Bibliotheca politica:
OR AN
ENQUIRY
INTO THE
Antient Constitution
OF THE
ENGLISH GOVERNMENT,
With Respect to the just Extent of the Regal
Power, and the Rights and Liberties of the
Subject.
Wherein all the Chief Arguments both for and against
the LATE REVOLUTION, are Impartially
Represented and Consider'd.

In Fourteen DIALOGUES.
Collected out of the best Authors, Antient and Modern.
By James Tyrrell Esq
1694

HAVING out of Curiosity, for some Years before, I as well as since, the late wonderful and happy Revolution, carerolly perus'd, for the Satisfaction of 1 ihy own Conscience, all Treatises of any Value that have been pUblifh'd concerning the Origin and Rights of Civil Government; as well of Monarchy as other kinds of it, and also concerning the antient Government and fundamental Constitutions of this Kingdom: I found it necessary, in order to the better fetaining of what I had read, and making a more certain Judgment upon it, to write down the most considerable Arguments on both sides, as well of those who will have Monarchy to be Jure Divino, as of those who allow it only to Government in general; of those who maintain absolute Subjection, or Passive-Obedience as they call it, as well as of those who hold Resistance in some Cases to be necessary; of those that maintain our Monarchy to have been limited by the Constitution it self, and of those that suppose all our Rights and Liberties, nay, the very Being of Parliaments, to owe their Origin wholly to the gracious Concession and Favour of our former Kings.

Having made impartial Collections of this Nature, and shew'd them to some Persons of Judgment, they thought they might be of great Use for satisfying some Mens Doubts concerning lawful Obedience to their late Majesties King William and Queen Mary. These Gentlemen look'd upon it as the best and most ingenuous way of convincing the Scrupulous, to propose the Arguments fairly on both sides, without interposing my own Judgment; but leaving it to the intelligent and impartial Reader, to embrace that Side where he found the most rational and strongest Arguments.

This Task, tho troublesome enough, I was prevail'd with to undertake, not for the fake of Fame, but merely for the publick Good and Happiness of my Country.

Being also sensible that a Subject of this importance deferv'd a great deal of pains, and to be handled in a more artificial Method than the old dry Scholastick Way of Objection and Solution; I thought it would prove more pleasant as well as profitable to the Reader, espedally those of our young Nobility and Gentry, for whom I principally design'd this Undertaking, to digest what I had writ into Dialogues or Conversations, suppos'd to be held betwixt two intimate Friends, who, notwithstanding their different Principles in Politicks, had always maintain'd a strict and generous Correspondence. I was the more inclin'd to this Method, because I observ'd that writing of Controversies by way of Dialogue, according to true Rules, had obtain'd well among intelligent Readers; and because my Subjects are of a nice nature, and that my Collections contain strict Inquiries into the Principles laid down in the Writings of several Persons of great Reputation for Learning and Ingenuity.

I was sensible how invidious a Task it must prove to write on purpose against so many Great Men; and how troublesom and tedious it would be to my self, as well as to the Reader, to confute any Author Page by Page; which Method, I perceiv'd, had made Answers to Books very unacceptable to the World. And tho I grant that writing by way of Dialogue has likewise Objectionrand Difficulties, as being more diffusive, and taking up more time, where either the one or the other Disputant is apt to rove from the Subject; yet I make bold to affirm, that this may be in a great measure prevented by the Writer, if he keep close to the Question, and not start a fresh Hare till the old one is run down. So that a Man may make and answer Objections in as few Words this way, as by Polemical Discourses. And tho it be granted, that Matters of Form in Dialogues are more tedious, yet the Reader, as well as Traveller, will find, that the Pleasantness of the Road often makes amends for its being somewhat about.

Whether I have truly pursued the Rules of Dialogue, must be left to the Reader's Judgment; but I can justly affirm, that I have carefully avoided all bitter and reflecting Language on either side, having design'd these Discourses for common Places of Argument, and not Forms of Railing. I have also declin'd shewing my self a Party, or giving my own Opinion in any Question, and therefore have not made either of my Disputants the other's Convert; tho nothing is more easy in writing Dialogues as well as Romances, than to make the Knight Errant always beat the Giant.

In all my Discourses I have considered and contracted the best Arguments I could find in the most considerable antient and modern Authors, either in Latin or English, especially in those that have writ on either side since the late Revolution. As for those in our own Language, wherever I conceiv'd any Author to speak so well, or to argue so closely, that to put it in other Words would make it worse; I have always put the Arguments of both the Disputants in their own Words: and because I would not act the Plagiary, have truly quoted the Book and Page from whence I, took them. For other Authors, I hope none will take it ill, if I have sometimes made bold to contract their Arguments, without altering their Sense or Words further than by putting in or out an Expression to make the Stile run more smooth. I also desire them not to think that I write on purpose to confute them, since my Design is not to write against any Man's Opinions, as they are his, but only to examine them freely, in order to an impartial Discovery of the Truth. And since some of them have been perhaps too commonly and favourably received by our ordinary Gentry and Clergy, if any ingenious Person will take upon him farther



to assert or vindicate any Opinion here question'd by the one or the other Disputant, and will clearly and fairly shew me where any Argument might have been put more home, or any Objection more solidly answer'd; I shall, inltead of taking it amiss, give him my thanks for his pains, and do here promise to insert all, or at least the Substance of his Arguments under their proper Heads with all due Acknowledgments: only I desire him, whoever he be, to forbear all harsh Reflections and coarse Language •, otherwise he must pardon me if I only take notice of his Reasons, and neglect his Passions.

I hope no candid Reader will flight those Dialogues, which treat of Opinions that at present may seem to be of fashion, viz, the Divine Right of Monarchy, and Succession from the Patriarchal Power given by God to Adam; for every one remembers the time when our Pulpits and Presses would scarce suffer any other Doctrine to be preach'd or published on those Subjects. It fares with some Political Opinions as with Fashions, which are never so generally receiv'd and worn, as when they have been in vogue at Court. Those Divines and Lawyers, who were the Inventors or new Vampers .of them, commonly receivM the greatest Rewards and Preferments: so that as the CourtTaylors did with FalhionSj they invented such Doctrines and Opinions as were most burdensom and uneasy to all sorts of People, except a few Great ones, who were to be Gainers by them.

I desire it may be observ'd, that however odd or unreasonable these Doctrines may seem to most Men now, yet certainly they must formerly have seem'd to carry a great Appearance of Truth, since they were able to captivate the Reason or the major part of both Houses of Convocation in the beginning of King James the First's Reign, when by several of their Canons they declarM them to be the only sure Foundations of all Civil Authority, and of Obedience to it; as appears by the Treatise, call'd Bishop Overall Convocation-Book. And tho neither King nor Parliament thought fit to give those Canons the Stamp of Civil Authority, and make them Law, yet this did not hinder several of the Learned Clergy and Laity from embracing those Opinions; such as Sir Robert Filmer, and his Vindicator Mr. Bohun, and the Reverend and Learned Bishop Sanderson, with divers others of Note* whose Arguments I have made use of and considered in some of these Dialogues, but with as little Reflection as possible, since I know what is due to the Memory of such Great and Worthy Persons. This was the reason why I only made use of the initial Letters of their Names, or the Titles of their Books, in the Margin; which are explain'd by an Index at the beginning of this Work, as they were at the beginning of each Dialogue in the first Edition: what is not so mark'd, I desire the Reader to look upon the Words, hot the Sense, to be my own; for I don't pretend to be an Inventor of new Notions in Politicks, there being no Man more sensible than my self of that bid LatinSentence, Nihil dicJum quod non dictum frius.

Tho the Title of the first Dialogue mentions no more than the discussing of the Question, whether Monarchy be of Divine Right, yet the natural Power of Fathers, Masters of Families, and Freemen, are distinctly treated of, and closely enquired into, as being the first Elements or Principles of all Civil Powers, as those alone out of which at first they could be regularly made: And tho I have made one of the Disputants argue pretty stiffly against theDivine Right of Monarchy, and of Indefeasible Hereditary Succession to Crowns; yet I de



clare I am not what the World calls a Republican or Commonwealths-Man, nor do I hereby design or desire Alterations in the Government either of Church or State, since none can admire our excellent Constitution more than my self: much less do I prefer an Elective to. an Hereditary Succession to the Crown, for I justly esteem the latter to be the most excellent, if not the only means to prevent all Disputes and Civil Wars about Succession; and therefore is never to be departed from, unless when some Natural or Moral Disability in the Person, or other unavoidable Necessity, render it absolutely inconsistent with the publick Peace and Safety of the Kingdom.

Therefore as a Man may be truly devout without Superstition,which is a Corruption or Abuse of Religion; so I think a Subject may be truly Loyal and Obedient to his Prince, tho he has never heard  or does not believe any Divine Right of Monarchy deriv'd from Adam and Noah; or of Hereditary Succession, from God's Promise, That Cain should rule over Abel. Nor have I any Aversion to Absolute Monarchy as such, could I be assur'd that Princes would be always as wise and as good as they ought to be, for I own that several Nations have never been more happy than under such Monarchs, The Roman Empire, for instance, never arrived to a greater height of Riches and Power, if we may believe Historians, than under Nerva, Trajan, and the two Antonines: So that the Fault is not in Absolute Monarchy as such, but in the general Corruption of human Nature, which rarely produces Persons of such Wisdom, Goodness, and other Abilities, as are requisite for so great a Trust.

I confess Subjects may be happy and contested enough, if they please, under any Form of Government, yftitxfiine/.M^vetn^jaff of equal Capacity and Hbneftj^'a^haye. i%rftoJti&iM Cojiqern for rife commrki Good" of their P^ple ^ J,tnk wnere fcae^are w'anfo ing- it is not Wre Fotsiis and e.mpty Karros thaj; can's make th'cpj* lo: "Thereforfe I justly. avdmire jfhe 'tylfitpp^tf: tfaj f^ie'nt German and1Gothick Nations, who prefers a LimitedMonarchy ' to all otJbeff Forms of Government;( as an excellent Medium "between the Mis. chiefs of ArbitraryPowet, and those Inconveniencies that attend. Republicks, where either the common People or Nobility must govern

I likewise Hope, that tho I make One of my Disputants shew the. Absurdity arid fatal Consequences of SirRobert Filmer's Principles, yet the Reader will not from thence infer, that I pass an absolute Judgment against them; much less have I done this out of any prejudice ro Sir Robert, with whom tho I was never, acquainted j I honour his. Memory, because his Writings shew him to have been a Person of genteel Learning, and very ingenious: B\lt whether his Principles be .destructive to the Fundamental Constitution (of this Government, I submit to the Reader's impartial Judgmerit; who" I hope will, without Attachment to Party or. Faction,., determine according to the Merits of the Cause, and observe the Apostle's Rule, to try a/2 things, and hold fastthat which is good. I beg the Reader likewise to believe, that tho under the Name of a Freeman I have argued against an Opinion . now and lately much iji Vogue,> tviL. 'Tbai .ad absolute hrejistibility is an inseparablePrerogative"of alt. Sovereign Pomns, be they Monarchies or Commonwealths; yet no, Man more abhors all' unnecessary^ Resistance or Rebellion against Supreme Magistrates, and; is, more-for an Absolute Submission by all particular Persons, whether, publick or private, in Base of the highest Injuries and Opprcsliohs

done done to themselves akine, and where die eomuion Good of the Community is not. immediately concern'd: And this I own to be their Duty* not only out of a generous Regard to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Commonwealths whereof they are Members, (and .whish, ought not to be disturb'd,■. to revenge or redress a few private Injuries) but also frelri the expressl Command of God in the. Holy Scrips ture., which'; expeesty forbids not only all Revenge, but even Selfge&ncei whilst the Supreme Pow«rs.aft legally, tho perhaps contrary £0>,:|jbe, st.rift.Rmks of(Justice and Equity in such particular Cafes. Yet Tor all this, I doubt whether those Precepts do extend to all Resistance wbattff er, via. ofi any whole Nation or great- Body of Men, W^oÆi Preseiivation or Freedomi from intolerable Slavery and Oppreffiqnytnay reodisu; it necessary for the Goodi of the Commonwealth, ajftt&.js no: other way. tor be procur'd but.by a vigorous Resistance, Pf. ejife joining, with: some powerful Neighbours, who shall intefpose fo$.;f£)$k Deliverance So that if such a Resistance be ever lawful, ifi/cafa ba up(Mlmi'les9 momentous an account, than that of a General immfim either- jof the Lives, Liberties, Religion, or Properties of a wliote«.Qr- ittajoc part of a. Nation; as they are established'by the Law ojfiNatww, lourjthe Fundamental Constitution of those particular Govfir*mestts; where :fucb iihsupportable Tyranny and Oppressions are tben;i«xerfcJ&d«i I Andlifiitliisbe not lawful in such extraordinary Cafes', ifeityf^iljiifeWi'fisJif God had! prefers' the unjust Potter or -Force, and tty^Wtf&GrvidtMritot.the Governors,before the Go&A xn& HtppitUss  ttyt'Gwitktsntd?< 1vhich:.iiLcontrary'tothe mmn End ^of-ailCivilGpiY,errtmentv^'«^;theiatoBpnGorodr.and Happiness-of Mankind, even

A B«ft: whether ssildi/Resistanceito. not in [these Ca&si SkHvfu!,- nat MeMrtif<^\the Safeg^d: and!jM £fai fiipi»ijilkaYO it'jtxa'tbœ Jiy^mentx)gtiie.'in««fl>-^^i'n- ••'


ground, if it appears in its true natural Dress against its Opposite, Error. But if a great deal of what has been said, by Persons too vio* lent on either side, appear to be mere precarious Opinions, whose best Authority is from the great Names of those that have broach'd' them j I hope no indifferent Person will take it ill, if I endeavour to discover those Mistakes, since all Men are liable to Errors: and as none can be more sensible of this than my self, so when either o£ those Learned Persons, or any other, shall convince me of weak or false Reasonings, I promise to retract them with the first Opportunity.

As to my Discourses upon the Supreme Legiflative Power, and the Fundamental Constitution of our Government, together with the Antiquity of Great Councils or Parliaments; and whether they always consisted of Bishops, Barons or Temporal Lords, and Commons; is a Question to be decided only from the Histories and Laws of the Nation. And I dare assure the Reader, that I have advane'd nothing upon it on either side, but what I have produe'd good Authorities for, either from the Histories and Governments of our own or neighbouring Nations, or from the Collections of our English Saxon Laws, and antient as well as modern Writers upon our Laws; and lastly, from our Statutes since the reputed Conquest, without omitting any Authority that I judged material to be urged on either part.

As for those Parliamentary Records here quoted, they are either such as have been already printed from the Rolls in the Tower, or other Offices at Westminster, and so are allow'd for authentick, or else are such as have not yet been made publick; for the Truth of which, the Reader may search the Records themselves, if he have anv Distrust that I have not quoted them fairly. And I can farther assure the Reader, from better Judgments than my own, that he will find more here than ever was yet publisli'd at once, or perhaps at all, upon those important Subjects.

As to the sixth Dialogue, I must own the Subject of it to be one of the hardest and most important, tho perhaps in the Judgment of / some, the dryest and most unpleasant part of my Task, w*. to adjust

who were antiently the constituent Parts or Orders of Men that made up our Legiflative Assemblies. That the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, Earls, and chief Thanes or Barons, were principal Members, is granted by all Parties; but whether there were from the very Original of these Great Councils, or till long after the coming in or the Nor>mans, any Representatives for the. Commons, as we now call them,

in distinction from the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, is made a question. The first who raised the Doubt, for ought I can find, was Poly dor e Virgil, an Italian, who wrote the History of England in the sixteenth Century, and it hath been continued by some Antiquaries since that time: tho the first who undertook to prove the contrary, was the Author of a Treatise publisli'd by James Howtl in the Cottoni Pofihama, under the Name of Sir RobertCotton, about 1654. And after him, this Notion of the Bishops, Lords, and other Tenants in capite, being the sole Representative for the whole Nation in those Councils, was next printed in the second part of Sir Henry Spelman'sGlossary, Tit. Parliamentum; where King jf<?£*'s Charter is brought as the mam • Argument to prove that Assertion. The next who appeared in Print

on this Subject was Sir William Dugdale in his Origints Juridiciales j who, tho he transcribed the same Notion and Arguments from Spelman's



Glossary ; yet he.allows our Commons to have been always some way represented in Parliament, tho not by Members of their own chusing : notwithstanding: which, he agrees with the Author of the Passage in the Glossary, that the Commons first began by Rebellion in the 49th of Henry III. "•.

• Which Opinions being look'd upon not only as novel and erroneous, but dangerous to the fundamental Rights and Liberties of the People of this Nation, they were oppos'd by William Petit Esq; in his Treak tile, intitled, The Right?of. the Commons of England asserted, &c. He was seconded by the AuEhor of the Treatise, call'd, "JaniAnglorum sides mva.- Soon after both those Books were animadverted upon by Dr# Br*djy. in two Editions of .his Anfwersto them; but the Rights of the Commons were again vindicated by the Author of Jani Anglorum, kc.in another Treatise, intitled, Jus Anglorum ah antiquo, which has not yet been answer'd.

I have been the more particular in my Account of those Authors, because this Controversy being largely debated in them, T thought it proper, for saving the trouble of reading so many Books, to reduce all the material Arguments and Authorities madd use of by both Parties, in this weighty Controversy', into this and the two following Dialogues; and have, as near as I could, confin'd my self to the words * of those Authors, as will appear by the Quotations in the Margin.

I must own, that having had a long and familiar Acquaintance with Mr. Petity he furnish'd me with divers Authorities both in Manuscript and Print, not hitherto taken notice of by any Writer on this Subject. And had Dr.Brady, or any of his Friends, thought fit to communicate their Objections against any thing I have writ, I should have fairly publish'd them, with such Answers as the Cafe might have requir'd.

I hope the Reader wjill pardon me, if I seem too prolix in the Interpretation of divers Words and Phrases, us'd. by Dr. Brady and his Opponents in a quite different Sense frpm pur antie'nt Historians, Records, and Statutes ;1for if the various Use and equivocal Meanings of those Expressions be truly, stated and laid open, according to the several Ages in which those'Authors liv'd, or luch Laws were made, I reckon this great Dispute, will soon be atan end.

I think it needless to insist upon ,th^ Nature of the other Dialogues. The Design of them is" obtfious, from the summary Account of the Subject prefix'd to them ; so that all I stiall add, is, that in each of them, as well as the former, there are many incident Questions handled of Law, History, and Divinity, that relate naturally to the Subject. The Reader will easily find this, by consulting the large Alphabetical Index annex'd to this Edition, which makes it a compleat Common-place Book for understanding our Constitution: a thing hitherto very much wanted, and not to be met with, but by consulting multitudes of Books, at no small Expence both of Mony 0 and Time. »

r Ar can assure the Reader, that all the Authorities here made use of from Historians and Records, are truly cited, without leaving out or concealing any thing that I thought made for or against either Opinion. And as for the Records, they are either such as having been sufficiently try'd, have pass'd for authentick betwixt Dr. Brady and his Antagonists, or else such as I my self have seen and examin'd, and consider'd the Purport of them, carefully. If any suspect the contrary,


I have given them a fair Opportunity, by my Quotations, to examine the Truth of it themselves; so that by weighing and comparing Historian with Historian, and Record with Record, and sometimes both together, as the Subject-Matter requires, they may be able tQ make a right and impartial Judgment of the whole.

I hope that the Arguments, in all the following Discourses, will prove ib plain and convincing to careful and unprejudic'd Readers, that they may as easily discover the Truth, as an honest and unbiass'd Jury-Man can, at a Trial, judge on which side the Right and Justice of the Cause inclines, upon the bare hearing of Evidence on both fides, even before the Court hath summ'd it up. But on which side soever the Reader brings in his Verdict, I heartily wish that God may direct his Mind, and guide his Judgment to find out and embrace the Truth; which as it was the only end of my writing at first, is now the end of republifhing these Dialogues: which, since the principal Subject of them has again so lately been controverted, not only by the Pen, but by the Sword, 'tis hop'd may be of use to settle the Minds of People, who to their Cost have been so frequently misled, because they did not understand our Constitution.

An Alphabet! c1 A t1 G A T A Logue of the LETTERS, by which the Names and Books of Authors are denoted in the Margin of the following Dialogues*

B. A. A. T"\R- Brady's Answer to Mr. Cook's Argumenturn Anti-Norman* \_J nicum.

B- A. J. Dr. Brady's Animadversions on J<tni Anglorum fades nova.

