Law and the appointing of publick Judges and Aristotle in his Morals to Nicomachus Lib. 8. cap. 12. accuses the Jus Patrium in use among the Persians as Tyrannical and Grotius tells you he makes use of these examples of the Romans and Persians only that we might distinguish Civil Rights from natural From whence it appears that the putting of Children to death by Parents was lookt upon as an odius thing amongst the wisest of the Antients and therefore neither the Lex Regia nor the Law of the XII Tables nor the Julian Law de Adulteriis all which left Fathers a Power over the Lives of their Sons and Daughters yet would extend this Power by Interpretation to the Grand Father towards his Grand-Son or Grand-Daughter M. Yet for all this I think all the wisest and most Civilized Nations were of my opinion and it is from them that we ought to take this Law of Nations rather than the others and therefore I think the Romans were a great deal wiser and better People than the Greeks and the Antient Gauls than the Germans Nor does your argument against this power of Life and Death in Fathers by the Law of Nature seem cogent that if it were so it could never be taken away or restrained by any Civil Law since this argument will make vâ— much against that power of Life and Death with which you invest your Fathers of Families in the state of Nature since if they have it by the Law of Nature it could no more he restrained or taken away by Civil Laws than any Paternal Power in the like case F. I pray Sir hold if this controversie is to be decided by the Wisdom and the Civility of Nations we shall never have done For in the first place who shall judge of this consent of the most Civilized People and that no account is to be made of those whom you call Barbarous for what Nation will acknowledge it self to be so or can arrogate so much to it self as that it may require all others to conform themselves to their Laws and Customs and that all Nations must be barbarous that act otherwise Antiently the arrogance of the Greeks made them look upon all other Nations as Barbarous and then the Romans succeeded in this foolish conceit of themselves and at this day we People of Europe who are but a few in comparison of the rest of the World do suppose our selves to exceed all others in Knowledge And yet on the other side there are diverse Nations who prefer themselves far before us and I have read that the Chineses have a saying that the Europeans see with one Eye themselves with two but that all the rest of the World are stark blind and yet this Nation maintains a Power of selling and exposing their Children which we Europeans abhor Now pray tell me if there is not some common rule to be drawn from reason or the common good of Mankind how shall we judge which is in the right So that notwithstanding all that hath been said on this subject I think I may safely conclude with the Judgment of the Learned Pufendorf in Lib. 6. Cap. 2. where speaking of the Paternal Power he says thus But neither thâ— same Power as such seems to extend it self to that of Life and Death by reason of any fault but only to a moderate chastisement For since this authority is employed about an Age that iâ— weak and tender and in which such incorrigible crimes can hardly be committed which nothing but Life can expiate it is much better that a Father should turn out of Doors a Son who doth willfully refuse through obstinacy and wickedness all due correction So that Abdication and Disinheriting seems to be the utmost punishment which can be inflicted by a Father on a Son considered as such M. I see it is to no purpose to spend longer time about this question but since your self have all along allowed that the Father of a separate Family in the state of Nature hath a Power to put his Wife or Children to Death in case they have committed any heinous sins or offences against the Laws of God or Nature but you have not yet told me and I doubt cannot how Adam or any other Master of a Family could be endued with this Power of Life and Death unless
Son do what you can and so consequently you will still owe him Subjection For it is a maxime not only of the Civil Law but that of Nature too and this most of all in the State of Nature that is before Civil Laws had restrained thaâ— Paternal Power Iura Sanguinis nullo delicto dirimi possunt and lastly from the fourth Commandment of Honour the Father c. Now no Man can tender honour to him whom he goeth about to resist and so may also destroy F. I consists you have urged this Argument as home as the thing will bear but yet I think I can shew you that the Son is so far from acting against the Law of Nature in thus resisting his Father that I think he would rather transgress it if he acted otherwise But first to answer your Arguments I deny that either Generation or Education do confer so great a benefit that a Man is obliged to Sacrifice himself his Wife and Children and all he hath in return for it First for Generation I suppose you will not much insist on that since you must grant that a Father doth not act in that matter as a voluntary but Natural Agent neither is it in his Power to hinder the Child that he gets from being conceived or born neither did he get him so much