B. A P. Dr. Brad/s Answer, Edit, in Folio, to Mr. Petit's antient Rights

of the Commons of England. B. C P. Bohun's Conclusion to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcbd. B O. F. Bohun'sDefence of Sir Robert Fiimer.

B. G. Dr. Brady's Glossary at the end of his Answer to Petit's antient

Rights of the Commons.
B. P. H. Dr. Brady's
Preface to
his History,
B. P. P. Bohun's
Preface to
Patriarcha.

B-
S. P. P. Bishop Sanderson's
Preface to
the Potter of the Prince.
D.O. G. Filmer's
Dire ft ions for Obedience to Governors.
F. A. M. M. Sir Robert
Filmer's
Anarchy of Mix'd or Limited Monarchy.
F. D. O. Sir Robert
Filmer's
Directions
to Obedience.
F. F. G. J. Fiimer1 s Freeholders Grand Inquest.
F. O. G. Sir Robert
filmer's
Observations
on Forms of Government.
F. O. G. Sir Robert
Fiimer s Observations on Grotius
De Jure Belli 8c
Pacis.

F. P. Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha,

F. P. O. Sir Robert Filmer's Preface to Observations on Aristotle.

F. P. O. Sir Robert Filmer's Preface to his Political Observations,

G. J. B. Grotius de Jure Belli & Pacis.

H.
D. L. Harmony of Divine Law.
H. J. Dr. Hickes's
Jovian.

H. P. O. History of Pafftve-Obedience.

H.S.B. R. Heylinh Stumbling-Block of Rebellion, Folia

H. T. M. Hunton's Treatise of Monarchy.

J. A. A. Jus Anglorum ab Antiquo.

T. E.MG. Dr. Johnston's Excellency of Monarchical Government.

jP Estranges Obfervators. P. J. N. Pujfendorf de Jure Nature dr Gentium. P. N. M. Patriarcha non Monarcha.

P. P. R. Q Petit's Preface to the Rights of the Commons of England asserted. P. R, Plato Redivivm.

P.R;C.

P.
R. C. Pern's Antient
Rights of the Commons o/England
asserted.
R. H. C. Rujbworth's
Historical
CoUeclions.

S.C.R. Dr. Sherlock's
Cafe of Resistance.

S. P. P. Bilhop Sanderson's Preface to Archbishop Vjber's Power of the * Prince.

T.T.
G. Two Treatises of Government.
V. J. R. VindicU
Jurit Regii.

U.S.A.S.
Mr. Dudley Diggs's Unlawfulness of Subjects taking up Arms
i against their Sovereign, Edit.
i6tf*


THE

C O N T E NTS

« ■ r

Of the Ensuing

DIALOGUES

DIALOGUE t;
H E THE R Monarchy be Jure
Divino. . pagt £

DIAL. n.

Whether there can be made out frdm the Natural, or ReveaPd
Law of God, any Succession to Crowns by Divine Right. $0

D t A L. ITT.

Whether Resistance of the Supreme Power, by a whole Nation, or People, in Casts of the last Extremity, can bejustiffdby the Law of Nature, dr Rules of the Gospel.

D I A L. IV.

 \ • .j ■ t

Whether absolute Non-Resistance of the Supreme Powers be enjoined by the Doftrine of the Gospel, and, was theantient Practice of the Primitive Church, and the constant Docirine of our Reformed Church of England.

153

DIAL. V;

Whether the Kjng be the sole Supreme Legislative Power of the KJhgdom  And whether our Great Councils, orParliaments, be a fundamental Part of the Govtrnment, or else proceeded from the Favour and Concessions offormer Kjngs. 214 DIAL. VI, VII.

Whether the Commons of England, represented by Kflights, Citizens, and 
Burgesses in Parliaments were one of the Three Estates in Parliament, 
before the t^th of Henry III. or \%th of Edward L 26% 

DIAL. vin. 

A Continuation of the former Discourse, concerning the Antiquity of the 
Commons in Parliament; wherein the best Authorities for it are proposed 
and examined: With an Entrance upon the Question of Non-Resistance. 

391 

DIAL. IX. 

- r • 

Whether by the ant lent Laws and Constitutions of this Kingdom, as well as 

bj the Statutes of the iph and 14th of Kjng Charles H. ail Resistance of 

the Kjng, or of those commissioned by him, are expresty forbid upon any 

Pretence whatsoever. 

And also, whether all those who assisted his Majesty Kjng William, 

either before or after his coming over, are guilty of the Breach of this 

Law. 442 

D I A L. X. 

I. Whether A Kjng of England can ever faB. from, or forfeit his Royal 

Dignity for any Breach of an Original Contract, or wilful Violation of the 

Fundamental Laws of the Kjngdom. 

tL Whether Kjng William, the Norman, did by his Conquest acquire such 

an absolute unconditional Right to the Crown of this Realm for himself and 

bis Heirs, as could never be lawfully resisted or forfeited for any Male-Ad- 

ministration or Tyranny whatever*'. 498 

DIAL. XL 

 

j. in what fense all Civil Power is derived from God, and in what fense it may 

be also from the People. 

JL Whether his Majesty Kjng William, when Prince of Orange, had 4 
just Cause of War against Kjng James H. 

IU. Whether the Proceedings of his Majesty, before he was Kjng-, as 
also of the late Convention, in refpelf of the said Kjng James, is justi- 
fiable by the Law of Nations, and the Constitution of our Government. 

555 

DIAL, XII. 

I. Whether the Vote of the late Convention, wherein they declared the Throne 

to be vacant, can be justiffd from the antient Constitution and Customs of 

this Kjngdom. 

II. Whether the said Convention, declaring Kjng WiHiam and Queen Mary 

to be Lawful and Rightful Kjng and Queen of England, may be justi- 

fied by the said Constitution. 

III. Whether the Aft passed in the said Convention, after it became a Par- 

liament, whereby Roman Catholick Princes are debarred from succeeding 

to the Crown, was according to Law. 603 

DIAL.


DIAL. XIII. 

I. Whether an Oath of Allegiance may be taken to a Kjng or Queen de Facto, 
or for the time being. 

II. What is the Obligation of such an Oath; whether to an aclual Defence of 

their Title against all Persons whatsoever, or else to a bare Submission to 

their Power. 

III. Whether the Bishops, who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to 

their Majesties, could be lawfully deprived of their Bishopricks. 651 

DIAL. XIV. 

Shewing, that the Arraigning and Murder of Kjng Charles I. can by no 

means be justified by the Proceedings of the Convention-Parliament against 

Kjng James II. upon his Abdication; the Grounds and Manner thereof 

being wholly different: Proved by an exact Relation of the Beginning, 

Progress, and ljsueof the late Civil War. 698 

l.T! 1. * 1 3.


Bibliotheca politica:
OR AN
ENQUIRY
INTO THE
Antient Constitution
OF THE
ENGLISH GOVERNMENT,

DIALOGUE I.

Whether Monarchy be Jure Divino..

'•.T;!l# E T W E E N .-.

Mr. Freeman, a Gentleman; and Mr. Meanwell, , J ;„ ..r .a Civil Lawyer:

Supposed to be immediately upon the late King J A M E S's first Departure.

[graphic]

i&i9» OOD morrow, Sir: What! at your Study thus early this ^ eSS0SXSSXSSJ!8». Morning.

is no wonder, if you were acquainted with ; |> my Hours: But pray, Sir, may I not likewise ask you what ||9* extraordinary Occasion brings you out of your Lodgings so much sooner than your ordinary Time?

F. Why, Sir, I ll tell you. Being awake very early this • Acj Morning, and not able to sleep for thinking on the great Change that might happen, let either the King or Prince get the better ; and hearing some odd Rnmours last Night of the King's Intentions to go away : I was resolved to get up, and go to the Coffee-house, to hear what News where I had- scarce sac down, before a Gentleman comes in from Whitehall, and brings Bs -a certain Account, that the King withdrew himself this Morning between three and four of <he Clock, no Body knows whither, (tho' most believe he is gone after the Queen into France) which I thought would be so surprizing (I will not say welcome) to you, that being so near your Lodgings, I thought it would *. i B be be worth while to step up, and tell you of it, and take your Thoughts of this great (and I hope happy) Change, which fa great a Revolutionas likely to produce in this Nation.

M- I thank you, Sir, for your Kindness, tho' it is not half an Hour ago, that one I employ in some Business relating to a Client of mine, came hither, and gave me the fame account, tho' it was no great Surprize to me; for ever since Sunday, that the King sent the Queen and Prince away, I believ'd that he gave the Game

for lost. N , % - v v. ..

F. I must confess I was' of another* Mindj andthapght, that when he.ha"d secured the Quceh arid Child, he would have had onefJJrush with the Princebfcfcbre he could have got to London; and if he had had the worst of it, he could have out gone away at last. But to leap away on this manner, and to lose three Kingdoms without ever striking one stroll »is -hbtpl confess, suitable to that high Character his Admirers have always had of his Courage and Conduct. 'M> Alits! gootfTCTng : What woTfldVCu havetWl^do? Or Whom courkkbe rely orip/when some^of his nfir Relatjionsf'and difbrs cf those he hadr)w#d

almost 'from notJfihgfc-had dWerted hrm~?" How (Souks he thejptruit an AœijJrbs Mercenaries, who being most of them but the Dregs of the People, would, it is likely, rather have delivered him up tcrthecPrince5.-than have ventured their Lives for him.

jp. What you have said concerning -his.Majesty's Relations and Confidents^deserting him, makerather against thai^for the King's Cause'i since it cann^bpsupposed they would have left a Prince to whom they were so much obliged;- Co join themselves with his Enemy, from whom they.had no reason to expect greater Advantages than they had already ; unless they had been satisfied in their Consciences, that the Protestant Religion eftablish'd in these Nations, and also our Civil Rights and Liberties, were in imminent danger of being utterly lost and destroyed. Awd^tho' I grant that some of the King ^Officers arid Soldiers went over to the Prince; yet, considering how few they werethafe-did so, not being (as I am credibly informed) above seven or eight hundred Men at the most, and what great Numbers ofMeir he lull left wiili him; he-arighty-Tnctfamfa; haveturned out those Officers he suspected, and put others in their rooms, who would have engaged to live and die fvflt'h htfij; and if thi* would* not have done, he might have sent those RegimeWs h'e most suspected back to~h>ndon : And then reckoning the Scotch and Irish Forces that came lately over, besides the Papists he had in his Army, and those, who, having rhof e Courage than Conference, could never expect to fight for a Prince, who we-uld pay them better: I am confident (if this had been done) he might, after the going over of those few Troops, have made up as good* if not a better Arrriy than the Prince's; and so need not have scampered last Week from Salisbury in that haste he did, whilst the Enemy was near fifty Miles off. But asitis, lam very well satisfied withnaflthat hath happen'd in this great Revolution, and convinced of the Truth of that old Saying, Quos perdere vult Jupiter,dement at prim.

M. So far I go along with you, that God doth often make use of the Wickedness and Treachery of Men, to bring his great Designs about; but whether Gcd hath ordained this great Revolution, as you call it, for a Deliverance or Punishmentto this Nation, I am yet in doubt: For if you please to consider how much those tWo Causes have contributed to this turn of Affairs, I suppose, if yon argue according to my Principles, we must own, that tho' this Change hath happen'd by God's permissive Providence (as all things else, tho' never so ill) yet whether he doth approve of all that hath been done to procure it, I much doubt; since if divers of our Nobility, with some of our Clergy, had not quitted their Doctrines of Passive Obedience and Noh-Resistance, so long owned by the Church of England, this Revolution could not have happen'd at all, or at least not so suddenly, as if did : So that -indeed I must confess, I am not only grieved at his Majesty's hard Fortune, but also stand amazed, and cannot but reflect with wonder on the strange Vicissitude of worldly Affairs, to fee a Great King, who but last Week commanded a powerful Army of more than forty thousand Men, forced out of his Throne, and made to fly his Kingdom, by a Prince that did not bring half that Number into the Field. And who can sufficiently bewail the King's Misfortunes, who hath been at once betrayed by the ill Advice of his Counsellors, the Treachery of his Friends, and the Cowardice of his Soldiers?

F. Methinks, Sir, there is no such great Cause of Wonder, much less of Concern in all this: For who can much admire that a Prince should be thus used,who had not only provok'd a powerful Enemy to invade him from abroad, but (by industriously labouring to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government at Home) had lost the Hearts of almost all, except his Popish Subjects; insomuch that many of his own Soldiers were so terrified with the Thoughts of being discarded (like the Protestant Army in Ireland) to make room for Irish and French Papists, that they had very little Courage to fight, when they saw Cashiering was the best Reward they, could expect, if they proved victorious. And who can much pity a Prince, who would rather lose the Affections of his People, than displease a few Priests and Jesuits: So that if he suffers, he may thank himself; it not being Religion, but Superstition which brought this Misfortune upon him. Since the, King having got a Prince of IVales, and (as it is highly suspected) joined himself in a strict League with France for the Extirpation of Hereticks, it laid an absolute Necessity upon the Prince of Orange to come over, that, by the Assistance of the States of Holland, he might not only relieve us, but vindicate his own, and her Royal Highness his Princess's Rfght to the Succession, and secure his Country from a dangerous and powerful Invasion, which it was threatned with both by Sea and Land, whenever the Kings of France and England should be at leisure to join their Forces, to make War upon them; which you know all Europe hath expected for above these two Years last past.

M. These things were somewhat, if they could be proved; but indeed, to deal freely with you, I look upon this League, and the Story of the supposititious Birth of the Prince of IVales, as meer Calumnies cast out by wicked and crafty Men to render the King more odious to his People.

F. Nay, Sir, yon don't hear me positively affirm either the one or the other, since I grant they are not yet made out; but whosoever will consider all the Circumstances of the Birth of this Child, cannot but be strongly inclined to believe it an Impostor, notwithstanding all the Depositions that are taken to the contrary. And as for the FrenchLeague, you may be sure, if there be any such thing, it is kept very private; and yet I must tell you there are very high and violent Presumptions to believe it true; or else why should the King of France, in a late Memorial to the Pope, complain that his Holiness, by opposing his Interest in Europe, had kindred him in those great Designs hehad for the Extirpation of Herefie I by which he must surely intend England or Holland; Protestantism being sufficiently expelled out of his own Country already. And he could not do it in either of the other without the Consent and Assistance of his Brother the King of England. Or to what purpose should the King of England join with France to ruin Holland, and his own Son-in-Law into the Bargain, but to make a War meerly for Religion;since neither the Dutch, nor the Prince their Stadt-holder, gave him, 'till now, any just Provocation?

M. Well, however, these are but bare Suspicions and Presumptions, at most, and not Proofs; and therefore in a doubtful Matter, as this is, if we ought to judge favourably of the Actions of others, much more of Princes, whose Councils and Actions, though private, yet are still exposed to the Censure and Calumnies of their Enemies ,• and therefore, I hope, you will not blame me, if I freely confess, that I am deeply concerned to see an innocent and misled King forced to seek his Bread in a foreign Land; and the more, since many of the Nobility, Gentry, and common People, have contributed so much to it, by taking up Arms against him; and that so great a part of his own Army, and Officers, should, contrary to their Allegiance and Trust reposed in them, run over to the Enemy. Nay, that some of our Bishops and Clergy-men should, contrary to the so often acknowledged Doctrines of Passive-Obedience, and Non-Resistance, not only countenance, but be likewise active in such desperate Undertakings, and this in direct opposition to the known Laws of God, and this Kingdom; which must needs make our Church a Scorn to our Enemies the Papists, and a Shame and Reproach to all Protestant Churches abroad,' and render the People of England, odious to all the Crowned Heads in Europe.

F. Well, Sir, I see you are very warm, and I hope more than the Cause deserves. You may judge as favourably of the King's Proceedings, and as hardly of the Actions of the Nobility, Gentry, Clergy and People in this Matter as you please. But yet I think I can make it as clear as the Day, that they have done



nothing by joining in Arms with the Prince of Oratige, but what is juflifiable by the Principles of Self-preservation, the Fundamental Constitutions of the Government, and a just Zeal for their Religion and Civil Liberties, as they stand secured by our Laws; unless you would give the King a Power of making us Papists, and Slaves, whenever he pleased. But as for your Doctrine of an absolute Obedience -without Reserve, and the Divine Right of Monarchy and Succession, you need not be much concerned whether the Papists laugh at you or no, since there are very few of them (if any) who arc such Fools themselves as to believe such futilous Opinions. But indeed they have more, reason to laugh at you whilst you maintain, than when you quit them; since as they have only rendered you a fit Object of their Scorn, so they would have made you but a more easie Sacrifice to their Malice. For what can Thieves desire more, than that those they design to rob, should think it unlawful to resist them? And what could the Papists have wislVd for more, than that our Hands being fetter'd by this Doctrine of an indefinite Passive-Obedience, our Lives, Religion and Liberties should lie at their Mercy? Which how long we should have enjoyed, whenever they thought themselves strong enough to take thctn away, the late cruel Persecutions, and Extirpations of the Protestants in Eance, Savoy, Hungary, and other Places, have'proved but tco fatal Examples; and therefore no wonder (let your high-flown Church-men write or preach what they please) if the Body of the Nobility, Gentry and People of England could never be persuaded to swallow Doctrines so fatal to their Religion, and destructive to their Civil Rights and Liberties both as Men and Christians.

And as for the Antiquity of these Doctrines, I think they are so far from being the ancient - Tenets of the Church of England, that they are neither to be found in its Catechism, Thirty nine Articles, or Book of Homilies, taken in their true Sense and Meaning ; though indeed there is something that may tend that way in some of the late Church Canons about fifty Years ago; but I do not look upon them as the ancient established Doctrine of our Church, because these Canons are not confirmed, but condemned by two Acts of Parliaments, and consequently never legally established as they ought to be by the publick Sanction of the King and Nation. Our old QueenElizabeth's Divines, such as Bisliop BilVde Bilson son arui Mr. Hooker, being wholly ignorant of these Doctrines, nay, teaching in Sub^Hi'oT feveral Places °f tne" Writings the quite contrary. Nor was this Doctrine Edit", \ ll~6. °£ absolute Subjection, and Non-Refistance ever generally maintain'd, until about />. 179, 280. the middle of KingJames's Reign, when some Court Bishops and Divines began Hooker'* Ec- to make new Discoveries in Politicks as well as Divinity; and did by their • clesias. Policy, Preaching and Writings affirm, that the King had anabsolute Power over Men's L. i. p. 11. Estates, so that it was unlawful in any cafe to disobey or resist his personal Commands, if they were not directly contrary to the Law of God; as may appear by Dr. Harsnet, then Bishop ofChichefter, his Sermon upon this Text, Give unto Caesar the things that are Gesar'j; wherein he maintained, 'Thatall the Subjects Goods and Money were Caesar's, that is, the King's, and therefore were not to be denied him if he demanded them for the publick use; which Sermon (though ordered by the Lords and Commons to be burnt by the Hangman) yet was so grateful to the Court, that he was so far from being out of Favour for it, that he was, not long after, translated to Norwich, and from thence to the Archbifhop1 .rick of York. So likewise about the beginning of King Charles I. Dr. Manwar

* , ring preached before him; the Substance of whose Sermon was somewhat higher

P. H. C. p. than the former, (viz..) That the King was not bound by the Laws of the Land, not to tos- imposeTaxes or Subsidies without the Consent of Parliament, and that when they were so

imposed, the SubjeEls were obliged in Conscience, and upon pain of Damnation, to pay them; which if theyrefused to do, they were guilty of Disloyalty and Rebellion. For which Sermon he was impeach'd by the Commons in Parliament 4 Car. I. and thereupon sentenced by the House of Lords, to be disabled to hold or receive any Ecclesiastical Living, or Secular Office whatever, and also to be imprisoned and fined a Thousand Pounds. Notwithstanding all which, we find him presently Hid. 635. after the Parliament was dissolved, not only at liberty, but also presented by the King to a rich Benefice in Essex, and not long after made Bishop of St. David's.So likewise one Dr. Sibthorp about the same time preached an Assize-Sermon at Northamptun, on Rom. 13.7. wherein he maintained much the like Doctrines, as, That it was the King akne that made the Laws, and thatnothing could excuse from an

1 aEiive

afiive Obedience to his Commands, but -what is against the Laiu of God and Nature : V"1* Archbp. And thatKings had Power to lay Pole-Money upon their SubjeEls Heads. But this much I have read, that this Sermon was licensed by Dr. Laud> then Bishop of & » St. David's, because Archbishop Abbot had refused to do it as contrary to Law, ■ for which he was very .much frowned upon at Court; and it is supposed to have been one of the main Causes of his Suspension from his Arch-Episcopal Jurisdiction, which not long after happened. But as for thisSibthorp, though he lived long after, (even 'till the King's Return) yet being (as Archbishop Abbot describes him) a Man of but small Parts or Learning, I cannot learn that he was ever preferr'd higher than the Parsonage ofBrackley, and another in Northamptonjhiret whose Name 1 have forgot.

But I find a new Doctrine broach'd by some modern Bishops and Divines about the middle of the Reign of KingJames the First, That Monarchy was of Divine Right, or Institution at least ; so that any other Government was scarce warrantable or lawful: And of this new Sect we must more especially take notice of Sir R. F. who hath written, several Treatises to prove this Doctrine, and which is worse, 'That all Monarchs being absolute by DivineInstitution, they cannot be E r* 3' limited or obliged either by Oaths, Laws or Contrails with their People, fartherthan they themselves Jhall think ft, or consistent with their supposed Prerogatives; of which they only are to be thesole Judges. So that whoever will but consider from the Reign of our four last Kings, what strong Inclinations they had to render themselves absolute, and that few Divines, or Common, or Civil Lawyers were preferr'd inL,'^^' their Reigns to any considerable Place, either in Church or State, who did not -sales King, maintain these new Opinions both on the Bench and in the Pulpit: "sou need Parliament, not wonder when the Stream of Court Preferment ran so strong that way, if so Prerogative. many were carried away with it; since it was but to expose themselves to certain Misery, if not to utter Ruin, to oppose it. All who offered by speaking or writing to maintain the contrary, being branded with the odious Names of Puritans, Commonwealths-men, Whigs, &c. some of whom you may remember were not long since imprisoned, fined, nay, whip'd for so doing. So that it was no wonder if there were but very few to be found who durst with so great hazard speak what they thought nor could any thing, but the imminent Danger upon our Laws,; Religion and Properties, proceeding from the King's illegal Practices, have opened the Eyes of a great many Noblemen, Gentlemen and Clergy, who, contrary to the Opinions so much lately in vogue, did generoufly venture both their Lives and Estates, to join their Arms with the Prince of Orange against the King's unjust and violent Proceedings. . *

M. I do not doubt, notwithstanding all you have said, to prove before I have done, these Doctrines of Non-Resistance, and of the Divine Institution of Monarchy, to be most consonant to the Word of God, and to the Doctrine of the Primitive Church, and also to that of our Reformed Church of England. Nor were those Divines you mention in King James the First's Time, the Authors or . Inventers of these Doctrines which were publickly received, and decreed by both Houses of that Convocation which began the first Year of King James, and * continued 'till the Yearidio, as appears by divers Manuscript Copies of the Acts or Decrees of this Convocation, the Original of which was lately in the Library founded by Dr. Cousins, late Bishop os Durham, besides a very *fair Copy, * Tfc" is since now to be seen in the AVchbifhop's Library at Lambeth : Which if you please t0^'^"^fperuse, you may be quickly satisfied, that the Church of England (long before Cfrstfever Sir R. F. writ those Treatises you mention) held that Civil Power was &s cenvogiven by God to Adam and Noah, and their Descendants ,• as also that absolute cation-Book. Subjection and Obedience was due to all Sovereign Powers, without any Resistance; as claiming under those Original Charters: These Doctrines being there fully and plainly laid down and asserted, as the Doctrines of our Church. So that you deal very unjustly with the Memory of those Divines, as also of Sir R. F. to make them the first Broachers of it; whereas you may find that it was the Opinion of the whole Convocation, for many Years before ever those Divines, or that Gentleman began to preach, or write upon this Subject. Nor were these the only Men who maintained these Principles ,• but Archbishop TJJher, and Bishop Sanderson (whom I suppose you will not reckon among your flattering Court Bishops) have as learnedly and fully asserted those Doctrines, you so much condemn, as any of that Party you find fault with, and have very well

proved

proved all Resistance of the Supreme Powers to be unlawful, not only in absolute but limited Monarchies. Of the Truth of which you may sufficiently satisfy yourself, if you will but take the Pains to read the Learned and Elaborate Treatises written by those good Bisliops, (viz.) The Lord Primate U/her s Power of the Prince, and Obedience of the Subject, and the Bishop of Lincoln's Preface before it; as also the said Bishop's Treatise deJuramemo, written whilst he was Doctor of the Chair in Oxford.

F. I must beg your pardon, Sir, if I have never yet seen or heard of that Convocation Book you mention, much less of the Opinions therein contained; since there is no mention made of their Proceedings, in any History or Record of those Times either Ecclesiastical or Civil, as I know of But this much I am certain of; that these Determinations or Decrees you mention, (call them which you please) never received the Royal Assent", much less the Confirmation of the King and Parliament, one of which (if not both) is certainly requisite to make any Opinion either in Doctrine or Discipline to be received by us Lay-men for the Doctrine of the Church ofEngland, otherwise the Canons made in 1640 would oblige us in Conscience, tho' they stand at this daycondemned by Act Of Parliament: So that however, even according to your own Principles, you cannot urge this Book as the • Authoritative Doctrine of the Church of England, unless their Determinations had received the Royal Assent; which you yourself do not affirm they had} for you very well know that, as in Civil Laws, no Bill is any more than waste Parchment if once the King had refused to give his Royal Assent to it, so likewise in Spiritual or Ecclesiastical Matters, I think no Decrees or Determinations of Convocations are to be received, as binding either in points of Faith or Manners by us Lay-men, till they have received the Confirmation of the King, and the two Houses of Parliament: Or otherwise the Consequence would be, that if the King, who hath the Nomination of all the Bishopricks and Deaneries, as also of most of the great Prebendaries in England, of which the Convocation chiefly consists, should nominate such Men into those Places, which would agree with him to alter the present establifh'd Reformed Religion and Government* and to bring in Popery or Arbitrary Power, the whole Kingdom would be obliged in Conscience to embrace it, or at least to submit without any contradiction to those Canons the King and Convocation should thus agree to make; which of how fatal a Consequence it might prove to the Reformed Religion iti this Kingdom, this King's Choice of Bisliops and Deans, such as he thought most fit for his turn, would have taught us when it had been too late.

M. You very much mistake me, Sir, if you believe that I urge the Authority of this Book to you, as containing any Ecclesiastical Canons, which I grant must have the Royal Assent ,• but whether that of the two Houses of Parliament, I very much question; since the King without the Parliament is Head of the Church, and divers Canons made under Queen Elizabeth, and King James, are good in Law at this day, tho' they were never confirmed by Parliament. But I only urge the Authority of this Book to you, to let you fee that these Doctrines are more Ancient than the time you prescribe; and also that the major part of the Bisliops, and Clergy of the Church of England, held these Doctrines which you so much condemn, long before those Court Bishops or Divines you mention, medled with this Controversy; and I suppose we may as well quote such a Corfvocation Book, as a Testimony of their Sense upon these Subjects, as we do the French, Helvetian, or any other Protestant Churches Confessions of Faith, drawn up and passed in Synod of their Divines, tho' without any Confirmation of the Civil Power.

F. If you urge this Convocation Book only as a Testimony, and not Authority, I shall not contend any farther about it: But then let me* tell you, that if the Canons or Decrees of a Convocation, tho' never so much confirmed by King and Parliament, do no farther oblige in Conscience, than as they are agreeable to the Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures; sure their Determinations without any such Authority,, can only be look'd upon as the Opinions of so many particular private Men. And tho' I have a very great Reverence fer the Judgments of so many Learned Men; yet granting those Doctrines you mention to be contained in this Book, I think notwithstanding, that we may justly examine them according to the Rules of Reason, and express Testimonies of Scripture, by either ot which, when I fee you can convince me of the falshood of mv Tenets, I

shall

[ocr errors]

ihall count myself happy to be better informed. But as for those Treatises of Bishop Ujfje;; and BisliopSanderson, which you now mention'd, I must needs confess they are learnedly and elaborately written: And tho' I am against Rebellion as .much as any Man, and do believe that Subjects xa&y too often be guilty of it; yet am I not ,there/ore convinced, T'bdt' it is absolutely unlawful in all cdfis what* soevereven in the mostAbsolute and Arbitrary sort of'Civil Government, for tlii People, when violently and' intolerably opprest, to takeup Arms and resist such Unjust violence, or to join with any Foreign Prince, 'who will be  generous as to takeupon him their Deliverance. So that though I freely acknowledge that those good Bifliops you mention were very .Pious and learned Merjj, and that I bear great Reverence to their Memories ;.yet doth it not. therefore follow, that I must own them to be infallible, or as great Politicians as they were Learned Divines; or that they understood the Laws of England, as well as they did pe Fathers. And perhaps there may, be a great deal more" said on theirCBehal fs than Can be for divers others, who haye since written andpreach'd so mucFfupon those 'Subjects; for if you please to consider the Times of their writing those Treatises^ you will find them written ah$u$ the beginning or middle of the late Civil Wars, which they suppos'd to be bfgqn and carried on contrary to afy.Law and Justice, under the pretended AuthoKi&r ps the. two Houses' of Parh^pjent against King Charles the First; and trjqrefore it is. ,np, wonder "if they; thought themselves pbligep! to write very high for the Perogatij'es and Rights of Princes; and;the'absolute Obedience of Subjects, when they, law even the King s just and lawful Perogatives in danger to betaken from fawn by force. And altho* they may perhaps stretch several of these Points too far, yet this may be very excusable; since it is a hard matter to write sp exactly against any Error, as not to fall in to the contrary extream, which ne-' verthelefs may sometimes prove useful enough: As those who'would set a stick freight, must bend it to the. other side. :. And so these Doctrines which might then- be seasonable, whilst the People carried on their Animosities against the King, farther than in Justice they ougjh.t? have hot now the fame reason and cogency, when this King 'hath so manifestly endeavoured to pull up the very Foundations both of our Religion and Government. .So that J am persuaded, could those good Bifliops ha^ve lived by the course of Nature to pur Times, and have seen the ill; and fatal use hath been made of those Doctrines by those in Power, they would either absolutely h^ve renounced them, or at least have been very cautious how they publifli'd such doubtful Opinions to the World.

M. I must beg your pardon, Sir, if I am not of your Opinion, for I look upon the absolute subjection of the- Subjects to the higher Or supreme Powers, to be a thing of such constant and eternal Obligation, that no change of Times or Circumstances can ever dispense with us in, or discharge us from it; and I am so far firora believing that those good Bifliops would ever'haye recanted their Opinions in this particular, that had they lived until this time/1 think they could not (without the Imputation of Time-servers) have'forboTn publickly to declare and maintain them: For sure we must not deny or lay aside true Principles, because of some inconveniencies pr hardships that may. thereby happen to our Religion, Persons, or Civil Liberties, since that were the ready way to givC a Licence to the rankest Rebellion, and the highest disobedience to the Supreme Powers; sot so the Primitive Christians might have claimed a right to rebel against the Heathen Emperors, pretending they were not bound to submit themselves unto them, because they persecuted Gods Church, and put the Christians to death for ho other reason than that they were such. Whereas, we may plainly fee St. Peter and St. Pflul teach us another Lesson, and command absolute subjection without reserve to the higher Powers, which were then the tyrannical persecuting Emperors; and that the Primitive Christians who immediately followed the Apostles, understood them in this sense; and altho'they had sufficient'strength, yet thought it unlawful to resist those Heathen Emperors under which they lived. I refer you' to that vast treasure of Quotations put of the Fathers and Ancient Church Historians, collected with such Learning and Industry by the Lord Primate Usher in the second Treatise. .

F. It is not my intention, Sir, at present, to fall into a severe examination of so many Texts of Scripture, and Quotations of Fathers, and other Authors, as are made use of by those Learned Alen you lately mentioned, which requiremore consideration than our ihort time wi)l now afford; therefore the best Method I can propose to you, for the true stating and understanding this noble Controversy, ■wcvc.first to look into the Natural state os Mankind after' the fall of Adam; and enquire, First, If God has appointed any_kirid of Government by JDivineInstitution before another. Secondly, If he has not; how far Civil Power may be look'd upon as from God, and in what fense as derived from the People. 'Thirdly, Whe^tber Resistance by the Subjects in some Cafe's be. incompatible and absolutely de- . structive to all Civil Government whatsoever.'". Fourthly^ Whether such Resistance be absolutely contrary to the Doctrine of Christ contains ih the Scriptures, and that > of the Primitive Church pursuant thereunto. . Fifthly, Mtyhethet such Resistance becontrary to the Constitution of this Government, and the express Laws of the Land. Sixthly, Whether what has been done by the Prince :o£ Orange,"and those' of th£-' Nobility, Gentry, &c. in pursuance of these Principle?, has been'done accord-1;: ing to the Law of Nature; the Scriptures, and Ancient Constitutions qjf><ra?'J Kingdom; which material Points if we Can once fettle, and discover where1 the Truth lies, it will prove the clearest Comment and best Interpretation of all thbse places of Scripture, and Quotations of'Fathers, and other Authors which are cited by Divines or other .Writers, for "the Doctrines Of the Divine Institiitioh cA. Monarchy, and the absolute' Subjection of Subjects Without any Resistance: ;ftit: when we have once difeover'd what the j&jffi of Nature or right Reason dictirc^f; I think we may rest satissy'd that that y iHetriic Sense of the Scripture: God not having given us any Precept or ^rrtfmand, in Moral, or Practical things, that can be contrary to the XaV,bf Nature cr Reason; or incompatible'with' the happiness and welfare of Mankind in this Life; as the reveal'd Will of God does chiefly regard tjhat whjch is to come1/" '.Rfn' 1 . T^x «-,'• *Jo*i


M I do very well approve of your Proposal; and therefore pray give me first your Opinion on those Heads, that I may fee how far I may agree with yon, and wherein I must differ from you; for I do aflure you my Indention is notco argue with you meerly for disputes siike, but that we mayebrrect the ErrifcHi' of each others Understanding, and discover^ if it be possible, \vnere-the Truth lies: Therefbre pray, Sir, begin first with the Natural states of Mankind ;init remember 1 to do it like a. Christian, and one that believes that we are all derived from one first Parent, and. that we did not at first spring up out of the Earth like Mushrooms, or as the Men. whom Ow'^ feigns to have been produe'd of the Dragons Teeth Cadmm is feign'd to have sown, who, as soon,as they sprung out of the Earth, immediately fell a fighting and killing each othen

F. I thank you, Sir, for your honest and kind Advice; and shall therefore in the first place supposes that the.Necessity as well as Being of all Civil Government proceeded from the Fall oi .Adam^since if that had riot been, we had still liv'd, as the Poets fancy Men did under the Golden Age; without any need of Kings or Commonwealths to make Laws against Oppression, Theft, Adultery, Murder, and those other Injuries which Men are now too apt in this lapsed corrupt State to commit against each Other; much less would there have been any need of Judges or Executioners, either to sentence or punish Offenders; for if- Man had continued as free from' Sin as he was in Paradise, there could have been no need of a Supreme Coercive'Power, since every Man would have performed hisDuty towards God and his Neighbour without any punishment or constraint. So that all the Authority that can be supposed could have been then necessary for the good and happiness of Mankind, would have been no more than Directive, as that of the Husband over his Wife; or Imperative, as 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 bis Soul, join'd with .a voluntary Submissionof her Will to his; the Coercive Power of the Husband, and his more extensive 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 first planted the Laws of Nature or Reason in every Man's Breast free from rebellious Motions Against it; so that Children then could have had no more to do, than to ray 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 themsince Mankind being immortal, and the Earth bringing forth of. it self all Necessaries for Human Life, there could have been no occasion of attending and relieving their Parents, when sick, old, or decrepid, 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 Men's Service, there would have been no Distinction between Master and Servant. ,

But after the Fall the State 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 desired, or that they thought they could make themselves Masters of. To remedy which Inconveniencies, 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 au Aristocracy, consisting of all the Heads or Fathers of Families, or Freemen, is not material, since the S?S. are silent in it: But it being sufficient to suppose, that it was at first begun by the Persuasion or Mediation of some one or more wise and virtuous Persons, and was consented to by. the; whole Number, consisting of? many Families, who were sensible of those great inconveniencies and Mischiefs they lay under for want of Civil Government. But be it which way it will, 'tis most certain that it was principally intended by God for the Good and Preservation of the Governed, and not for theGreatness or Advantage of the Person or Persons appointed to govern; since God designed all Civil Government for the restraining of Man's inordinate Passions and Lusts after the Fall, and procuring, by sufficient Rewards and Punishments, that Peace and Happiness, which could now no longer be obtained by Men's 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 lnnbcency. 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, R.f. A. MM. ingenere, but in specie, (viz.) Monarchical, was immediately after the Creations. *54i *Jf« conferred by God upon him. And Adamwns 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.

As. If you please to consider it, you will find no Absurdity at all in this Assertion. For though I confess there couid be no actual Government without Sub- ibid, jects, 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 tho* not in Act, yet at least in Habit, or in Potentia (as they fay 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 Subject 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 ofa most pure Nature, and cannot sin, are yet Subjectsto God, and perform all his Commands, Which will serve to confute what you fay in dero

C gation

nation of Civil Government, or Power, that it was introduc'd by Sin, or the Fall of Man. Government, I grant, as to coactive Power, was not till after Sin, because Coaction supposcth 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 altho' 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 mecrly on their Free-will, might well be directed by Adams 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 fay, 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 him not only Gratitude and Respect as a Parent, but also Obedience in all indifferent things: Yet I deny that this Power or Superiority of Adam over his Wife and Children was at all a Defpotical or Civil Power, but meeriy Oeconomical, for the Good and Convenience of Adam, and the well ordering and Preservation of his Family; which you will easily grant, if you please to confides what are the essential Differences of Civil Government from Oeconortiical. Now-the essential Properties of Civil Government consist in preserving and defending''the Subjects, both in War and Peace, from foreign Enemies, and intestine'Injuries, and Invasions of Men's Persons or Properties, and in revenging and-pumfhiiig'srtr' such Transgressions by Death, or other Punishments, and consequently in makingLaws concerning Property, and for restraining all Robberies, Murders,' and'the like. Now, in the State of Innocency, there could be no need'of any of these essential Functions of Civil Power: for yourself must grant, shall Man was then not apt to sin, and also immortal; so that all Laws about Peace or War, Punishments of Offences, publick Judgments concerning Meum and Twim, and all Injuries, were absolutely needless, and had never been in Nature, if Adam had not finned; and then how you can call this Authority, or Superiority (which I grant Adam had over his Wise and Children) Civil Power, I can by no means understand.

But I do utterly deny, that even after the Fall Adam was a Monarch, or Sole and Absolute Lord over the whole Earth, and all Creatures therein»contained ,• and desire you to give me such plain Proofs of it, either from Reason or Scripture, that I need no more doubt of it, than your self.

M. -I shall, first of all, give you an Arg.iment drawn from the Reason of the things; and in the next place, the Authority of Scripture, for my Opinion -"And first, I think it'is evident, that every Man that is born is so far from being free, that by his very Birth he becomes a Subject of him that begets, him; and even Grottm himself acknowledges, that Generatione Jm acquirittir in Liberos. And indeed the Act of Begetting being that which makes a Man a Father, his Right of a Father over his Children can naturally arise from nothing else. And the fame Author in another place hath these Words upon the Fourth Commandment: Parentum nomine, qui naturales funtMagistrates, etiam alios Rector es par eft intelligi, quorum autlmitas Societatem htmianam continet.- And if Patents be natural Magistrates, Children must needs be born natural Subjects. So that not only Adam, but the succeeding Patriarchs had, by Right of Fatherhood, Regal Authority over their Children, as may appear by divers Testimonies out of Scripture; and therefore it is very reasonable, that all Fathers should have a Power over the Lives of their Children, since it is to them that they owe their Life, Being and Education: And I think that even the Power, which God himself exerciscth over Mankind!, is by Right of Fatherhood.