to propagate his Speâ—ies as to gratify his own present natural appetite Then for Education which I grant is much the greater obligation since by the former I am only born an irrational helpless Creature but by the other I am made a reasonable Man able to help and provide for my self and knowing my duty to God and other Men yet even these obligations are not great enough to make me Sacrifice my self and all that I have to his fury or humour I grant indeed that if it were to save a kind Father's life a Son may be obliged to venture nay lay down his life to perform it but I deny that even for such a Father he hath a Right to give up the lives of others which are not at his disposal as those of his Wife and Children are not in this case For this were not only to return more than was first given but also to pay debts with that which is not my own and to give up their lives and let my Father take them away is all one if I can hinder it qui non prohibet facit Then as for the Relation of a Father which you say no fault of his can obliterate or destroy you must grant that it may be suspended for a time as when a Man binds or resists his mad or druken Father who would kill him or his Wife or Children he doth not do it to the Father but to the mad Man or Drunkard and so likwise in this Case he doth not resist his Father but a furious unreasonable Creature who is so far from behaving himself as becomes a Father that he doth not act like a Man Nor doth your Maxime hold true in all Cases and therefore is no Law of Nature for Iura Sanguinis aliquo delicto dirimi possunt or else a Father could never put his Son to death for any crime whatever which you have affirmed he may but certainly when he acts thus it is not as a Father nor doth he destroy him as a Son but an Enemy or Malefactor Now I desire you or any indifferent Man to consider since the common good of Mankind is the sum of all the the Laws of Nature and the great rule by which they are to be tryed which rule is to be preferred and conduces more thereunto when they cannot consist at once or together That a Father who by your own confession comes to do an unlawful wicked action viz. to ruine and destroy his Son with his Wife and Children should be resisted and consequently one Mans life put in hazard than that many innocent Persons should be ruined and perhaps starved to death for want of food and shelter And as for the fifth Commandment that extends no more to the Father than to the Mother thô you are pleased to leave her out because it makes against your opinion and therefore if by Honour is meant Thou shalt no resist then no Man should resist his Mother any more than his Father if she went about to kill him and yet not the Mother but the Father is by your Hypothesis the natural Monarch that hath this Power of Life and Death over the Son But let us pursue this point no farther if you will not be convinced I cannot help it But pray tell me now what a Son must do if his Father transported by fury and malice should go about to kill him with a Sword or other Weapon and that he hath no other way left to save his life neither by intreaty nor flight which I grant ought to be done if possible whether he may resist his Father with what next comes to hand or suffer himself to be killed M. I am much better satisfyed in this Case than in the other that he ought rather to let his Father take away his life than resist him since here is but one life to be lost whereas I confess the other Case was harder because there were more lives concerned than the Sons and I am of this opinion partly for the same reasons as before and partly because 't is more suitable both to Reason and the Law of Nature as also to Holy Scripture Preceps and Examples For iâ— St. Peter command Servants to be Subject to their Masters c. Not only to thâ— good and gentle but also to the froward And if Servants much more Sons who owe their Fathers a higher duty and obedience than Servants can owe their Masters and Isaac was so far convinced that his Father Abraham had Power over his life that thô he was a lusty young Man and could carry Wood enough to consume a Burnt-offering yet do we not find that he offered in the least to resist his Father when he was about to bind him to be Sacrificed For he very well knew that his Father could not be resisted without endangering his life if not taking it away in the scuffle and sure you will grant that a Son ought rather of the two to let his Father kill him than he take away his life by whose means he received his own especially since Abraham was the Master of a great Family and in whose life and well being not only his Mother but all the Family had an interest as necessary for their well being and happiness Nor can I think that Abraham would have so readily assented to God's Command for the doing of it had he not been already satisfyed that he had an unaccountable power of Life and Death over his Son by the Laws of God and Nature F. In the first place to answer your authorities from Scripture as for that place of St Peter you have cited iâ— is not a precept given by
S. P. P. Advertisement TO THE READER THE Author of these Discourses hopes you will be so charitable as to believe that tho' he hath made one of his Disputants argue pretty stifly against the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession to Crowns yet He is no Common-wealths-man or one who hereby designs or desires Alterations in the Government of this Nation either of Church or State since none can admire their Excellent Constitution more than himself much less does he prefer an Elective before an Hereditary Succession to Crowns since he justly esteems the latter as being a most Excellent if not Only Means to prevent all Disputes and Civil Disturbances about Succession and therefore is never to be departed from unless when some Natural or Moral Disability in the Person or other unavoidable necessity renders it absolutely inconsistent with the Publick Peace and Safety of the Kingdom Therefore as a Man may be said to be truly devout without Superstition which is but the Corruption or Abuse of Religion so the Author likewise thinks that a Subject may be truly Loyal and Obedient to his Prince tho' he hath never heard of or does not believe any Divine Right of Monarchy derived from Adam and Noah or of Succession from God's Promise that Cain should Rule over Abel Nor hath the Author an Aversion to Absolute Monarchy as such could he be assured that Princes would be always as wise and good as they ought to be nay he owns that divers Nations have never been more happy than under the Government of such Monarchs As the Roman Empire For instance never arrived to a greater heighth of Riches and Power if we may believe Historians than under Nerva Trajan and the two Antonines So that indeed the fault is not in Absolute Monarchy as such but in the too general Corruption of Humane Nature which rarely produces Persons of just Abilities both as to Wisdom and Goodness fit for so great a Trust. I confess Subjects may be sufficiently happy and if they please contented under any Form of Government where the Governours are of Equal Capacity and Honesty and have a real hearty Love and Concern for the Common Good of their People But where these are wanting it is not meer Forms or empty Names can make them so and therefore the Author very justly admires the Wisdom of the Antient German and Gothick Nations who preferred a Limited Monarchy to all other Forms of Government as an Excellent Medium between the Mischiefs of Arbitrary Power and those unhappy Inconveniences that attend Republicks where either the Common People or Nobility must govern But the Author farther hopes that tho' he makes one of his Disputants in this Dialogue to shew the absurdity and fatal consequences of Sir R. F's Principles yet the Reader will not from thence infer that he passes an absolute Iudgment against them much less hath He done this out of any prejudice to Sir R's Person which he never was acquainted with since he hath rather an honour for his Memory his Writings speaking him as a Person of Gentile Learning and subtle Ingenuity But whether his Tenets be destructive to the Fundamental Constitutions of this Government the Author submits to the Reader 's considerate Iudgment which he hopes will be made without partiality or any prejudicate Opinion proceeding from this or that Party or Faction and will determine according to the Merits of the Cause and therein observe the Apostles Rule to try all things and hold fast that which is good The Author lastly desires the Reader not to think the worse of this performance tho' all the Latine Quotations are not Englisht for since these Discourses are supposed to be between Gentlemen and Scholars and principally intended for such it would be thought needless to translate them THE Second Dialogue BETWEEN Mr. FREEMAN a Gentleman AND Mr. MEANWELL a Civilian M. YOU are I see Sir a punctual man to your hour Pray do me the favour to sit down by the Fire I will but make an end of what I am writing and wait on you presently F. Your Servant Sir take your own time but pray remember the point you are now to satisfie me in M. Now Sir I have done and if I remember right I am to derive a Title to all the Kings and Monarchs that have ever been or shall be in the World from that Supream Fatherly Power conferred by God on Adam But pray take notice I undertake this Task only for Monarchies not Common-Wealths whom I must own to be of meer Humane Invention And tho' I will not say that they are absolutely unlawful yet I think they are not the Powers ordained by God in Scripture F. Well Sir we will discourse farther of that anon and therefore I do assure you I do not desire any more of you now than that you should prove the Divine Institution of Monarchy and I think that task sufficient if it can be made out in one or two meetings M. It may seem indeed somewhat absurd to maintain that all Kings are now the Fathers of their People since you 'll say experience shews the contrary It is true all Kings are not now the Natural Parents of their Subjects yet they all either are or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those Primogenitors who were at the first the Natural Parents of the whole People and do in their right succeed to the exercise of the Supream 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 therefore I suppose that God when he conferred this Supream Power on Adam did not