F. Before you come to Sctipture, give me leave, in the first place, to'examine your first Argument, which you deduced from the Law of Nature, or Reason: For I doubt, if you please better to consider of it, you will find, that so light and transitory an Action, as that of Generation, cannot give any Man an absolute Property and Dominion ovet the Person and Life of those whom he begets ; since few Men do principally intend the giving of a Being toanother, Jo much as they do their own Pleasure, in that Action. Nor do we owe our Lives, properly speaking, 'ro our Parents, but to God, who is the true and original Cause of 'oiir Being ;' tho' it is true he makes use of our Parents as physical, tho* not as moral Means' ©^'Instruments ments for that end; since it doth not lie in their power to hinder the generating of Children, if they perform the Acts necessary thereunto. So that both the Antecedent and the Consequent are altogether false, viz,. That Parents give their Children Life and Being, and that therefore they have an absolute Power over their Lives and Persons: Which, if it were true, would give the Mother an equal Title to the Lives of the Children, as the Father j seeing they owe their Lives as much to the one as the other: Which Power in the Mother I am sure you will not admit of. But as for what you fay concerning the Power of Fathers, arising from Education; tho', I confess, that is a much better Title than the other; yet doth it not follow, that, because by reason of my Parents Care of me, before I was able to help my self, I owe my Preservation and Well-being to them, that therefore they are to be perpetual and absolute Lords over my Person and Life; since, by thus breeding me up, they only performed that Duty and Trust, which God had laid upon them, for the Good and Preservation of Mankind, and which they could not, without committing a Sin, either refuse or decline; and therefore their Authority or Power over my Person, being only for my Well-being, can extend no farther than whilst I am not of Years of Discretion to understand the true Means of my own Good and Preservation: And tho'I grant, that I am bound in Gratitude to return this Care and Kindness by all Acts of Duty and Piety towards them, as long as I live,• yet doth it not therefore follow, that they are Masters of my Life, and of all that I have j since this were to take away more than they themselves ever gave. And tho' I Ihould grant you, that even the Power, which God himself exerciseth over Mankind, is by Right of Fatherhood or Creation; yet this Fatherhood is such, as utterly excludes all Pretence of Title 2". T. G. c. 5. in earthly Parents : For he is our King, because he is indeed the Maker of us all, p- 69which no natural Parents can pretend to be of their Children. But if you please more closely to consider your own Argument, you will find that it will quite destroy your Hypothesis. For if all Fathers have an absolute Power over theic Children by Generation, then Adam could only have Power over his own Children which he begat, and none at all over his Grand-children; since their Fathers, by this Argument of Generation, ought to have had the fame Power over their Children, which Adam had over them, for the fame Reason. So that this Monarchical Power of Adam<, as a Father, could extend no farther than one Generation at the most. 'I ''. .

M. I (hall not further urge this Argument of Generation, since I see you are not satisfied with it; but this much I think I can clearly prove from Scripture, thxtAdam was Lord over the Persons and Lives of his Wife and Children, by virtue of that Command which God gave Eve, Gen 3.16. Unto the Woman he said, I will greatlymultiply thy Sorrow and thy Conception: In sorrow thou Jhalt bring firth Children, and thy Desire stall be to thyHusband, and he shall rule over thee. From which Words it 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 seems 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 stall be [subject] to thy Husband, (as it is better express'd in the Margin) and he stallrule over thee. And if his Wise was thus to be subject to him, then likewise by a Pa- g.p.p. f. ?I, rity of Reason ill her Children were to be so too j it being a Maxim in the Law of Nature, as well as in the Civil Law, that Partussequitur ventrem: So that if Eve was to bfc absolutely subject to Adam, the Issue by her must be so too; as in the case of a Master os a She-stave, not only the Person of the Woman, but all that are bfejjorten 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 Superior but God, both his Wife and Children must have been alike subject to him. There is likewise another Rule in the Civil Law, st. j. 32. which is a Voice of Nature too, Quicquid ex me &uxore mea nascitur, in po'testate 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 Superior over him but God, as Adam had not. And farther, it seems apparent to me, from the very II. f.20,21. Method that God us'd in creating Mankind, thatAdam's Wise and Children lhould 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'sStrength, or Wit alone, would not have

C 2 given

given him any Authority over her; and it might be that Eve was as strong and as wife as he, or at least she might 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 cpuld have told as little which of the Parents they should have obey'd, in cafe they had difser'd in their Commands : So that it had been impossible this way that any Government

Ib. f. 22.' could have been in the World. But when God created only one Man, and out 24- of him one Woman was made, sure he had some great Design in this; for no

i Tim. 2.12, other Creature was thus made at twice, but Man. Now St. Paul shews a Reason sot God's acting thus, when he fays, the Woman should Hot teach, nor usurp Authority over the Man, &c. And mark the Reason : ForAdam was created, and then Eve. So that, in the Apostle's Judgment, this was one main Cause why Adam should be superior to his Wise, and all other Husbands to their Wives. And 2 5- in the Corinthians, from the History of the Creation, the fame Apostle deduces twQ other Reasons for the Superiority of the Man over the Woman : For(fays he) the Man

i Cor. ii. Stisnot of'theWoman, but the Woman of the Man ; (that is, Eve was formed out of Adam)

9- neither was the Man created for the Woman, but the Woman for the Man. So that you

fee here is Adam stated in a degree of Superiority over his Wife before the Fall; and immediately after it, God again renew'd Adam's Title, when he told Eve (as

?. z6. I have but now mention'd) thy Desire shall le fubjetl to thy Husband, and he Jhall rule over thee. Now I so far agree with what you at first laid down, that if the Fall had not disorder'd her Faculties, and render'd 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 superior to their Wives and Children, 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 Children, after they are separated from their Fathers Family, 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 Wise, and paternal in respect of the Children; nor is that filial Reverence and Obedience, which Children yield their Fathers, the fame with that Respect and Duty, which a Wise owes her Husband, or the fame with that servile Subjection, which Slaves owe their Lord and Master j neither is the Duty of a Wife of the fame 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 fame Authority over her, as he had over Hagar her Bondwoman, to fell her, or turn her out of dopts 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 chier, and the rest obey, to avoid Confusion, will appear, first, if you consider that this Subjection of Eve to Adam was npt enjoind till after the Fall, and is part of God's Judgments denounced 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 denoune'd upon her. If this Submission she ow'd to her Husband before the Fall, had been of the fame 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; tho' 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 Persuasion, ot' 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 knew what was her Duty, and performed it without any force or constraint, &c. And therefore that

Text, I

Text,
which you have now quoted out of Genesis, 'thy Desi e stall be [subject]
&
thy Husband, and he stall rule over thee, is not
fairly cited : For, as for-the marginal
Addition, viz..
[fubjeB ]
to thy Husband, it is not warranted froia'. the Hebrew
Original, or Version of the LXX; the Hebrew having
no more than (thy
Desire
stall be to thy Husband) which
the LXX renders «V«fppf^, i.e. the
Conversion or In-*
clination of the Desire, by which some Interpreters understand no more than the.
carnal Appetite. So likewise from the Words [rule, over thee] they
likewise ©b-
serve, that Moses
makes use of the same Hebrew Word,
when he makes mention of
the Sun and Moon ruling the Day and Night, tho5 they do not do it by any Vion
lence, 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 cafes refuse, nay controul his Commands, and resist his Actions, in x
cafe they prove unlawful, or destructive to her self and Children. ...

But that this Argument of St. Paul, of the Husband's Superiority over his Wise, 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 argu'd' very impertinently of the Duty of aU Wives: And if so, it will follow that every one of Adam's Sons, as soon as he took a Wise, had the like Authority over her, as < Adam had over their Mother: And if over their Wives, then, by your Maxims (of Partfii sequitur ventrem, & quicqwd ex toe & uxore nteanascitur, inpotefiate.mea est) all the Sons of Adam must have had the fame Power over their Children, as their Father had over them. So that the fame Consequence will still follow from these Places of Scripture, and also from your Civil Law Maxims, thatxirhcr Adam had no Civil or Despotick Power over his Wise and Children; or else, if he had, that every one of his Sons, when married and separated from his Father's Family, had the fame, and consequently there were as many Princes as distinct Masters of Families; and then what would become ofAdamsMonarchy,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 | am still of opinion, notwithstanding what you have said, that £« was to yield an absolute Subjection to her Husband, from that Place already cited, "That her (viz. Eve's) Desire (i.e. Will) shouldbe fitbjeEi to her Huf* band, &c. To which you answer, that this Subjection of Eve to Adam was not the fame 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 fain know the difference, in the State of Nature, betweeb one and the other: Fot B.P.P. (.-2h if you please to compare that Place of Genesis, I but now quoted, with that other a8, where God gives Cain Power over Abel, his younger Brother; you will find, them the fame in Words, as also in Sense. For in this God likewise tells Cain, Thiai untothee stall his. Desire be fu&jeSl^ and thou stah rule over , him. And sure God could Gw, 4. 7. not intend by these Words, that Abel should yield a conjugal, but a filial Sub-* jectiojr to his elder Brother; and these Words axe not capable of two Senses, but must be understood;alike in both Places (i. e.) That the,Desire (which is a fe qulty of the Soul, and that the most active too) wasto be subject,.-and theBody> and aUthe Powers of it, were to be over-ruled by him; which is as full and absolute a Subjection as can be exprefs'd in Words. And whereas you fay, that these Words Wese not spoken till after the Fall, andthence seem to infer, that Eve did not ow&.Adam so much as a conjugal Subjection before that; St. Paul hath given you a* 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. fertile 08$ will signify nothing, -u .

JSI doubt not» Sir* bus I shall be able to make.good this Distinction of a servile and a filial-Obedience; and in order to it, shall reply tc* the Consequences you have made, for Eve's absolute Subjection to Adam, from the like Expression useel by God to C*w concerning his ruling over his Brother Abel, as is us'd here to Ewe concerning her Subjection to hex Husband; and that because the Subjection of <dhl was absolute, that therefbre her Subjection must be so too- I must erave your Pardon is I deny you Assumption; for I think Lam able to prove, that neither Ate/f nor any other younger Brother, was, or is obliged, by virtue 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, bat that the fame Words might be spoken to sevetal Persons, yet in different



Senses, which, according to the Nature of the Persons tc whom they were spoken,' might have different Effects. As here these Words, when spoken to Eve, enjoin a conjugal Submission of Eve's Will to Adam as her Husband;but wlien spoken to Abel, they may signisie a fraternal Submission of Abel's Will to Cains, 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 merhinks this is but to trifle with God's Word, when he toldCain, thy Brother's desire ft all be subject to thee, that is, (Jay you) Thou shalt rule wer him only as far as Ikthinks fit } er if thou hast the knack to wheedle or persuade him. Was not this a mighty Matter for God Almighty to appear to Cain about ? An excellent ar.d rational way to appease his Wrath towards his Brother ? Whereas God here plainly enjoineth a Subjec-' tion from Abel to his elder Brother; and if so, by vertue of the fame Words, a like Subjection ofEvetoAdam; and then it will likewise follow, that as the Streams are of the fame 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 Maxims I laid down. For first, if Partm sequiturventrem, and the Mother be a Subject, as Eve was, all her Posterity must be so to all Generations. And if Quicquidex me & uxore mea nascitur, in fotejiate 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 can I see how his Sons, or Gran^-children, by setting up separate Families, could ever discharge themselves from this absolute Subjectioh toAdam, 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 fee, 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 Wise and Children within his own Family, tho' still subordinate to the WiiJ 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 Lands or Goods but at the Monarch's, or Master's Will. And so likewise at first none of these Sons of Adam, though they set up distinctFamilies from their Fathers, could enjoy, or enclose any part of-the Earth withr out 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-tall; Civil Government was ordained by God, for the Benefit and Advantage of the-Sttl^jeEls, rather than the Governours. Whereas from the first and nSost NatuMj1 Government it appears, that Children, who were the; Subjects, wefe ordained:as much for the benefit and help of their Parents, who were the first- Monarchsj ^as J F. A. MM their Parents for them. From all which we may-draw these Conchiliofk: h Firstj That from Gen. 3. v. 6. already cited, we have the Original Charters

Government, and the Fountain of all Civil Power derived from Adam as thet Father of all Mankind. So that not only the Constitution of'Power jn 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's Power, or join thenv-C selves with him in the Government. Now if this Supreme Power was settled, and founded by God himself in Fatherhood, how is it possible for the People tohave any Right to alter, or dispose of it otherwise ? it being God's Ordinancethat this Supremacy should be unlimited in Adam, and as large as any Acts of

his his Will. So that he was not only a Father, but a King, and absolute Lord F. P. 0. A, over his Family; a Son, a Subject, and. a Servant, or Slave, beingone and the fame thing at first; the Father having Power to dispose of or sell his Children or Servants at his pleasure: And tho'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 punisli 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 must 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, arid spoke more the Sense of others than from your own natural Inclinations, I should be apt to believes that if you had sufficient Power, you would prove as great a Tyranrover'your Wise, Children, and all that should be under your Command/as,' such Arbitrary Tenets would give you leave : But since, I hope, your Error lies rather in your Understanding, than in your Nature; I shall make bold to Ihew you the Mistakes you have committed in those Principles you here lay do\tfn. I might first begin with the Place of Scripture you farther insist upon, for Evesabsolute Subjection to Adam from the like Expression used by God to Cain concerning his ruling over his BrotherAbel, as is us'd here to Eve : And though you are pleased to think my Exposition of this Place so ridiculous, yet I dOiibrnot bur to be able to'prove, when I come to speak of this pretended Divine Authority of elder Brothers ovet the younger, that this Place cannot be:idnderstood in any such Sense, according to the best Interpretation that both the Reason of the Subjects and the Sense the best Commentators put upon it can* allow: But I shall defer this 'till we corrie,' to discourse concerning the Successors ot Adam in this Monarchical Power yoti suppose.. And therefore I shall only at present pursue that absolute Power, which you suppose Adam to have had, not only overEve, but all her Descendants. For indeed your Argument of Eve's, and consequently all her Children's absolute Subjection to Adam, depends upon a very false Supposition.''Since if the Subjection of Eve to Adam, and of all Wives to their Husbands is* not servile1 Or absolute, neither can that of the Children be so; since, according to your 'own Simile, if the Streams are of the fame Nature of the Fountain; they can never rise higher than it: And tho't grant, Adam might in some cases have put his Wife or Children toJ Death, for'any enormous Crime against the,Law of Nature; yet I allow him that Power, not as a Husband or Father,1 but bhiy as a Lord or Master of a separate Family, who having no Superior in the State of Nature, I'grant, 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 unpunished. 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 Wise are one Flesh, Gen. z. 24. and that no Man ever yet hated his own Flesh; so that it is impossible for, a EPbes' f> 29~ Husband to put his Wise to Death, ''till by the Greatness of her Crimes she be- 30, Cctthesno longer worthy of that tendcf Affection he ought to bear her. Then asto trie Father, he, as a Fathep, ought not'to desire to put his Son to Death, whose "Being he hath been the ciulsc of, and Who is principally made put of his,own Substance, and on whom he hath bestowed Nourishment-and Education for so many Years, until he finds that instead of a Son he proves ah Enemy to his Family; or hath so laid wait' against his Life, that as long as he lives he can- • not be fase; 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 {hovt, 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 Father's 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 murdering his Brother, because he was before freed from his Power, by setting up another Family, which certainly had beenAdams Duty to have done, had he been then under his Jurisdiction j Murder being as great a Crime before the Flood as after, though the Punishment of it by Death were' not positively enjoin'd by God 'till thep. Gen ^ ^ But I shall prove this point mOre particularly by and by,.as also that Adams Children might enjoy, or enclose some part of the Earth without any Grant or

Assent

Alsent from Adam, to whom you suppose (though without any Proof as yet) that the whole Earth was given by God.

To conclude, I doubt you mistook me when you fay, I at first affirmed, that all Civil Government was ordained by God, for the Benefit of Advantage of 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 areSubjects in the State of Nature, are ordained as much for the Benefit and Help of their Parents, who are theirPrinces or Masters, as their Parents for them; in which Assertion you fall into more than one 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 reaped 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; * Tie oWg. and Bishop Sanderson is of this Opinion, when he tells us in his Lectures * t>e cotisc. Pm/. yuramento, "That the end of Civil Government, andthe Obedience that is due to it, is the 5- £• 19- Safety and Tranquility 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 is not Civil Government: Nor are Fathers absolute Princes or Masters over their Children, as you suppose j and yet I think I may safely affirm, that even in this Paternal Government, though 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 preferr'd, since God s 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 to 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 Mistake lies on your side, and that you have misapplied them, to make them serve your purpose : for as to your first Maxim, Partm fequitur Ventrem, from which you infer, that the Child ought to be of the fame condition with the Mother, this Rule in your Civil Law relates only to Bastards, and not Legitimate Children, who fol^ low the condition of the Father according to your Digest: Qui ex uxore meanaf6l!i$. '' t'turi fi^m mar'ti st habendw,; so likewise in your Code, Cum kgitima mtptiœ fatl* Cod. Tit. 19 sunt>patrem libtri fequuntur, vulgo quafitm matrem fequitur. Nor is your second L. 14. Maxim more true; for though I grant, according to your Roman Law, the Father Dig. Tit. 5. might have absolute Power over his Wise and Children; yet I cannot see how this L. wotd,nafcitur, can be extended beyond those that are born of a Man and his Wise,

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 ancient Romansthemselves, that neither the Law of the twelve Tables, nor the Julian 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 a cafu confimili. Nor do these Words, in Potestate mea est, prove more than that all Children are born under the Power of their Parents, though whether they shall always continue so 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 whatever 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 os Mankind, (by which alone any Law of Nature is to be tried) whether they are so Or no.

I shall not trouble my self to confute those false Conclusions you have brought from those weak Premisses; 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, Scripture, or Reason ,• only give me leave to observe thus much upon what you have said, 'That if notofily 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 ofAdams Paternal Power, or of Civil Government, than this that God gave Adam over Eve, who indeed was, as at the first B.KPi$ 3*. Subject, so the Representative of all that followed,- and it reaches not only tp 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 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 Inferior, 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 itself over the Face of all the Earth, as Mankind increased?

And whereas you would limit this Power of Parents over their Children, both Z&.'A 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 Power 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 Father's Power over his Son was not determin'd 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, 1 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 fame State, as it was establisli'd 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 fee, 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 - ^ M^' Ordinance, they are not bound to forbear their own Justification, because others * 2$$t 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.

D In

In the mean time give me leave to teJJ you, that Eve's being the Representative of all Wives, did not put either herself 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 fame 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 Sovereign; since by your own Hypothesis it necessarily follows, that either Cam's Wise (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 Adams Decease, I desire to be excused medling with it, till we have dispatch'd the Question in hand.

I come now to those fresh Considerations you bring for this Monarchical Power of Adami 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 this 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 pleas'd. to haye Created, the fame 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 Adami it did render her inferior 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 either her, or her Children absolute or 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 al-ready proved.

As for the third, That if she were 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 slie was not only formed for him, but that they might be a mutual help to each other; and therefore the Gen. i. 24. Scripture tells us, A Man Jball leave his Father and his Mother, and stall cleave unto his Wife, and they two stall be oneFlest; which Words (in my Opinion) are very far from proving any such absolute Subjection; for no Man can ever tyrannize over his own Flesh j 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 enjoin'd her to have left her Father and Mother to cleave to her Husband. Whereas in- , deed there was no more meant by this Text, than that when a Man marries, he may freely quit his Father's Family, and joining himself to his Wife, may set up another of his own. But as for the Children that were begotten between them, tho' I geant 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 Children's Propagation, and Preservation, than the Children are for their Interest and Happiness.

Your fourth Consideration is only a supposition of the Question which is yet to be proved; 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 abso- « lute, not 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 God's own People the Jews for an Example, that the Power of the Father over his Son was not determined but




by his Death. But yourself confessed, that he could not exercise this Power of Use andVi^ Sslden Death, but in thepresence os the Magistrate; the Circumstances of which, if they be ie. Gtn~ consider'd, will rather make against you; for, first, the Father could not have this ^X<»s*C rebellious Son put to Death, till he had accused him before the Elders of the City, that is, the Judges who were establifli'd 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 cafe, as an Accuser, or a Witness, not as a Judge. But if you'll believe Maimonides, one of the most Learned of the JevijhRabbins, he will tell you that by the Municipal Law of _ the 'Jews, this Power of the Father did scarce extend beyond the thirteenth Year „frim. of the Son's Age, after which the Son was reckoned adult, and emancipated from bis Father's Power, 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, in-* curr'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 gocd 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 Custom was not allowed, after once Civil Government was establifli'd.