intend it should die with him but descend to his Heirs after his Decease F. Well I shall at present grant you all this likewise tho' it might be questioned But pray who were those Heirs many or but one Person M. I suppose you will also grant me at present what we before disputed that the Power of Fathers over their Children being the Fountain of all Regal Authority by the Ordination of God himself it follows that Civil Power not only in General is by Divine Institution but even the assignment of it specifically to the eldest Parents F. Pray whom do you mean by Eldest Parents our Great Grandmother 〈…〉 if you mean by it one that had longest had Children she must come in as next Heir by these words M. No Sir you altogether misapprehend me I mean the Eldest Son of Adam Eve was his Wife and could have nothing to do to inherit in an Hereditary Monarchy as this was F. 〈…〉 your pardon Sir if I misunderstood you but you must thank the loosness or impropriety of your expression for it for I suppose you cannot deny but Eldest Parents commonly signifie either the Eldest men or Women that have Children or those who have longest had Issue and then in either of these senses our Great Grand-Mother Eve stood fairest to be Heir
it would be left in her Power not only to govern her self but by marrying to chuse a King for her Subjects whom they do not approve of And therefore we read that in diverse of the Antient Kingdoms of the World Women were excluded from the Succession Nor are these the only questions that either might then or else have in latter Ages been started concerning Succession in Kingdoms and Principalities and have been the cause of great disputes between Pretenders to Crowns where a King Dies without Lawful Issue as whether a Grandson by a Younger Daughter shall inherit before a Grand-daughter by an Elder Daughter Whether the Elder Son by a Concubine before the Younger Son by a Wife From whence also will arise many Questions concerning Legitimation and what by the Laws of Nature is the difference betwixt a Wife and a Concubine All which can no ways be decided but by the Municipal or Positive Laws of those Kingdoms or Principalities It may further be enquired whether the eldest Son being a Fool or Madman shall inherit this Paternal Power before the Younger a Wise Man And what degree of â—olly or madness it must be that shall exclude him and who shall be the Judges of it Also whether the Son of a Fool so excluded for his Folly shall succeed before the Son of his Wiser Brother who last Reigned Who shall have the regal Power whilst a Widdow Queen is with Child by the Deceased King until she be brought to Bed These and many more such difficulties might be proposed about the Title of Succession and the Right of Inheritance to Kingdoms and that not as idle speculations but such as in History we shall frequently find examples of not only in our own but likewise other Kingdoms From all which we may gather that if the Laws of God or Nature had prescribed any set rules of Succession they would have gone farther than one or two cases as concerning the Succession of Elder Sons or Brothers where an Elder Son dies without Issue and would also have given certain infallible rules in all other Cases of Succession besides these and not have left it to the Will or particular Laws of diverse Nations to have established the succession so many several ways as I am able to shew have been practised in the World M. I must confess you have taken a great deal of pains to perplex the Succession to Adam which seems designed for nothing else but to make me believe that if Adam or any of his Sons were Kings or Princes it must have been by the Consent or Election of their Children or Descendants which is all one as to say that those Antient Princes derived their Titles from the Iudgment or Consent of the People the contrary to which is evident as well out of Sacred as Civil History F. Since you appeal to History to History you shall go and to let you see that I have not invented these doubts about Succession of my own Head and that there might have very well been a real dispute about the Succession to Adam in the Cases I have put may appear by the many disputes and quarrels that have been in several Nations concerning the Right of Succession between the Uncle and the Nephew of which Grotius is so sensible that he confesses in the latter end of the Chapter last cited that where it could not be decided by the Peoples Iudgment it was fain to be so by Civil Wars as well as private Combats and therefore he is forced ingenuously to confess that this hath been practised divers ways according to the different Laws and Customs of Nations and he gives us here a distinction between a direct Lineal Succession and a transversed and acknowledges that amongst the Germans as also the Goths and Vandales Nephews were not admitted to the Succession of the Crown before their Uncles the like may be said of the Saxons and Normans and therefore we find in our Antient English History that before the Conquest the Uncle if he were Older always enjoyed the Crown before the Nephew which I can more particularly shew you if you think fit to question it The like manner of succession was also amongst the Irish-Scotch for above 200 years after â—â—rgus their first King The like Custom was also observed among the Irish as long as they had any Kings amongst them and is called the Law of Tanistry The same was also observed in the Kingdom of â—astile where after the death of Alphonso the fifth the States of that Kingdom admitted his Younger Son Sancho to be King putting by Ferdinand de la Cerda the Grand-Son to the late King by his Eldest Son tho' he had the Crown left him by his Grand-Father's Will So likewise in Sicily upon the Death of Charles the Second who left a Grand Son behind him by his Eldest Son as also a Younger Son named Robert between whom a difference arising concerning the Succession it being referred to Pope Clement V. He gave Judgment for Robert the Younger Son of Charles who was thereupon Crowned King of Sicily and for this reason it was that Earl Iohn Brother to King Richard the second was declared King of England by the Estates before Arthur Earl of Brittain Son of Ieoffrey the Elder Brother and Glanvil who was Lord Chief Justice under Henry the second in that little Treatise we have of his makes it a great question who should be preferred to an Inheritance the Uncle or Nephew But as for Daughters whether they shall inherit at all or not or at least be preferred before their Uncles is much more doubtfull since not only France but most of the Kingdoms of the East at this day from Turkey to Iapan do exclude Women from the Throne And it was likewise as much against the Grain of the Antient Northern Nations and hence it is that we find no mention of any Queen to have reigned amongst the Antient Germans or Irish-Scots and never but two among the English-Saxons and those by Murder or Usurpation and not by Election as they ought to have done And upon this Ground it was that the Nobility and People of England put by Maud the Emperess and preferred Stephen Earl of Blois to the Crown before her for tho' he derived his affinity to the Crown by a Woman yet as being a Man he thought himself to be preferred before her So likewise in the Kingdom of Aragon Mariana in his History tells us that Antiently the Brother of the King was to inherit before the Daughter examples may also be given of divers of the other instances but these may suffice M. I Pray give me leave to interrupt you a little for by these examples you would seem to infer that these Laws about setling the succession of Crowns in several Kingdoms depended upon the Will of the People whereas I may with better reason suppose that if such Laws and Alterations have been in such successions they were made by
from the constant practice of those times that the King de facto was always own'd as Lawful Sovereign and had Allegiance still paid him by all the People of this Kingdom except those who being the heads of one or the other Party were either attainted or else forced to â—lye the Kingdom But as for all others though different and contrary Oaths of Allegiance were impos'd upon the People sometimes by the one and sometimes by the other of those Kings according as they got possession of the Throne yet I can no where find that ever any body suffer'd for barely swearing Allegiance to the King then in Being for it was always taken for Law that Allegiance was due to the King de facto since ordinary Subjects are not suppos'd to understand the legal right or justice of the Kings Title M. I must still say that there was some colour for the Peoples thus acting as you say they did during the contest for the Crown between the two Families of Yorke and Lancaster when I grant it was somewhat a difficult matter to judge which of the two had the best right to the Crown by reason that the House of Lancaster had held it for three descents as also from the speciousness of their Title since it was founded upon a pretended claim by right of blood upon supposing that Edmund Sirnamed Cronch-back who was one of the Ancestors of this House of Lancaster was the Eldest Son to Henry the Third which had it been true would have given Henry the Fourth a good right to the Crown not only against Richard the Second but his own Grandfather Edward the Third likewise had he been then alive and this descent falling out long before the memory of any man then living who could confute the falsity of this pretended Pedigree The People of England might very well be excus'd for owning an Usurper and paying Allegiance to him since they did not know but his claim might have been right especially since it was approv'd of in full Parliament without any contradiction as I have already shewn you at our last Meeting But what is all this to the matter now in debate between us when the Lineal Succession of the Crown has been so often declared to be the only means of acquiring a just Title to it and every one knows very well who was own'd for lawful King of England within these three Months and also who was pray'd for in all our Churches as his Son and Heir apparent and therefore I must still tell you that your parallel between those Kings de facto of the House of Lancaster and those Princes whom the Convention have now voted to fill the Throne does not at all agree since every Subject of this Kingdom who has but sence enough to go to Market can