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 may read inValerim Maximus, and Seneca, that Be Clem they killed Erixion, 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 Emperors (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 suppose (since there are no particular Edicts to be found concerning this Matter) 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 Cognisance 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 Simplkius, upon Epi&etus's Enchiridion, fays, 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'twas supposed they would rarely use, unless compelled byextream 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 tender Affectipn too failed, it was no wonder that the Reman Emperors did not think it for the common good of their People to trust Fathers with this Power any Ion* ger, 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 flyly you wave my objection against the Divine Institution of Monarchy; for tho' you seem loth exprefly 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 fame Argument will likewise hold in Civil Governments, that all others must be unlawful, if Monarchy alone were . ;.■ . .1 . • D a. :. . ordained

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 flightjy pass over this Argument of the Law of Nations, by which I supposed the Power of Fathers over the Persons of their Children is suificiently established, and from whence also it appears that among the Jews, as well as Romans, the Children were look'd 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, yourself do not deny; that theJews also had it in use among them,' appears first, by the Story of the Poor Woman, the Widow of one of the Sons of the Prophets, who complained to Chat. 4.1. Elijha, in the second of Kings, telling him that her Husbandis dead, and the Creditor is come to take her two Sons to be Bondmen. 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: Mat. 18.24, But forasmuch as he had nothing to pay, his Lord commanded him to be fold, and his Wife 2and 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 Jubilee, 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 Powet to redeem them, forother Men had their Lands, and their Vineyards.

 And amongst the Romans, this Power of settling their Children continued, till it was forbidden by the Emperor Justinian. 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 that 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 Commonwealth. And Philostratusin his Life of ApoUonius Thyaneus relates, that it was common amongst the Phrygians to fell their own Sons. And to come to more Modern Times; a Son amongst the Muscovites may be sold four times; but after the fourth Sale, the Father hath no longer a Right in him, as the Baron of Heberftein tells us in his Relation of Muscovy; and it is not only in use amongst them, but also amongst the Tartars, East-Indians, Chinefes, 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 Father's 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 theconsent 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 civihVd Nations, where the Municipal Laws of those Countries 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 fay, that according to my Principles, no other Government can be lawful besides Monarchy, I shall giye you the fame 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, that believe Episeopacy to be JureDivino, viz,. That God, for the necessity of some Ecclesiastical Order and Government in a Church, may permit, nay (perhaps) allow that Form of Government as lawful, which himself never instituted j nay, which perhaps wa$ 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 instituted; but have wholly proceeded from the Rebellions, or Inventions of Men. ■ i

F. I must confess, Sir, I cannot see how any Law of Nations can be supposed to lay any Obligation upon Mankind, diiserent from the Law of Nature, and

/ Reason,

Reason, or the revealed Law of God in Scipture. 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 Laws 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 fays, he added the Words, many Nations, because there can searce 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 Iook'd upon as a Law of Nations in one Count ry, which is not so any where else; as (fays he) we lhall mew in its due place, concerning Captivity, and Postliminium.  •■■

And for a farther Confirmation of this, I will make bold to read to you in English some part of what the excellentPuffendarf hath written upon this Subject, in his Learned Work De Jure Nature & Gentium, Lib. 2. Cap. 3. which you <S? may here peruse with me if you please.

 ** The Law os Nature, and. the Law of Nations, is accounted by many, one "and the fame, which only differ by an extrinsick Denomination. And from "hence Hobbs, De Cive, c. 14. $.4. divides the Law of Nature into the natural Law "of Men, and the natural Law of Commonwealths, which is commonly cal"led Jm Gentium: And then adds, that the Precepts of both are the lame; but "because Commonwealths, when once instituted, do put on the Personal Proper"ties of Men ,• that Law which speaking of the Duty of particular Men, we "call natural, being applied to all Commonwealths or Nations, is called Jm "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 pro"ceeding from a Superior. But most of those things, which amongst the Hou man Civil Lawyers, and others, are referred to the Law of Nations; as sup's pose, about the manner of acquiring of Contracts, and the like, do either be"long 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 no "new* or distinct sort of Law can be rightly constituted, because those Laws are "common to Nations, not from any Agreement or mutual Obligation, but in a that they do by accident agree, from the peculiar Will of the Law-givers in ** each particular Commonwealth; from whence the fame things may be changed "by one People or Nation, without consulting the rest, and oftentimes are found to "be so changed." And of this he here gives us several Examples of different Customs amongst Nations, in making War upon each other, according to diverse Forms or tacit Agreements, whereby War may be managed with as little Cruelty as may be. But thus he proceeds ,• These Customs, although they may seem to

* contain some Obligation, as arising from this sort of tacit Agreement amongst "Nations; yet if any Prince shall wage a lawful War, and neglect them, or  should do quite contrary to them, he would not be guilty of any Sin against "the Law of Nature"; but only of a piece of Roughness or Incivility, that he did not make War according to those Rules of Honour, which are used among them, by whom War is looked upon as a liberal Art. [And a little farther proceeds thus:] " Amongst the principal Heads of the voluntary Law of Nations,

* Gntim reckons the Right of Ambassadors, where we also suppose, that by the "very Law of Nature, Ambassadors are inviolable even with the Enemy, as

* long as they appear Ambassadors, and not Spies, and do not contrive Plots ** against those to whom they are sent. And having Jhevm the necessity of Ambassadors

* in order to Peace, he thus goes on: But there are other Privileges attributed to Am"bassadors, especially to those who reside in a place rather to fish out the Secrets' 9 of another State, than for Peace fake; those Privileges depend from the meer "indulgence of that Prince to whom they are sent, and so, if it seems good to

* him, may be denied them, without the violation of any Right, if he will like"wise suffer that his own Ambasladors should be treated in a like manner/'

M. I see whether this Author tends, but do not understand what use you can make of it to your purpose.

F. But I will quickly shew you, if you please to have a little Patience: And therefore to apply what I have now read to the Matter in hand; in the first place, it is apparent from this Author, that the Law or Custom of Nations hath no Obligation as such, but only as it agreeth with the Law of Nature, and the Law « * .of of God; and what Laws of Nations are founded on the Law of Nature, can only be tried by some Rule, which certainly is not to be learnt from the Knowledge of the Customs or Laws of all Nations j iince who is able to know them all? .And therefore these Laws must be tried, either by the natural light of a Man's own Conscience, or else by considering, whether this or that Practice of a Nation conduces to the honour or service of God, or the common gcod and happiness of Mankind, and so may be known as well by the Unlearned as the Learned. Now I suppose you will not affirm, that this Law of the absolute Property and Dominion of Fathers in and over their Children, can be discovered by either of these ways; or that a Man's Conscience will tell him, that it is his Duty to let his Father kill him or fell him, or use him like a Brute, without any Contradiction or Resistance. And as for the other, I think I have sufficiently proved, that this absolute Power, which you assert of Fathers over their Children, doth not proceed from that great Law of Nature, viz,, the common Good and Preservation of Mankind, to which the Practice of it may prove very destructive ; which, if proved, I think ■I may easily answer all that you have now said about the particular Customs or Laws of divers Nations concerning this matter, tho' your Instances were many more than they are.

For, in the first place, as for those you alledge out of Scripture, they do (as I said before) only regard the Municipal Laws of the Jems: Those of the Romans touching this matter did only concern that Commonwealth whilst it was in being, and no other Nations whatsoever. And for this Opinion I have both Grotim and Puffendorfof my side: For the former, in the beginning of the Chapter last quoted, after having set down the different Powers which Fathers may exercise over their Children, according to their different Ages, thus affirms: "Whatsoever is beyond "thsse Powers, proceeds only from a voluntary Law, which is different in divers "Places: So by the Law which God gave the Jews, the Power of the Father "over his Son or Daughter, to dissolve their Vows, was not perpetual, but only "endured as long as the Children were Parts of their Father's Family.

And by the fame Rule I may add, that Children were not reckoned as part of their Father's Gocds, and to be sold by him, or seized upon by Creditors for his Debts, any longer than they continued Members of their Father's Family, and consequently were not seized upon as his Sons, but Servants. And I defy you to shew me an Example, where ever among the Jews, the Children, after they were adult, and parted frdm their Father's House, were sold or seized as Slaves for their Father's Debts. And as for the Remans, it is plain they acknowledged theirPatria Potestas to be in use amongst them neither by the Law of Nature or Nations, but only from their own Civil Law, as appears by this Title, almost at the very beginning of Justinian's Institutions (which, as I suppose, you know better than I) . (.2.-Patria Potestas est Juris Civilis & Civium Romanorum propria. The Text follows in these Words (as I remember) Jm Potestatis, quod in hleros habemus, proprium est Civium Romanorum ; nuUienim alii sum homines, qui talem in liheros habeant potestatem, qualem nos habemm : And therefore they would not permit Strangers to exercise it over their Children within the City of Rome. And if the Power of the Father amongst the Jews and Romans was not by the Law of Nature or Nations, no more could it be so, tho' exercised amongst never so many other Nations; since jf .it were one of the Laws or Precepts of Nature, it could never have been taken away or restrained by any Civil Law, no not by the express Consents of all Fathers. And as for your Instance oi'Cjmon amongst the Athenians, it makes nothing to this purpose; since, if I take it at the worst, it maketh no more, than that the Atbe* nian Commonwealth dealt very ungratefully and tyrannically with Mihiadesand his .Son; an^ it might be that they kept him Prisoner, as being Heir to his Fa-^ ther's Principality in theThracian Chersonnese, out of which they supposed he might pay the Debt j as the King with us doth often put an Heir in Prison for his Father's Debts, where he hath Assets by Descent

But for all your odier Examples, unless they have a Reason in Nature to support them, they will no more prove that by the Law of Nations Fathers should have a Right of Life and Death, ot of selling their Children, than if you should argue from the common Custom amongst the Lacedemonians, the Aborigines in Italy, the Inhabitants of the Kingdom of Sofhiris, as amongst the Indians mentioned by Qit. Curtim, and 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,

forth or else in the Womb before they are born, if they please so to dc And
as for some of these Nations you have instanced in, and particularly the Musco-
vites who
can sell their Children but sour times, it is apparent it is only a Muni7
cipal Law; for
if the Property of the Father over the Sons Persons were by them
looked upon as perpetual, he might not only sclrhim four times, but forty, if it were
possible. And after all, I suppose you will not be ty'd to follow the Practice of
the Muscovites
in other Actions, as a Pattern for other more civilized Nau'qns

But on the other side, I have, against this Custom of your Nations, ,the Examples of divers altogether as wise and civiliz'd, who did not permit Fathers to exercise this absolute Power over their Children j 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 nece£* sity, and when they could not otherwise maintain them j and then I grant ir may be necessary. So likewise against your Roman Law, I set that of all the Greek Na» tions, none of whom permitted Fathers to put their Children to Death, except Tluunb. the Spartans; and that was only in one case, and that with the Judgment and ty"«g»' Consent of the eldest Men of the Family, when their new born Infants were so weak or ill shaped, as to be thought not worth the rearing- So like wise against your Examples of the antierit Gauls, I set that of the Germans, a Nation altogether as wife 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 Turlls and modern 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 (hall find that they are there so indulgent to their Children, that no Fault whatsoever, tho' never so grear, shall make them put them, to Death, And to let you see that this is most suitable to Reason, the two greatest Philosor, phers amongst the Greeks, Plato and Aristotle, have condemned it ; \the former yi\ his Laws, where he exprefly forbids it, supposing that in no cafe whatever aiFa-> ther 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 hi^r Father, ,j esoe-, dally since his Power is sufficiently establiihed by the Law, and tfe appointing of publick Judges- And Aristotle, in his Morals to Nicomachw, W. 8. cap.n. afo cuses the JusPatrium,then in use among the Persians^ as tyrannical-: An4 Grotim. tells you, he produces these Examples of the Romansand Persiansf only that,we. might distinguish Civil Rights from Natural. From whence it appears, that the,^,/. p. /£„. putting of Children to death by Parents was look'd upon as an pdsoiis thing raongst the wisest of the Antients; and therefore neither the, ije^Regia, nor the Juiicatarum Law of the XlJ Tables, nor the Julian Law de Adulteriis(all which left Fashe-rs L-vi- &D a Power over the'Lives of their Sons and Daughters) yet would extend this Powerz^nlathne by Interpretation to the Grand-father towards his Grand-son or .Grand-daughter. , fjiherorum.

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 Greet, and the antient Gauls than the Germans. Nor* does your Argument against this Power of Life and Death in Father? by the Law', of Nature scent cogent, that if it were so, it could never be taken away or.t restrained by any Civil Law; since this Argument will make as much against tha*." Power of Life and Death, with which you invest your Fathers of Families in the btateof Naturej since if they have it by the Law of Nature, it could no more , uVcafe-1 °r Uken 3Way by CiviI LawS' than any Paternal Power in tne • fli 1vay' Sir'1101(1: If this Controversy is to be decided by the Wisdom and., ftn \ vai °s Nations> we sta11 never have done « For in the first place, ,who i t h A °f thlS Consent of tlie most civilized People? and that no account is • to be made of those whom you call barbarous1; for what Nation will acknow-' wage it felt to be so, or can arrogate so much to it self, as tW'-— au others to conform themselv es tv» *i 1


{24}

exceed all others in Knowledge. And yet on the other side there are divers Na"4tions, who prefer themselves tar before us; and I have read that the Chmeses have a Saying, that the Europeans fee 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 Ptiffendorf, in Lib. 6. Cap. 2. where speaking of the Paternal Power, he says thus : "But neither the fame 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 is 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 wilfully refuse through Obsti<r nacy 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; since yourself 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 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 be 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 fame Power of Life and Death over his Servants or Slaves, for such great Offences as you have mentioned, in case there be no superior 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 as 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 R^ight to punish this Offence, but the Master in whose Family he is an Inmate? And this follows from your own Supposal: For if every separate Family in the State of Na-. ture be a distinct independent Government, then all those that enter themselves, as Members of such a Family, must be subject to the Master or Governor of it. Nor do you reduce me into any Absurdity by your Reply to my Argument, by urging, that if the Power of Life and Death were originally in Fathers by the taw 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 may 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, cr Masters of Families, in the State of Nature, without they assign it to the Supream Powers of the Commonwealth upon its first Institution; whereas you make this Power to be obtainable by Force, 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

1 for 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 cafe they deserve it. For if it be for the Good and Preservation of Mankind, that great and enormous Crimes, such as Murder and Adultery, sliould 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 Wise to death, however they may deserve it, without very great reluctancy; since he, as it were, thereby lops off a Limb from his own Body. And therefore I cannot fee any Reason why such a married Man as you describe should, by coming under another Man's Root . only as an Inmate or Boarder, and.not as a Slave (which I grant would alter the Case) lose that Power of Life and Death, which I suppose he hath by the Laws of God and Nature over his Wise and Children, unless he had actuallygiven 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,Ch. 14, that Abraham made War with the four Kings who had* taken Lot Prisoner. So likewise when Judahpronounced Sentence of Death against Thamar his Daughter-in-law, for playing the Harlot, Bring her forth, fays he, and let her be burnt^ Gen. 38. I own this was not dorte 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, as 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 Patriarchs could exercise all these Marks of Sovereignty, especially this great Power os 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 thattoot only thisPower of the Patriarchs± but' also that of all Monarchs to this day, must be derived from this Divine Original..,•/.■ .." . A ■ .

.. R 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

Si affirm a Husband or Father may exercise over their Wives or Children in the te of Nature, is not, quatenus a Father, but Lord and Master over them; which in the first place I cannot allow, to be true.ip relation to the Wise; nor that the Submission ofthe 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 herself could convey by force of the Contract any such Power over .her Lisei 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, was even among the Romans look'd upon as a sufficient Punishment. But as for the Power of Parents over their Children, I do not deny but that a Father may have the like Power over his Children whilst they are part of his Family, as over his Slaves or Servants, in case of such great and enormous Crimes as you have already mentioned; but that this is not as a Father, but Master of a Family,N your self have already granted in your Instances of Abraham and Judah tho' if you will consider the last a little better, you will find that Judah did not proceed thus against 'Thomas, as her Father or Master, but by some other Right: For if you please to look upon the nth Verse of that Chapter of Genesis, from whence you -cite this Example, you will find that Thamar, after the Death of Onan her Husband, went with Judah's leave, and dwelt in her qwn Father's House, and she was then a Member of his Family, and consequently (according to your Hypothesis) not under Judah's Power, when she was thus got with Child by him; and therefore not he, but her own Father ought to have condemned her, if this Judgment had belonged to him as to the Master of the Family. And therefore some

. E of

of the Rabbins with more reason suppose, that when Judah gave this Judgment against Thamar, he did not act either as a Father or Master of the Family; for he was then under the Power of the Canaanites (who certainly had some Civil Government among them at that time) and therefore they suppose that he acted thus as a Civil Judge, appointed by the Prince or supreme Magistrate of that Nation.

But to defend the Instance I have given you of a Father of a Family losing his Power of Life and Death, upon his becoming a Part or Member of another Family; you your self have already yielded me as much as I can reasonably desire for the defence of my Assertion, since you allow this Power of Life and Death to Fathers, not as such, but as Lords and Masters over their Children, as over their Slaves; and if so, I desire to know who can challenge this Power but the Master of the Family with whom he lives, unless you can suppose two distinct Heads or Masters in the fame House; and then they will not be one Family, but two, under different Heads, each of them still retaining their distinct Rights, But you wilt fay, that this Boarder or Inmate is not a Servant or Slave to the Master with whom he lives, and therefore hath not forfeited or given up his Right or Power of Life and Death over his own Children to him. It is no matter whether he did or not, since by making fcimsclf a Member of the other's Family, he ceased to be Master of his own, and consequently must lose all the natural Rights or Prerogatives belonging to it, of which I grant this of Life and Death to be the chief: For if Families in the State of Nature are like so many distinct Commonwealths, independent upon each other ; it will likewise follow, that the Heads of those Families must be in all things necessary for the Good and Preservation of the Family, like so many distinct Civil Sovereigns, and consequently must have a Power of Life and Death, and also of making Laws, with Punishments annexed to them, in all Cafes where the Good and Peace of the Family require it. If therefore in a Civil State, or Monarchy, an absolute Prince tome into the Dominions or Territories of another, it is acknowledged by all Writers on this Subject, that such a Prince loses that Power of Life and Death which he had before, and cannot exercise it as long as he ic in the other Prince's Dominions: So by the fame reason, if Masters of Families, in the State of Nature, afe like so many Civil Sovereigns, it will follow, that they must cease to be such, when they become Members of another's Family, unless you will fall into the Absurdity os supposing two absolute independent Heads, ^r Masters, in one and the fame House; which, what a Confusion it wbuld bring, I leave to your self to judge. .. >

M I stall not much dispute this Power of Life and Death with you, as belonging to Masters of separate Families : But pray shew me how they can exercise this.Power over the Lives of those that are under their Jurisdiction, unless it were granted them by God, by virtue of that original Power given to Adam, not only as a Father, but Prince of his Posterity.;

P. I do not doubt but I shall give you a satisfactory Answer to this important Demand, without supposing any extraordinary Divine Commission from God to Adam: For as for your Instance of Abraham's making War, Leagues, or Covenants with other Princes, it is no more than what any Master of a separate Family may do for his own and their defence; and what, if you or I were Masters of a Family in the Indies, where there is no Power above us, we might do as well as Abraham; and all this without any otherCommission from God, than the great Right of Nature, Self-preservation, and the Well-performance of that Trust which Cod hath put into our hands, of defending and providing for our selves and our Families; since if God hath ordained the End, he hath likewise ordained all Means necessary thereunto : and therefore there is no such great Mystery in this as you suppose.  -' ".-m

M. If there were no more in it than a mere Right of Self-defence, for which I grant Retaliation or Revenge may be also necessary, you would have a great deal of Reason on your side : But pray shew me how a Father, or Master of a Family, can condemn either his Wife, Child, or Servant to Death, as a Punishment for any enormous Crime, such as I have mentioned (and you agreed to) without such a Divine Commission as I suppose Adam had; since I own Revenge or Retaliation may be used by private Men in the State of Nature, by the Right of Self-defence, 'which 1 grant may be exercised between Equals. But since all Punishments, properly taken, are the Acts of Superiors towards their Inferiors, I cannot concetue how any Father, or Master of a Familv, can inflict so great a Puniflament.as

Death Death upon any Member os it, unless he derived this Power immediately from God, by vertue of the Divine Charter committed by him to Adam, and from thence to be derived to all Masters of Families, or Civil Sovereigns, who could never derive this Power from the joint Compacts or Consent of Fathers, or Masters of Families; since no Man could convey that to another, which he had not himself. And I have already, I think, with a great deal of Truth asserted, that no Man hath Power over his own Life, to take it away when he pleases, and therefore cannot have it over another Man's; much less can convey any such Right to others, except it were granted at first by God, in the manner I have supposed, which I conceive may easily be made out by several Places in Gene/is j by which it plainly appears, that Adam, and after him Noah, were supernaturally endued with this Divine Power.