very well tell if they will deal sincerely to whom their Allegiance is due F. As to what you have now said it is no more than a repetition of what you have already urged to evade the force of these clear Authorities but indeed it was all one when a Prince had been once recognized for Lawful King by Act of Parliament whether the People knew his Title not to be good by right of blood or not And this I have plainly proved to you from the instance of Richard the Third who though both his Elder Brothers Children were then alive and the Eldest of them had been Proclaim'd King and also own'd for such by himself and whose Title he had also sworn to maintain in his Brother King Edwards life time as appears by the Clause Roll of the 11th of Edward the Fourth yet when he had once depos'd him and had call'd a Parliament which recognized his Title his Acts and Judicial Proceedings stand good at this day and though he himself was attained and declar'd a Tyrant and an Usurper yet all the Subjects who acted under his Authority and had taken an Oath of Allegiance to him never needed an Act of Indemnity for so doing whereas those that came over with Henry the VIIth were sain to have an Act of Pardon past to Indemnifie them for fighting against Richard the Third as I have now show'd you And though this Parliament of the first of Henry the Seventh agreed to repeal divers Acts which the King found fault with yet as for all other Statutes made in the Reign of King Richard the Third which have not been since repealed they are still in force without any confirmation likewise when Henry the Seventh had prevail'd over Richard the Third and that he was slain in the Field though all the Nation very well knew that Henry the Seventh could not be Heir of the House of Lancaster because his Mother was then alive and had never formally given up her right if she had any as certainly she could have none as being descended from Iohn Earl of Somerset who was base Son to Iohn of Gaunt Duke of Lancaster by Catherine Swinford whilst his Wife was alive and though I grant after his Marriage with the said Catherine the Children born of that Bed were made legitimate by Act of Parliament in the 20th of Richard the Second yet that legitimation only respects such private Priviledges and Inheritances which they might enjoy or succeed to as Subjects and not in respect of the Crown the Succession of which they were expresly declared uncapable of by that very Act of Legitimation still to be seen upon the Parliament Roll. But for all this when Henry the Seventh had called a Parliament and was therein recogniz'd for their Lawful Sovereign and that the Crown was setled by Statute on the King and Heirs of his Body without any mention of the Princess Elizabeth who ought to have been Queen by right of blood yet none of the Subjects of this Kingdom as I can find ever scrupled to swear Allegiance to him before ever he married that Princess though they as well knew that he could have no right by blood as you can suppose that the People at this day can know whether King Iames has abdicated or forfeited the Crown or not or whether your Prince of Wales be his true and lawful Son for since they are both nice and difficult Points and having been determined by the Convention the Supream Judges in this Case in favour of their present Majesties and that they also recognized their Title after they became a Parliament I can see no manner of reason why all the Subjects of this Kingdom may not as well justifie their taking this new Oath of Allegiance to them notwithstanding their former Oath of Allegiance to King Iames and his Right Heirs as well as the People of England could justifie their taking an Oath of Allegiance to Henry the Seventh notwithstanding their former Oath to Edward the Fourth and his Right Heirs before ever Henry the Seventh had Married the Princess Elizabeth the Heiress of the Crown especially since this Act of the 11th of Henry the
an Act of Parliament which is made indefinitely without fixing it to any time or person the words in the Act are the King for the time being which must certainly extend to any other King as well as Henry the VIIth for I suppose that an Act of Parliament and a Deed agreed in this that an unnecessary Clause can by no means render the whole void But as for what you say in relation to this Acts being a security for the Title of the Queen and her Children whom you suppose to be the right Heirs of the Crown this rather serves to strengthen the Act than otherwise for if this King had a good Title in her right then it may be also very well suppos'd that she gave her assent to this Act in the person of her Husband and that not for the benefit but to the prejudice of her own Issue since if after her death which happen'd some years before his her Son Henry Prince of Wales had set up his present Title to the Crown in the right of his Mother and so would have dethron'd his Father as an Usurper I suppose no reasonable Man will deny but that this Act would have indemnified all those who had taken up Arms in defence of King Henry the VIIth against his Son though in your sence King de jure and if it would justifie the Subjects then I cannot see why it may not do the same thing now