F. Though I sm satisfied that this Hypothesis is extreamly absurd; since if it were so, only Christian or JewistSovereigns, or Magistrates, who acknowledge the Scriptures, could lay any claim to, or exercise this Divine Power j whereas we find it practised by all those Nations, with whom the Memory of Adam and Noah is quite lost, and therefore must claim this Prerogative, not from any revealed, but natural Law of God: Yet however, since you think you have such clear Texts of Scripture on your side, 1 desire you to produce them, tho', if they fliould make out what you fay, they would only serve to confirm, by Divine Revelation, that Prerogative of Life and Death, which all Masters oi. Families, as well as. Civil Sovereigns, enjoyed by the Law of Nature, before ever the Bible was written.

M. As for my own part, I am so well satisfied of this Supream Power of Life . and Death granted at first by God to Adam, and after to Noah, that I cannot * fee that without the Supposal of this, any Supream Power could lawfully be.exercifed by Civil Sovereigns at this Day : And therefore I am of Mr. Selden's Opinion, who in his most learned Treatise, De Jure Gentium apud Hebraos, maintains, with the Jewish Rabbins, That the Law of Nature can never be plainly provedt and made out by Reason, without a Tradition of its Precepts, as given by God to Adam, and thence conveyed to Noah, and his Posterity : Which Divine Laws, 6r Commands, are called by theJews, the Seven Precepts of Noah, which' whatsoever People would observe, they permitted them to live its Inhabitants among them; though they did not embrace Circumcision, or those other Rites and Ceremonies commanded by the Law of Moses.' Now amongst these Precepts, that of instituting publick Judgments for Capital Crimes, is one of the first, in pursuance of that Command which God gave Noah immediately after the Flood,Gen.9. v. 6. Whosoever fieddeth Mans Blood, by Man Jhafl his Blood be pied; for in the Image of God made heMan. By which Text almost all Commentators understand, that it is not any common Man, but the Person of the Civil Magistrate, or Sovereign, that is to be meant : Since it Would be both impracticable, and also breed great Confusion in Civil Societies, if by this Word Man, every common Person, not endued by God with this Supream Power of Life and Death, {hould be understood; and therefore I do suppose, with the most learned Jews, that this Power was first exercised by vertue of that Divine Charter that was given of it by God to Adam, and then renewed again to Noah, by the Text above-mentioned.

Now that Adam had, by Divine Grant, an absolute Dominion over the whole p p.o.n World, and all Creatures therein contained, will appear from Gen. i. v. 27, 28. an. (Here is the Bible, I desire you would read it with me.)So God created Man in bis own Image, in the Image of God created hi him; Male and Female created he them:And God blessed them; and God said unto them, Be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth, and subdue it;and have dominion over the Fijh of the Sea, and over the Fowl of the Air, and over every living thing that movethupon the Earth. By which Grant, or Donation, from God of subduing the Earth, and having dominion over the Creatures, Adam was made the general Lord of all things, with such a particular Propriety to himself, as did exclude his Children from having any sliare in it. So that if Cain had his Fields for Corn, or Abel his Flocks, and Pasture for them, it was only by Adams Grant, or Assignation, none of his Children or" Descendants having any Property in Lands or Goods, without his particular Grant, or Permission. 1

F. You must pardon me, Sir, if I cannot be of your Opinion, that all th« Precepts of the Law of Nature must depend upon no firmer Foundation, thaa

E 2 a Tradition

a Tradition of the seven Precepts, supposed by the Jewist Rabbins to be given to Adam, and Noah, and from them conveyed to all their Posterity; fince we find not the least mention of any such Precepts in the Scripture, or inJosepbus, Philo Judaus, or any other antient Writer, but only in the Talmud: Which, though it pretends to a great Antiquity in its Traditions, yet any judicious Man that will but peruse it, may easily see the Falfliood, as well as Absurdity of the pretended Tradition of, these Precepts j one of which is against eating the Members of any living Creature, which savours so strongly of a Jewish Superstition,_ that if that were a true Precept, or Law of Nature, no Man could eat a Difli of Lambstones, or a Black-Pudding, without sinning against the Law of Nature: And it is very improbable to suppose, that all Mankind, except Jews, Christians, and Mahometans, should be obliged to live or act by those Laws or Precepts they never heard of. For if (as you your self must.grant) the Memory or Tradition of these Precepts be quite lost amongst all Nations, except the Jews, it is all one as if they had acted without any Law at all; and consequently, if they have not some better grounds for their Observation of the Law of Nature, than these Precepts of Noah, I doubt whether (according to your Hypothesis) all Civil Sovereigns, that do not own the Original of their Power of Life and Death to this Divine Charter granted to Adam, and Noah, are any better than Murtherers, since they take upon them to exercise this great Prerogative without any Divine Authority for so doing. But I hope to shew you, before we have concluded this Conversation, that not only the Power of Life and Death, but also other Laws of Nature, may easily be deduced, by Reason, to have been given by Gcd to Mankind, by the ordinary Course of his Providence, without recurring to Divine Revelation ; which can only oblige those that have heard of it. r But since you lay so much stress upon those Texts of Scripture you have now cited, I pray give me leave to examine, whether they will bear that Sense you put upon them. As for the first of those Texts you quote, tVIiofoever fheddeth Man's Blood, by Man JhaU his Blood bested, &c. Suppose I should take it in that sense you put upon it, only to extend to Civil Sovereigns, or Magistrates, it will be so far from proving a Power of Life and Death to have been granted by God to Adam, and from him conveyed to Noah, that this Place seems to imply the contrary; for if it was a known Law before, that Murther was to be punished with Death by a Father, or other Magistrate, to what purpose was this Command now given to Noah?Since if it were a Divine Law before the Flood, wherefore'is it here repeated? And therefore all Expositors agree, that tin's is the first Precept enjoining Murther to be punished by the Civil Magistrate, which, before, any of the Kin of the Person slain might have executed ; as appears by Genesis 4.V. 14. when Cain said unto the Lord, /stall be a Fugitive, and a Vagabond on the Earth; and it stall come to pass, that every one that findeth me, stallflay me; which had been a needless fear, if none but Adam had a Power to take away his Life for the Murther of his Brother, as you suppose; much less that God should have needed to have set a Mark upon him to keep him from being murthered by his Brethren, or other Relations. Nor will that other Place you cite out of Genesis proveAdam's sole Dominion over the Earth, and all the Tilings and Persons therein contained: For if you please to consider it, you will find, that it is so far from proving your Opinion, that it speaks the direct contrary. Pray thercr fore observe of whom Moses speaks in that Place: Surely, not of Adam alone, when he fays, Male andFemale created be them; and God blessed them, and sard unto them, Be fruits ul and multiply, and replenist theEarth, and subdue it, and have Dominion over the Fist of the Sea, and ever the FovSl of the Air, and over everyliving thing that moveth upon the Earth: From whence we may observe, first, That these M. p. Words being directed in the plnral number, both to the Male and Female, were not intended to Adam alone j but by way of Anticipation, not only to himself, and Eve, (who was not then made) but likewise to their Posterity (that is) all Mankind: Then that they should be fruitful, and multiply, and replenist the Earth, and subdue it, (that is, possess arid enjby it) and ha ve Dominion, &c. over every living thing that moveth (in the Hebrew) creepeth upon the Face of the Earth. By which Words it appears, that not any Dominion over Mankind, but only over Brutebeasts, that move or creep upon the Earth, is hereby conferred. And that this must be the true meaning of this Place, is plain, if you will but read the two next Verses that follow. And Cod said, Behold I have given you every Herb




bearing See J, which is us on the Faie of all the Earth; and every Tree, in which is the Fruit of a 'free yieldingSeed; to you it Jhall Le for Meat. And to every Beast of the Earth, ti>/J to every Fowl of the Air, and to everything that creepeth upon the Earth, wherein there is Life; I have given every green Herb for Meat; and it was so.Which Words are certainly directed to the fame Persons as the former (that is) to all Mankind, by the fame Argument as that every green Herb is here granted for Meat to cvery-Beast ot" the Earth, and every Fowl of the Air, &c. that then was, or ever stall exist in Nature. - So'fthat this Text, which you have cited to prove this absolute and sole -Dominion of Adam over the Earth, and all tlie Creatures therein contained, -is so far from proving any such thing, that it seems to me to make out -the direct contrary Doctrine, viz,, that the Earth, and all the Creatures fherein, were iiot grahted to Adam alone, as the sole Lord and Master of them; but in common to himself, his Wise, and all his Posterity, who had as good a right to them, as he had himself. So that I must tell you, if you intend to bring; me over-to your Opinion, you must produce some better Proofs out of' Scripture, or Reason, than those made use of by Sir R. F. And therefore I desire that you would give me some plainer Proofs for Adam's absolute Power over his Wise, and all his Posterity, than hitherto you have done ; since I cannot see any Divine Charter granted by God in Scripture, of any absolute Power, or Dominion, over their Lives^or Persons.

As. I shall, Sir* do my best Endeavour to give you all the Satisfaction I can possibly therein; therefore I desire you farther to take notice, that Mr. Selden, in his Mare Clavfum, from the ancient Tradition of the jewist Rabbins,L.i. has understood this Text-in Genesis, to give Adam an absolute Power over the Earth, and all things therein contained, exclusive to his Posterity, as long as he lived. So that if Sir R. F. and divers pthers,,have erred in the sense of this Place, I believe it is more than you or I can prove, since sore they would not have put this fense upon it, without they had seme gQod reason for it.

But this much, I suppose, you will admit, that Adam was created by God, and is in Scripture called the Son of God, as indeed he was; and if so, let Luk. your self, or any other rational Man consider, whether it be at all likely that God stould not endow this Son of his, the Father of Mankind, with so much Authority and Power as mould enable "him to govern his own Family, and Chil-B- pdren, as long as he lived, without depending upon them for their Consent, and Se^* chopping Logick with them, whether his Commands were reasonable, or lawful or not? And if a Powor of Life and Death was necessary (as the Murther of Abel by Cain {hews it was) whether Adamhad no more share in that Power, than any of his Children or Grand-children: Which is sufficient to stew you the Absurdity of your Tenets, that the Authority of Adam over his Posterity was not absolute in its Exercise, as well as perpetual ia its Duration : And this, I think, you cannot but admit, because you have already acknowledged this Power of Life and Death to proceed from, or to be granted by God to Adam; and so consequently must have continued with him as long as he lived.

F. Well, I perceive you find your Monarchy, or absolute Dominion of Adam over Eve, and all her Posterity, as also over all. the Creatures of the Earth, not tef be proved from any of these places of Scripture you have brought for this extravagant Opinion-; and therefore you now urge upon me my own concession of this fupream and absolute Authority of Life and Death, which I do not deny but Adam might have exercised in some cases over his Wife and Children, as long as they continued part of his Family: But that he was not endued with this Prerogative as a Father, but as a Head or Master of his own Family, I think I have sufficiently proved, and therefore need not repeat it. And indeed, your own Instance of the Murther of Abel by Cain, (which, for all we can find, past unpunished by Adam) sufficiently proves, That this Power of Life and Death over his Children or Grand-children, when once they were separated from his Family, was not a necessary Prerogative of his Government; or else that his Children, and Grand-children, when they have erected new Families of their own, had it as much from God as he; and that from the fame Reason which you give, why God endowed Adam with it, viz-, because without such a Power, they could not have been enabled to govern their Children and Families as long as they lived. So that Adam's being created by G<5d, or called his Son, gave him not a jet more power over his Children, and his Defcendents, than wliar, as a Master, or

Head of a Family, he would have had by the Law of Nature however; and ir is all one in this Cafe, whether you suppose Mankind to have been created by God, or to have existed from all Eternity, provided you .hold the Being of a God, according to the Hypothesis of the more Modern Platonists, who though they held the Eternity of the World, yet likewise owned all things to be governed by God's Providence: And therefore, if on this Supposition Mankind could not be well governed nor preserved, without inflicting of Capital Punishments for great Crimes, and that they are necessary for its Peace and Preservation; it is likewise as neceflary, that there should be some Judge appointed by God to inflict them, which in the State of Nature can be only the Head, or Master of a Family; as after Civil Government is once instituted, it belongs to the Civil Sovereign or Commonwealth. And this I hope will serve to answer your Scruple, how Adam, or any other Master of a separate Family, may very well be endued with this great Power of Life and Death by the Law of Nature, without supposing any Charter granted him for it by Divine Revelation; or else depending upon his Children's consent for his Exercise of it.

But before I farther consider, whether this Power of Adam, or of any other Father or Master, be perpetual or not, and extends any farther than his own Family, give me leave to examine, whether or no Children, when grown to years of Discretion, and even while they continue Members of their Father's Family, may not in some cafes chop Logick with him, (as you call it) and not only question, but judge whether his Commands be reasonable or lawful, or not; or else Abraham (for Example) must have sacrificed to Idols, because his Father bid him. WhereasJosef bm tells us, He rather chose to quit his Country, and his Father's House, than to Jin against God. And therefore I think you cannot deny, but if Husbands or Fathers command their Wives or Children to do any thing that is morally unlawful, or contrary to the Laws of God, or Nature, they may lawfully (nay are obliged) not to obey such unlawful Commands.

M- I shall so far agree with you, that if the thing commanded be apparently contrary to the Laws of God and Nature, that they are not obliged to obey their Commands; but they must be evidently, and apparently so, before they thus take upon them to refuse Obedience to them; otherwise I deny, that their Conscience, however misguided, ought to be any excuse, or just ground of their Disobedience. For if their Conscience be truly grounded upon the Laws of God, or Nature, that will excuse them; but if it be not, Conscience without such a Law can never^do it. And yet this Non-performance of the unlawful Commands of the Husband, or Father, may very well consist without any Anarchy, or Disorder in the Family; since the Wife and Children must always yield him an active Obedience, in performing all his Commands, or else a passive one, in submitting to whatever harsli Usage,or Punishment, such a Husband, or Father, shall please to exercise or inflict upon them for their Nonpersormahce of them, though never so unlawful. But yet certainly in all possible and indifferent things, Children are bound to yield, not only a passive, but an active Obedience to their Father's Commands: For if his Children ftiould have a liberty to judge of his Commands, whether they are reasonable or not, what can ensue but Anarchy and Confusion in all Families?

F. Well, I am glad we are so far agreed, that a Wife and Children in the state of Nature have liberty to judge of their Husband's and Father's Commands, whether they are lawful or not, and also to disobey them when they are not so: And I think I may carry this a little farther, and affirm, that such Wife and Children ought not to obey the Commands of such a Husband, or Father, though they are not really contrary to such Divine or Moral Laws, but only erroneously supposed so by them; and therefore most Casuists agree, that even an erroneous Conscience does oblige, as long as a Man lies under that mistake. For St. Paul tells us, Whatsoever is not of Faith, is Sin, Rom. 14. Nay farther, such an erroneous Conscience may excuse a Man before God, if his ignorance was not wilful, but invincible, and not proceeding from his own fault; but of this no Man can judge but God alone, and the Party whose Conscience it is; and therefore such a Husband, or Father, can have no right or authority to compel their Wives and Children to perform such Commands, because the Will ought always to follow the Dictates of the Understanding; and therefore they should not be forced to do that, which they judge contrary to God's Moral or Divine Law; since Conscience may be injhutled, but can never be forced. Neither will your distinction of an active and passive Obedience help you in this Matter: For active Obedience I understand well enough; but as for passive Obedience, I think it is next door to that we call a Bull or Nonsense. And to prove this, I shall give you this plain Instance; suppose you had a Jew to your Servant, and should command him to do you some Work or other on aSaturday, which he judged a Breach of the fourth Commandment, that forbids him to work on the seventh Day, (or Sabbath) und you being very angry, should cudgel him soundly for this refusal; whereupon he tells you, that you may beat him as long as you please, he would not resist, but yield a passive Obedience; but yet could not perform your Commands: J ask you now, whether you would rest satisfied, that this Jewish Servant had sufficiently performed what you bad him, by submitting to your cudgelling? And whether your Dinner or Horse would not be as much unUrefled after this fort of passive Obedience, as it was before?

As. Perhaps indeed this Phrase of Passive Obedience may be somewhat improper, and may be more properly termed an absolute Subjection, or Submission; but itis all one what we call it, as long as you understand what we mean; since such Submission doth sufficiently avoid that Anarchy and Confusion which would necessarily follow, in case it were lawful for Wives, or Children, in any case ■whatsoever, to relist their Husbands, or Fathers, though for the defence of Life it self; .since no Government can be maintained, where the Parties governed have a right to resist their Superiors, or Governors, in any case.

F. I grai^t indeed, that no Government can be maintained, where the Parties p. n. M. governed resist their Superiors or Governors in the due exercise of their Power if. no. but when they exceed those limits, they cease to act as true Superiors, or Governors; and therefore when, instead of Husbands, or Fathers, they prove Destroyers of their Families, I doubt not but they may then be lawfully resisted by them. For suppose such a Father of a Family should, in a furious or drunken fit, go about to kill his Wife, or one of his innocent Children; can any Body think this was Treason against the Monarch of the Family, if his Wise, or one of his Sons, jjhould rescue herself or this innocent Child, out of his Hands by force, if they could 90t otherwise quiet him?

. r Xhis supposition of Madness or Drunkenness in Fathers of Families, you B. P. P. Gentlemen of Commonwealth Principles make great use of, to justify your Doc- Sea. 47. $rine of Resistance; and I know no reason why you might not extend it as west to Anger, Lust, or any other Passion that a Man is subject to; and have given all the Wor^ a power to judg? when a Man is drunk, and mad, as well as his W#cr Children, or Servants; nor do I know why you so much insist upon it, but because the Authors from whence you had it, are so in love with Rebellion and Disorder, that they seek and catch at every opportunity to recommend it to the World. But, I believe, had you a Wise, Child, or Servant, that should take the liberty os controuling you upon this pretence, you would be more enraged with the reason of the Resistance, than with the Resistance it self. . . , . I 3m sorry, Sir, any thing I have said can so far transport you to passion, as to make such unkind Reflections upon your Friends; but pray be not so hot; is it not possible that a Master, or Father, in the State of Nature, may be mad, or drunk?

M. Yes, and is it not possible also that the Wise may be so too? Now sup<pose they should mutually charge each other with madness, or drinking too much, B. P. P. who Qwll judge betwixt them? What horrible Confusion must this introduce into ^>id. all Societies, to give Inferiors a power to judge their Superiors to be mad, of drunk; and thereupon to resist, and oppose them with force? But if it doth at any time happen, Wives, Children, and Servants, that are dutiful, may have ways to appease their Husbands, Fathers, or Masters, when mad, or drunk, witBout resisting, or fighting them; as by getting out of the way, or by submission, prayers, and tears, which Nature hath ta,ught them on such occasions to make use of; and which is a thousand times a better Method, than those vsolent Courses you propose. ,

1*. All I desire of you in this Conversation, is, that you would be pleased to believe, I do not argue out of any love to Rebellion, or Disorder, or that I desire to encourage it in private Families, much less to reepmmend it to the World; only what I speak, is.purely out of a desire of the happiness and preservation of Mankind; and I; hope I fay no more, than what alt sober Men will allow may be every'Day practised in private Families:

And therefore, since you will needs have it, I do extend this Power of Resistance, not only to Madness, or Drunkenness alone, but even to Anger, Lust, or any other exorbitant Passion a Man can be subject to; and I do likewise give all the World a power ro judge when such a Man is mad, or furiously passionate, as well as his Wife,' Servants, or Children, if in those drunken, and mad fits, he goeth about to kill them, or any else. For I think in that Case, you will not deny, but any honest Neighbour may step in, and bind him, or hold his Hands; and so may likewise the Wife or Children themselves. As suppose, this Father, or Husband, should be so far transported with Passion, or Lust, as to go about to kill his Wife, or ravish his Daughter; I hope you will not deny, but they may lawfully resist him, if they can neither run away, nor yet pacify him by submission,, prayers, or tears; which I grant are much better Methods, if they may prevail: But what if they can neither get away, nor yet any of those gentle Means you propose, can work any good upon him; what shall they do then? Can any one believe, that God hath appointed an innocent Wife, or Children, to be made a-Sacrifice .to the Madness, Drunkenness, Passion, or Lust of such a Father, or Husband? And as for the Cafe you put, where the Husband or Wife should charge each other with Madness, or drinking too much, who should judge between them? It is a meer Cavil; for as long as they fall out, and only brangle, it is no matter whether there be any Judge or not. But if it proceeds to blows, and they are like to mischief or kill each other, no doubt but the Children or Neighbours may come in and part them ,- and may either hold, or shut up one, or both of them, till they are sober.

M. Pray, Sir, let us leave this touchy Discourse concerning Self-defence till anon, when we shall have occasion to fall more naturally upon it. Suppose then I should at present grant you, that a Wife or Children may (in case of such extremities as may happen to them by the Madness, or Drunkenness of the Husband, or Father) restrain, or resist his violence, in cafe no other means can prevail; what is this to disobeying his Commands, or resisting him when he is so-' ber? Which certainly they have no right to do. But to come as near you as possibly I can, and to let you fee I am not a Man of a domineering Temper, and who approve of unnecessary Severities, or unnatural Rigours, either in Masters of Families, Husbands, or Fathers; I grant that no Father, or Master of a Family, has any right to punish, or put to death the meanest of his- Slaves, much; less his Children, without a sufficient cause; or that he may sell his Children, or otherwise tyrannize over them by cruel Usage, or too severe Punishments, since" they are not only part of his own Substance, and to whom by the order of the Creation he gave a Being; but was also (as you well observe) ordained by God for their happiness, and preservation, as they were also (as well as his Wise) for his constant help, comfort, and subsistence; and therefore they were as much, or more, made for him, as he for them; as it is plain concerning the Wife from the Text in Genesis, when God said, it is notgood that the Man Jhould be alone, Iwifl make him an Help meet for him, Gen. 2.18. (viz..) the Woman; and therefore, as her subjection to her Husband is perpetual, as long as she lives, so likewise is that of the Children, in whom he acquireth a Property by their Education for so many Years; which I look upon as a greater obligation than their Generation; and over both whom he must in the state of Nature have an abserlute Power of Life and Death; which though I grant he may happen sometimes to abuse, yet I suppose no Person living hath any right in that state to resist him in the execution of it, much less to call him to an Account, or punish him for the Male-administration of his Power. And you have granted, that the Husband in the state of Nature hath a Power of Life and Death over his Wife, if she murthers her Children, or commits any other abominable Sin against Nature; and that then she may be justly cut off from the Family, and punished as an Enemy to Mankind, and so certainly may his Children too. But what need I fay any more of this Subject, when you have not as yet answered my former Arguments, concerning the Absoluteness, and Perpetuity of this Conjugal Subjection, (and that which will likewise follow from it) the constant Service and Subjection of Wives and Children to their Fathers in the state of Nature. Therefore pray, Sir, let us return again to that Head, and let me hear what you have to object against those Reasons I have brought for it.

K I. beg your pardon, Sir, if I have not kept so close to the Point as I might have done ,• but you may thank your self for it, who brought me off from what I was going farther to fay on that Head, by your Discourse ofPajjive-Obedience and Non-Resistance, and I know not what strange unintelligible Power of Life and Death, conferred by God on Adam, as a Husband, and a Father. But first, give me leave farther to prove, that this Subjection of the Wife is neither absolute, nor irrevocable. For Proof of which, I shall lay down these Principles, i. That the Wise in the State of Nature, when she submits herself to the Power of her Husband, does it to live as happily as she did before, or rather to enjoy more of the comforts of Life', than in a single State. 2. That therefore she did not renounce either her own Happiness or Self-preservation. 3. Neither did she make him the sole and absolute Judge of the means that may conduce to these Ends: For if this were so, let him use her never so cruelly, or severely, she could have no cause.to cenr sure him, or complain in the least against him. 4. If she has not so absolutely given, up her Will to his, {he is still Judge when she is well used by him; ot else so cruelly, that it is no longer to be endured. And therefore if such a Husband will not. allow his Wife sufficient Food and Raiment, and other Necessaries j or that he uses her cruelly, by beating, or other Punishments, or hath endeavoured to take away her Life; in all these cases in the State of Nature, and where there i s no Superior Power to complain, or appeal to, she may certainly quij: him; and I think she is not bound to return, or cohabit with him again, until she is satisfied he is sorry for his former cruel Treatment of her, and is resolved to make amends for the future. But whether this Repentance be real or not, she only can be Judge, since she can only judge of her own Happiness, and the means of her Preservation. And the end of Matrimony being for their mutual happiness, and help to each other; if he has broke his part of the Compact, she is then so far discharged from hers, and consequently in the meet State of Nature (which is that we are now talking of) the Vinculum Matrimmii (as you Civilians term it) will be likewise dissolved: So likewise if such a Husband, for no just cause, or crime in the Wise, but only to be rid of her, should endeavour to take away her Life; as suppose, to strangle her in her Sleep, or the like, no doubt but she may (notwithstanding your Conjugal Subjection) resist him by force, and save her Life, until she can call in her Children, or Family, for her rescue and assistance j who sure may also, notwithstanding this absolute Despotick Power you, place in their Father, or Master, rescue her from his Rage and Malice, whether ne will or not: Nay they are bound to do it, unless they will be Accessaries to her Murther... \ /•;•> . „; 31U 7t-j .

M. These are doubtful Cases at best, and do very seldom happen; and a Husband can scarce ever be supposed to be so wicked, as so hate, and-destroy his own Flesh j arid therefore we need not make Laws on purpose for Cases that so rarely happen. .A .j ■>.'-:■ •'• •. .;. . •

F Rarely happen! I see you are not very conversant at the Old Bail), nor at our Country Assizes; where if you please to come, you may offers hear of Cafes * of this nature j and I wonder you that are a Civilian, and have so many Matrimonial Causes in your Spiritual Courts, brought by Wives for Separation, poster; Savitiam, &c.should doubt whether Husbands do often use their Wives so illx that dt is not to be endured. But if the Wise have these Privileges, pray tell me, why the Children sliall not have the fame, according to your own Maxim, of Partmsequitur Ventrem, since the Subjection of Children must be according to your own Principles, of the fame nature with that of the Mother; and then pray what becomes of this absolute and perpetual Subjection you talk of?

M. Yet I hope you will not affirm, but that Children are under higher obliga^ tions of Duty and Obedience to their Father, than a Wife is to her Husband, with, whom perhaps {he may in some Cases be upon equal Terms ,• but Children can never be so in respect of their Father, to whom they are always inferior, and ought to be absolutely subject in the State of Nature, (that is) before Civil Laws have restrained Paternal Power. ■

F. I thank you, Sir, for bringing me so naturally to the other Head I was coming to, and I agree with you in your other Maxim, 0s" Qukquid ex me & uxore mea mscitur in potestate mea est, yet not in your Sense: For if I should grant, that the Father's Power over the Child commences from his Power over the Mother, by her becoming his Wise, and submitting herself, and consequently all

F the


{34}

the Issue that should be begotten of her, to her Husband's Power; yet as I have prov'd already in cafe of the Wife, so I think I may affirm the fame in that of the Children, that they are not delivered by God so absolutely to the Father's Will, or Disposal, as that they have no Right, when they attain to Years of discretion, to seek their own Happiness and Preservation in another place, in case the Father uses them as Slaves, or else goes about to take away their Lives without any just cause; since when Children are at those Years, I think they are by the Laws of Nature, sufficient Judges of their own Happiness, or Misery, that is, whether A they are well, or ill used; and whether their Lives are in danger, or not, by their Father's Cruelty.

For tho' I grant that Children, considered as such, are always inferior to their Parents; yet I must likewise affirm, that in another respect, as they are Men, and make a part of that great aggregate Body of Mankind, they are in all Points equal to them; that is, as the Parents have a right to Life, Happiness, and Self-preservation, so have they likewise; and consequently to all necessary means thereunto, such as Food, Cloaths, Liberty, (I mean from being used as Slaves) which Principles, if true, will likewise serve for a farther Proof against that absolute Property, and Dominion, you supposed to be conferred on Adam over the Earth, and all things therein, exclusive to that of his Wife and Children.' For , if they had a Right to a Being and Self-preservation, whether he would or hot, so had they likewise to all the means necessary thereunto; and he was not only , obliged to provide Food and Raiment for his Children, whilst they were unable to

do it for themselves, but also when they grew up to years of discretion, they might take it without his Assignment, and this by virtue of that Grant in Genesis I before quoted; And God said, Gen. i. (<&«,. to the Man and the Woman, and in them to all Mankind, then in their Loins) Behold, I have-given you every Herb bearingSeedy •which is upon the face of the Earth, Sec. Behold, to you it jhatt be for Meat. So that sure you were too rash, in affirming with Sir R.F. that a Son, a Slave, and a Servant, were all one at the first: For I hope I have proved, the Father doth not acquire any absolute Property in the Person of the Son, either by his begetting him, or bringing him up; for then I grant, a Son and a Slave would be all one. But if you please better to consider it, you will find, that Fathers were never ordained by God for perpetual Lords and Masters over their Children, but rather as Tutors and Guardians, till they are of Years of discretion, and able to shift for themselves j God having designed the Father to beget and bring up his GhikL not for his own interest or advantage only, but rather for the Child's happiness and preservation, which by the Laws of God and Nature he is bound to procure: For as it is the Son's Duty never to do any Action, that may make his Father repent his begetting, or bringing him up; so on the other side, the Father ought not to treat his Son so severely, as to make him weary of his Family, much less of his Life. It is the Apostle's Precept, Ephef. 6. 4. Parents provoke not your Children to wrath; which certainly he knew they were apt to do, or else that Precept had been needless. Now pray tell me, if Adam had used one of his , Sons (whom he loved worse than the rest) so cruelly, as to make him a Slave instead of a Son, and when grown a Man, should have put him to all the servile and hard Labour imaginable,with scarce Victuals enough to live upon,or Cloaths to cover him-; what must this Son have done? born all patiently? Or else do you think it had been a damnable Sin, if he had fled into the Land of Nod, to Cain his elder Brother? B. P. P. M. To answer your question, I think in the first place it ^had; for I do not c.2. Sect. 9. oniy take Qajn to have Deen tne fjrft Murderer, but Rebel too: And in the next place this Question is needless; for it can scarce be supposed, that ever Adam, or any Father can be so wicked and ill-natured, as to use a Son thus cruelly, without some just occasion ; but if he had, I think he ought to have endured any thing from his Father, rather than have left him without his leave, since I cannot see how Children can ever set themselves free from their Father's Power, whether they will or no.

F. If that be the condition of Children, they are then, instead of Sons, as absolute Slaves as any in Turkey,whenever their Father pleases. But you have already granted, that Fathers ought not to use their Children like Slaves, nor to fell them for such to others; and tho' I have no great kindness for Cain, yet I know not what warrant you have to call him Rebel: I am sure neither the Scripture, nor Josephs}, mention his going to the Land of Ned, as an offence

committed against his King and Father, Adam; but rather as a piece of Com2 pliance or Obedience to God's Sentence, who had made it part of his Curse so to do.

. M. I shall not much trouble my self whether Cain was a Rebel or not; I only tell you what some Learned Men have thought of his quitting his Country; but as for other Children, tho' I grant their Fathers ought not to use them like Slaves, yet if they fliould happen to do so, I think such Children ought to bear it as a Judgment inflicted by God for their Sins, and should not by any means set themselves free, tho' their Fathers use tftem never so severely; since it is God's Will they should be born, and continue under the Power of such severe Fathers.

F. But pray, Sir, tell me : What if this Son had fallen into the power of a Stranger who would thus make a Slave-of him, was he likewise bound to bear this as a'Punishment from God for his Sins, and might he by no means set himself free? since this could not happen without God's permissive Providence at least j and I think you will scarce prove it more in the Case of the Father, unless ^ou will allow God to be the Author of Tyranny and Oppression. | As. I grant, that a Man that is made a Slave to a Stranger by force, without just cause given by him, may set himself free by what means he can; but I deny hclhath the fame Liberty in respect of his Father, since the Father's Power over bim is from God, and so is not the Stranger's. -" ,

F What Power of the Father do you mean? that of making his Son a Slavei or of using him as a Father ought to use a Son? The latter of these I very well understand to be from God, but not the former: And if the Father hath no such Povver from God, I cannot see how it can be any Act of Disobedience in a Son to'look to his-.,own Liberty and Preservation; since Cruelty and Tyranny can never be Prerogatives of Paternal Power, as you your self confess. • M. I grant, indeed, a Father hath no such Power from God to treat his Son thus cruellybut if he does, I fay again, that God having ordained the Son to be absolutely subject to his Father, he must endure it, let the consequence of it be what it will: And I suppose you will not deny, but that in case of necessity, as when a Father hath not wherewithal to nourish and breed up his Children he may sell or assign his Interest in them to any Person, who will undertake to provide for their Nourishment and Education; and that the Children so sold, or assigned, do thereby become absolute Servants to the Person to whom they were thus assigned as long as they lived; and why this should be their Condition in respect of a Stranger, and not so to their Father, I can see no reason, since their Father would have been at as much trouble and charge for their Education as the Stranger.

- F- I so far go along with you, that in case of such necessity as you mention, a Father may sell or assign the present Interest in his Child to a Stranger: yet I cannot see any reason that this Sale, or Assignment, should confer so absolute a Property in the Person of this Child, as that therefore he should be a Slave to this , Master, or Fosterer, as long as he lived: Since admitting that the Father, ot other Person who takes upon him that Care, may perhaps justly claim a Right in the Service or Labour of the Child, to satisfy them for their trouble and charge infringing him up; yet it doth not therefore follow, that this Service is due as long as the Child lives, but rather until such time as they can make their Labour satisfy them for their charge and trouble in keeping him, which may very well be by that time the Child attains to twenty five Years of Age at farthest: And there are those that have offered to breed up and maintain all the Foundlings and Bastard Children in England, if they may be bound to serve them until about that Age. So that I see no reason why a few Years of Education should give any Man a Right over another's Person as long as he lived.

But if you urge, that the Child owed his Life to his Father, or Fosterer, since without his assistance he must have perished, and therefore the Service of the Child's whole Life is but little enough to recompence it: To this I answer, That the Parents are under an absolute Obligation, by the Laws of God and Nature, to breed up their Child, and they sin, if they do not perform it as they ought; the end of a Father being chiefly for the breeding up and preservation of the Child 5 and therefore there is no reason he should acquire such a Property in him, merely because he did his Duty: And the Duty of a Father being to better the Condition! of his Son, and not to make it worse, I doubt whether an absolute and perpetual 0 Fa Servr

[ocr errors]

Servitude, or Death it self, were the better bargain. And if this Right will not hold for the Father himself, much less will it for a Fosterer, since he is likewise obliged by the Laws of Nature and common Humanity, as well as by his Corn tract with the Father, to breed up this Child so assigned him; and not to let him perish, if he be able to breed him up. Nor ought this Father's or Fosterer's .teia* poral Advantage, which he may make of this Child, to be the principal end of his Undertaking; but the doing good to Mankind, and the Advantage he may reap thereby, is to be considered only as an Encouragement, and not as the only Motive to this Duty, since he is obliged to do the fame thing, tho' he were sure the Child would either die or be taken away from him, before he could be with him half long enough to satisfy him for his Charge. ■ 'n

Neither doth this Reason hold true, even according to the Scripture Rules of Gratitude, that a Man hath a Right to exact, of one to whom he hath done a Courtesy, or bestowed a Benefit, a Return as great as the Benefit bestowed ,• since this were not Beneficence, but meer Bartering or Exchange; and a Man who had his Life saved by another's assistance (suppose by pulling him out of the Water) must be obliged by this Principle to submit his Life to his disposal ever after. And therefore I desire you would give me some better Reasons, why such a Son ought to be so absolutely subject to his Father's Power, as that it is not lawful for him* upon any account whatsoever, to free himself from ir, Jet his Father use him neve* so cruelly or severely.

M. Well, Sir, since you desire it, I will give you the best Reasons I have, why God cannot permit so unreasonable a Liberty as this would give to all Children, in case they should make use of it whenever they thought fit; and therefore God hath ordained it thus, to take away all those Pretences of" Undutifulness and Disobedience, which Children might make, should they be permitted to be their owa Judges, when they might quit their Father's Family without his leave; which Pretence of cruel Usage they would be sure to make use of, thereby to leave theiff Parents upon every slight occasion, saying, that their Fathers were so cruel and severe, that there was no living with them any longer; when indeed it was not so, but on the contrary, no just Cause of Complaint against them, more than bare correcting them for their Faults: And so the Father might be bereft of some, nay all his Children, who should be helpful and serviceable to him in his old Age, which would breed great Confusion and Inconveniences in Families, especially in the State of Nature; as in the Cafe you have put concerning Adam's Sons, they being the only Servants he could have to make use of on all Occasions.

F. I desire you in the first place to take notice, that I put this Cafe concerning fAdam by way of Supposition only; not but that I have a better Opinion of our first Parent (notwithstandipg his Fall) than to believe him so ill-natur'd, or that he was ever so cruel as to use his Children thus hardly. But in this depraved State of Nature such unnatural Rigors and Cruelties in Fathers, as well as Disobedience in Children, is but too frequent; which no Man needs to doubt of, that will but consult the Custom of divers Nations in Africa, and other Countries, at this day; where they sell their Sons for Slaves, and exercise this Fatherly Power with the greatest Tyranny and Rigor, using them as Slaves, or felling them to others for such things as they want. And if you think it against the Law of Nature for such Children, when they see themselves ready to be sold to work in the Mines in Peru, or Sugar-works at Barbadoes, to run away into another Country to avoid such a Condition, which is as bad or worse than Death, you may enjoy your own Opinion j but I am sure you'll have but few Proselytes, but such as are of the like arbitrary Principles. And as for your Pretence, that if Children should be allowed to judge when their Fathers treated them too severely, or like Slaves, they would all run away; that is but a Subterfuge: For first, it is a needless Caution, Children being, when young, not apt to leave their Parents who have bred them up, upon whom they depend for their Subsistence, and to whom, if they are treated like Children, they seldom fail to bear a natural Duty and Affection; and if well used, they will, when of Years of Discretion, be likewise willing to stay with them, and look after them when sick or old; not only for Duty, but also for their own advantage, and in hopes of having a share in what Goods or Estates they may leave behind them when they die. But if, when they come to Years of discretion, they can better their condition by marrying, and leaving their Father's Family, their Parents are bound in conscience to let them go; since it is their Duty to better the Condition of their Children, and not to make it )

wofse : Always provided that such Children either take care of their Parents

themselves, or else hire others to do it for them, in cafe they want their Assistance

by reason of their old Age, Poverty, or Sickness. But if Children may not quit

their Father's Families, tho'they are never so hardly or severely dealt with, the

consequence will be, that Fathers may keep their Children as Slaves as long as

they live, tho* it were to 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 threePeriods of Ages. The first is the Period of Infancy or imperfect Judgment, before the Child conies to be able to exercise his ReasonThe second is the Period of perfect Judgment or Discretion, yet whilst the Child continues still part of his Father's Family. The third is, after he hath left his Father's, and enter'd 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 be prescrv'd, unless theft 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 thesecond Period, when they are of mature Judgment, yet continue part of their Father's Family, they are still under their Father's Command, and ought to be obedient to it in all Actions which tend to the Good of their Father's Family and Concerns. And in both these Ages I allow the Father has a Right to make his Children work, as well to 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 cafe they ie fuse 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, tho' done contrary to their Duty. The third andInst Period is, when the Son, being of Years of discretion, either by Marriage or otherwise is separated from his Father's Family: In which case he is in all Actions free, and at his own disposal, tho' 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 yonr pardon if I cannot come over to your Opinion, notwith-F.O.G./>.aa. standing 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 theft Parents Leave, since they are always bound to study to please them: And tho', by the Laws of some Nations, Children when they attain to Years of Discretion have a Power and Liberty in many Actions j yet this Liberty is granted them by positive and humane Laws only, which are made by theSupream Fatherly Power of Princes, who can regulate, limit, or assume the Authority of inferior Fathers, for the publick Benefit of the Commonwealth. So that naturally the Power of Parents over their Children never ceases by any Separations, tho , by the permission of the transcendent Fatherly Power of the Supream Prince, Children may be disoens'd with or privileged in some cafes 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 tho' 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 tho' I do gtant, that Children are always bound P.». M 20, to study to pleasetheir Parents, yet doth not this Duty of Gratitude or Compla-21* cency include a foil 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,

[ocr errors]

however it may be endangered by their Father's 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 the 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 in many Actions from positive Humane Laws only; or that the Power which Parents naturally have over their Children can never cease by any Separation, but only by the permission, of the Father.