in their swearing Allegiance nay fighting for the King in possession against him whom we will for the present suppose to be King de jure M. Well however I think I can prove that this Act was no more than temporary from the judgement of the Judges in the Case of Iohn Duke of Northumberland who when he was Tryed for Treason for leading an Army against Queen Mary to settle the Lady Iane Gray in the Throne desired to be informed by the Judges whether a man acting by the Authority of the Great Seal and the Order of the Privy Council or Princes Council as Stow and Heylin word it could become thereby guilty of Treason to which all the Judges answer'd that the Great Seal of one that was not lawful Queen could give no Authority or Indemnity to those that acted by such a Warrant upon which the Duke submitted though without question he did not want Lawyers to inforce his Plea with this Statute likewise if his cause would have born it from whence I infer against Sir Edward Coke that Treason lies against a King de jure tho' out of possession for it 's plain by all our Historians that Queen Mary was so far from being possessed of the Crown when the Duke of Northumberland acted against her that the Lady Iane was not only Proclaimed Queen in London and most of all the Cities and Great Towns in England but the Tower of London with all the Forts and Naval Forces were under her Command and she had also Allegiance sworn to her by the Privy-Council and by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen and she had also the Seals in her power by which all Patents and Commissions were granted and issued in her Name and if all this be not sufficient to constitute her Queen de facto according to this Statute of Henry the VIIth I know not what was F. Yet I can tell you what was yet wanting which because she had not she was certainly neither Queen de jure nor de facto and that was a solemn Coronation and Recognition of her Right by Parliament which legal investiture since she never had she was not the Queen for the time being and consequently not intended within this Statute of the 11th of Henry the VIIth for though it is true she was appointed Successour of the Crown-by the Letters Patents of King Edward the VIth yet since she could not claim by right of blood there being so many before her all the Kingdom looked upon it as an Usurpation and an artifice of the Duke of Northumberland whose Son she had Married to get the Government of the Kingdom into his sole power so that it was no wonder if the greater part of the People were so averse to her Title and that those of the Nobility who took her part so quickly revolted from her when once the fear they were in of the Duke of Northumberland's power was removed for had this Bequest of the Crown to the Lady Iane held good this Kingdom instead of being Hereditary would have become wholly Testamentary and disposable by the last Will or Letters Patents of the King or Queen for the time being without the consent of the Great Council of the Nation which is contrary not only to the then receiv'd Laws of Succession but also to the antient constitution of the Kingdom as well before as after the Conquest But notwithstanding all this I doubt not but that if the Lady Iane had so far prevail'd against Queen Mary as to have been able to call a Parliament and to have had her Title own'd and recogniz'd therein as it was in the Case of Richard the Third and Henry the Seventh but that she would have been true and lawful Queen according to the intent of the Statute we are now discoursing of and then the Duke of Northumberland must likewise if he had fair play have been indemnified for taking up Arms in her defence against Queen Mary since Queen Iane would have been then within the letter of this Statute as much as King Henry the Seventh himself M. You must pardon me if I cannot be of your opinion in this matter since if the bare Coronation and recognition by Parliament could confer a legal right to the Crown upon one who had no hereditary right to it before the consequence of it would be that the Crown would be so far from being Elective as you suppose it to have antiently been that it would be in the power of every bold Usurper or Rebell who had but the confidence to call himself King to gain a legal Title to be so according to your Principles and then if Oliver Cromwell could have found a Party strong enough in the Army to have declar'd him King and had call'd a Parliament in his own name who had recogniz'd him for their Lawful Sovereign he would then have had as much right to our Allegiance as King Charles the IId which certainly was not only contrary to the settlement of the Crown upon Henry the VIIth and the Heirs of his body but also to that solemn recognition of King Iames the Firsts Title as lineally descended as right Heir to the said King Henry which I insisted on at our last Meeting And therefore if you will have my sence of this Act it is either expir'd for the reasons I have already given or else was void ab initio since it is not only contrary to the setled course of Succession of the Crown according to the Laws of lineal descent for divers hundred years last past but
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