For as for Bodtn, and divers others that have written on this Subject, they do no more than follow 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 qf Nature; and therefore I mail farther let you fee, 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 increase and multiply than; there is now, they might then certainly have chosen Wives for themselves, when,they were of Years of discretion, and capable of Marriage.

And farther to {hew you, that Children may in some Cases separate themselves from their Father's Family and Subjection,. without their Father s 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 else they must serve two Masters, which is against our Saviour's 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 fay 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 transcendent imaginary Empire of Fathers in the State of Nature, as if they were somewhat more than Men : F^r 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, Raiment, 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 Preservation, 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 is the sole Judge of the Means that conduce to his Son's 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 sometimes 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 fame Right from their Fathers, who as Men are also liable to the like Mistakes. Neither did any Slave or Subject


{39}

eves give up his Will so totally to his Master or Monarch, as abfclutely 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 Prin-4 ciples in some cases make use also of Self-defence, even against their Fathers, if they cannot otherwise avoid certain Ruin and Destruction: Therefore I will first ask you what you think of this Cafe? 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 do in cafe his Father, by the evil Suggestions of a Stepmother, or other wicked Persons, be so far incensed against his Son,', as to fend Men to burn his House, plunder him of his Goods, and destroy his Plantation?

AjC If the Son be absolutely set free from his Father's Family and Power with his consent, I do not deny but that such a Son may resist those Persons his Father fends to ruin him and his Family, and may repel their Violence by force; but I do not allow the Son the fame 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 td

destroy his Son and ruin his Family than 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 me more a Sin against Nature, than to suffer himself, Wise, and innocent Children, to be turned out of all they have, and left to perish by Hunger and Cold? St. Paul says, Thathe 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 Father's Person, he should permit all his Family to be exposed to certain'Beggary and Ruin.

*(.' This Precept of St. Paul obliges only., when a Man may provide for his ily by lawful means, but not when it cannot be procured but by doing what is unlawful, asTtake this Resistance of the Person of the Father to be.

F. I grant indeed that a Father, acting as such, is Jiot to be resisted, even when Ire 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 ruin him; unless you can suppose, that the Will to jpreserve 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 innocentJFamily. By what Law then must the Son be obliged to sacrifice his own Life, arid that of Wife and Children, and all that he hath, to this imaginary Duty -? '•"n"

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 Education; 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 ^ceived from him. The second is, because no Circumstances whatsoever can rake off or obliterate this Relation i And tho'tis 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 Son, do what you can, and so consequently you will still owe him Subjection. For it is a Maxim not only of the Civil Law, butthaf B. of Nature too, and this most of all in-the State of Nature, that is, before Civil Laws bad restrained the-Paternal Power, Jura fanguinis nuDo deliBo dirirti pejfunt i andla'ftly from the fourth Commandment of, Honour1 thy Father, &c. Now no Man can render Honour to him whom he goeth about to resist, and so may also destroy.

F. I confess yoii 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. Wifc, and Children, and all that he hath, in return for it.

[ocr errors]

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 Jiis Species, 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 fay 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 drunken 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 likewise 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 Maxim held true in all Cases, and therefore is no Law of Nature; for Jurasanguinis aliquo deliilo dirimi foffunt, 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 Laws of Nature, and the great Rule by which they are to be tried, which Rule is to' be preferred, and conduces more there Ato, ■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 ruin and destroy his Son, with his Wife and Children, should be resisted, and consequently one Man s 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; tho' you are pleased to leave her out, because it makes against your Opinion : And therefore if by honour is meant, Thou shalt not 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 be hath no otller 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 fufser himself to be killed?

M. I am much better satisfied in this cafe 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 Cafe was harder, because there were more Lives concerned than the -Son's; and I am of this opinion partly for the fame Reasons as before, and partly because 'tis more suitable both to Reason and the Law of Nature, as also to Holy Scripture, Precepts and Examples: For if St. Peter command Servants to be fubjeSi to their Mafias, &c. not only to the 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 tho' 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 fore 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 satisfied, 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, it is not a Precept given by the Apostle to Sons, but to Servants or Slaves, whose Lives and all that they had were at their Masters absolute disposal, being those whom the Apostle Paul calls, Servants under the Take; and unless you will make a Slave and a Son to be all one (which you have already denied) this Precept doth not at all concern them. And as for the Example of Isaac, that will make as little for your advantage; for first, as to Abraham, he could not but know, that to kill his Son without any just Cause, was as much Murder in him as in any other Man. Now what could be a juster or a higher Cause than God's particular Command? So that as this Act of Abraham is not to be taken as an Example by other Fathers, so neither doth the Example of Isaac oblige other Sons to the like Submission ; therefore it is most reasonable to suppose, that Isaac being then (as Chronologers make him to be) about nineteen or twenty Pin.M.p.ij. Years of age, and of Years of discretion to ask, where was the Lamb for the Burnt-offering, was also instructed by his Father, before he came to be offered^ of the reason of his dealing thus with him; and then the Submission was not payed to his Father's, but to God's Will, from whom he miraculously received his Being. But if any Man doubt whether Resistance in such a case were lawful, I leave it to his own Conscience to consider, whether, is his Father had him alone in a Place where he could neither run away, nor yet call for Help, he would suffer his Father to cut his Throat without any Resistance, only because he pretended Divine Revelation for it. Not but that I so far agree with you likewise; as to limit such a Resistance only to the holding his Father's Hands, or warding off his Blows, but not to the taking away his Life; but of the two, rather to lose his own than to kill him, for the Reasons you have given, and which I will not deny: But yet if the Father be mad, I doubt whether the Son is bound to let him kill him rather than take away his Life, since such a Father's Life is no way useful to the Good of the Family. So that tho' I should grant that Paternal Power is from God, and consequently irresistible, yet doth it not follow, that all the unjust Force or Violence, which a Father as a Man may use against his Son's Life or Fortune, is such part of a Paternal Power, as God hath commanded us not to resist; since you your self must grant, that he doth not thus act (in going about to kill his Son) as a Father; but a violent and wicked Man: So that where the Father hath no Right to take away his Son's Life, I think in all such Cases the Right of the Son to resist him doth take place. And if a Man may resist or bind his Father, when he is mad or drunk, and in such Fits goeth about to kill him, I can see nothing to the contrary why he may not do the fame thing, when his Father is transported by a sudden Rage or unreasonable Malice; since both of them do take away the Use of natural Reason, as much the one as the other, according to that Saying of the Poet, Ira furorbrevis eft, Anger is but a short Madness; Fury and Malice being alike fatal and destructive to the Son's Life and Safety with Drunkenness and Madness; nor doth such a Son resist his Paternal Power, but only his brutish Force and Violence. So that if Sons (when grown to Years of discretion) have not a Right to defend theif Lives, in the State of Nature, against all Persons whatsoever, who go about to* take it away without any just Cause; every Son ought to suffer his Father to kill him, whenever, being transported by Madness, Drunkenness, or sudden Passion* he hath a Will so to do: Which how it can consist with that great Law of Nature, of propagating and preserving the Species of Mankind, if a Father should have such an unreasonable unlimited Power, I'll leave to your self or any other reasonable Man to consider. Nor doth it follow, that because a Son can in no wise be superior to his Father, he ought not therefore to resist him; since tho' I grant Punishment is a Right of Superiors over their Inferiors, yet so is not Resistance; t.n.M* since every one knows that Resistance is exercised between Equals, as I have already proved Sons are to their Fathers, in- all the Rights of Life and Self

G preservation;

preservation; and consequently to judge when their Lives and Estates are unjustly invaded.

M. I must confess I am in a great doubt which will most conduce to that great Law you mention (which I grant to be the Sum of all the Laws of Nature) viz..' of preserving or prosecuting the common Good of Mankind; that Fathers should have an absolute irresistible Power over the Lives and Fortunes' of their Children, let them use it how they will ; or else that Children should have a Right to resist them, in some cases, when they go about to take away either of them without any just Cause : For tho' I own, that (if the former Principle be true) Parents may be sometimes tempted to take away their Children's Lives or Estates without any just Cause; so on the other side, if Children shall assume such a Power to themselves of judging when their Fathers do thus go about to invade either their Lives or Estates, it will (I doubt) lay a Foundation for horrid Confusions and Divisions in Families; since, if Children are under a constant Subjection to their Fathers, they ought then to be absolutely subject to them in the State of Nature, and therefore ought never to be resisted: For if all Fathers, and Masters of Families, are trusted by God with an absolute Power of Life and Death over the Wife, Children, and Servants of the Family, as your self cannot deny; then no Resistance of this absolute Power can subsist with the Peace and Tranquility of that Family, without the Diminution or total Destruction of that absolute Power, with which they are entrusted.

And tho' I admit that Parents ought neither to use nor sell their Children for Slaves, nor to take away either their Lives or Goods, without great and sufficient Cause; yet of these Causes Fathers, in the State of Nature, must be the only and uncontroulable Judges: Since, if Children (whom I still consider as Subjects, tho* not as Slaves, in this State, as long as they continue Members of their Fathers Family) should once have a Right to resist, when they thought their Lives or Estates^ were unjustly invaded; they might also oftentimes, through Undutifulnese or false' Suggestions, pretend or suppose that their Fathers were mad, drunk, or in a Passion, and went about to take away their Lives, when really they intend no such thing, but only to give them due Correction : Which would give Children an unnatural Power of resisting, or perhaps of killing their Fathers, upon false Surmises or flight Occasions.

And as this would, introduce great Mischief and Cor fusion in private Families, so would it likewise prove a Foundation of Rebellion against all Civil Powers whatsoever,- if Subjects, who are the fame thing in a Kingdom that Children are in a Family (in the State of Nature) should take upon them to resist their Prince whenever they think he goeth about to invade either their Lives or Fortunes, which would likewise serve to justify all the most horrid Rebellions in the World; since all Rebels whatsoever may or do pretend, that their Lives, Liberties and Fortunes are unjustly invaded, when indeed they are not; and likewise upon the least Hardship or Injustice in this kind inflicted upon any private Subject, either by the Prince or his Ministers (which Abuses and Violences do often happen even under the best Governments) any such private Person, who shall think himself thus injured, may upon this Principle take up Arms, and endeavour to right or defend himself against such Violence; by which means, under pretence of securing a few Men in their Lives or Estates, whole Kingdoms (if such Persons can find Followers enough) may be cast into all the Mischiefs and Confusions of a Civil War, till the Prince and Government be quite destroyed.

F. I must confess, the Arguments you now bring are the best you have yet produced, since they are drawn from that great and certain Law of procuring the common Good and Peace of Mankind. But I hope I shall make it plain to you, that no such terrible Consequences will follow from the Principles I nave already laid down; and therefore I must first take notice, that you have in your Answer confounded two Powers together, which ought to be distinguished in the State of Nature, viz,, the Power which Fathers, as Masters or Heads of Families, may exercise over the Lives of their Children or Servants, whilst they remain Members of their Family, and that Reverence and Duty which Children must always owe their Fathers as long as they live, even after they become Fathers or Masters of Families of their own. In the first State, I have already allowed, that such Fathers, as Masters of Families, may lawfully exercise a far greater Power over their Children, whilst they are Members of their Family, than they can when i

they are separated from it, yet is not this Power in all Cafes absolute or irresistible, as I have already proved; and therefore I do in the first place restrain this Right of self defence only to such Cases where a Father would take away a Son's Life in a fit of Drunkenness, Madness, or sudden Passion, without any crime committed, or just cause given: Which I also limit to a bare self defence, without injuring or taking away the Life of the Father if it can possibly be avoided; and in this Cafe, if the Son, who is like to suffer this violence, may not judge when his Life is really in danger to be destroyed, because he may pretend so when really it is not. This is no just reason to overthrow so great a Right as self preservation; since if this were a sufficient Objection, it would have the same force against all self defence whatsoever: For it doth often happen that wicked and unreasonable Men will pretend that they were forced to take away the Lives of others, only to preserve their own, when indeed it was altogether false and needless, and they only killed them to satisfy their own Malice or Passion. And therefore, as there is no reason that the abuse of this natural Right should be used as an Argument against the use of all self defence, by any Man whatsoever ; so likewise neither ought the like abuse thereof by some wicked Children to be brought as an Argument against its being made use of at ah* by others, who are never so unjustly assaulted, and in danger of their Lives from their Fathers violence. If the first Principle be true, (on which this is founded) that a Son may exercise this Right of self defence in such Cases, without any intrenchment upon his Father's Paternal Authority, or that Filial duty and respect which he must always; owe him whenever he returns to himself, and will, behave himself towards him as becomes a Father, and not like an Enemy or Cut-throat. .j.i .<

And as for the Quarrels and Confusions, which you alledge may happen in Families between Fathers and Children, in case such a liberty should be allowed, those inconveniences will prove very inconsiderable, if you please to take Notice: That, first, I do not allow this Right of Resistance to be exercised by any Children before they attain to years of discretion. Secondly, that after they have attained to these Years, no Resistance ought to be made against a Father, whilst they remain part of their Father's Family, but only in defence of their own, their Mothers, Wives, and Children's Lives; since I grant> that a Son as long as he continues a Member of his Father's Family, ought to bestow all his own labour for his Father's profit, and cannot acquire any Property either in Lands or Goods without his Father's consent: And since you conceive this' Right of self defence, if allowed to Children, would be the cause of so great mischiefs in Families, if Children should have any Right to judge when their Fathers abused their Powei over them; let us a little consider on which side this abuse is most likely to happen; for if you please but to look into the World, and survey the Nature os Fathers and Children, and set the faults of the one against the other, you will find, that (as I confess) it is the Nature of many Children to contradict and disobey their Fathers Commands, and that most young People hate restraint*, and love too much liberty, and may oftentimes think their Fathers too harm or severe to them, when they really are not; yet doth such false Surmises and disobedient Actions, seldom end, either in absolute Resistance, or taking away their Fathers Lives by force; or if they do so, it is really done for their own defence, or whilst they are assaulted by them in their own Lives, or those of their Children; but is commonly acted privately, to satisfy their own revenge or malice, which I hold to, be utterly unlawful: So likewise let us consider on the other side, those P- n< temptations that Fathers lie under of injuring their Children!, or taking away?" **' their Lives, or using them like Slaves, withoat any just Cause; you'll find that they, by reason of their Age, natural Temper or Infirmities, may be easily transported to that degree of Passion, that not considering the Follies of Youth, they may oftentimes, in their Passion, either beat them so cruelly, as utterly to disable or maim them, or else take away their Lives for little or no Cause. And besides, Fathers being often covetous and ill natured, (which are the Vices of old Age) may (where there is no Power over them to restrain them from it) either keep, them as Slaves themselves, or else sell them to others for that purpose, (as. I have already given you an Example of the Negroes in Africa) and which of these two inconveniences are most likely to happen between Children and Parents, in the State of Nature, I ihould leave to any indifferent Man to judge between

G 2 us.



{44}

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 mould be allowed these Rights (I have already laid down)' of asserting their natural Liberty from Slavery; and defending their LiveSj and those of their Wives and Children, from the unjust Violence of their Fathers, than that they should be left wholly at their Disposal to be maimed, killed or ruined, whenever their Covetousness, Passion or Malice may prompt them to it: Since 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 cautiously, and to behave themselves with greater Tenderness and Moderation towards them. :.

So that to conclude: I utterly deny that these Principles, I have here laid down, do at all tend to countenance Rebellion, or railing 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 Wise 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 Father's Rage or Violence; since I grant no particular Subject, on his own private Account, can contradict or resist the Supream Power of the lawful 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 itself, 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 Hufband and Father, unless it were that they might thereby hinder him from committing Murder, by defending their Son or Brother's Life, when thus violently and without cause assaulted; and if it should sometimes happen otherwise, yet this would be a much less mischief, than that, out of this sear, 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 Father's Families, it is of a much larger extent, since they may then not only defend their own Lives, but also those of their Wives, Children, and their Estates, against their Father's unjust violence. Though I do here likewise restrain this self defence only to cases of actual Invasion or Assault of such Fathers upon the Lives and Estates of their 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 obliged to each other; yet do I by no means allow the fame privilege 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, tho' 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, though I should be very undutiful and ungrateful too, if upon his becoming my Enemy, though without any just cause, I should go about to return his injuries in the fame kind; yet were I not therefore obliged to give up that Life and Estate he had before bestowed upon me, whenever 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, then cease to be under their Fathers Subjection as they were before, though I confess they are

always always to honour and reverence him according to God's command in all Cafes, wfyen 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 Cafes you have put, since I fee it is to little purpose to argue longer with you about itbut this much I think is still true, that all Supream Powers whatever cannot without Rebellion and absolute Dissolution of the Government be resisted 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 ^llow the Power of Fathers or Masters of Families to be any more then Oeconomical, and not Civil Power; and Thave already '{hewed 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 Qivil Powers in some Cafes, 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 difpatch'd this, so that I would rather, if you any fresh Objections to make, that you would now do it, because it groweth late.

M. I must confess ingenuously, your Arguments have much staggered me, since ^ fee great inconveniences may happen on either side. For if the Father or Master may be the sole Judge, 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 Cafe, tncjib' "Evils may often happen, which I have already alledged. And therefore pray pardon the, if I am not too hasty, in altering my Opinion in this Point, without better consideration. But methinks you have not yet fully answered one of my main Arguments, to prove the Power of Life arid Death to proceed from God alone, and'therefore must have been conferred at first onAdam, since no Man hath a Power over his own Life, (as I said before} arid therefore cannot have it <j^et'that of others. ,

"F. 1:1 thought' I had already as good as answered this doughty Objection,' wfteh I had yielded to you, that neither private Men, nor Masters of Families, It&e" any Right to defend their own. Lives, much less to take away those of others; but as it is granted them by God in the Law of Nature, in order to the procuring the great end of it, viz,, the happiness and propagation of Mankinds which I own could not, in this lapsed and depraved State of Nature we now are' in, long subsist without such a Power. Yet I think I have already sufficiently proved, that we have no need to recur to I know not what Divine Charter granted by God to Adam, or Noah, and from them derived to all Civil Magistrates, that ever have been or shall be in the World, the Consequence of which would be, that no Sentence of Death cpuld be justly given against any Man, but in such Kingdoms or Commonwealths, who own this Authority as conferred on them by God in Adam or Noah, from which they must derive their Title to it. TSfow I desire you would shew me how many Kingdoms or Commonwealths there are in the World, who ever heard of, much less owned this Divine Charter, this fine Notion, yea scarce reaching farther than some few Divines and high Royalists of our own Island.

'But be it as it will, the Antecedent or first Proposition is not true, that no Man in any case whatsoever hath Power over his own Life, and therefore neither is your Consequence; for I suppose, that for the same end for which the Civil Powers may take away another Man's Life, viz,, in order to the greater good of Mankind, (of which my Religion or Country is a part) I am likewise Master of my own, and may lay it down or expose it, when I think it can conduce to a greater good than my single Life can amount to. And therefore, the Example ofCvdrm the Athenian King is highly celebrated by all ancient Authors, and is not condemned by any Christian Writer that I know of, for exposing himself to certain Death to gain his Citizens the Victory, the loss of •which would have been the rain of that State. And in the first Book of Maccabees, Chap. 6. 43. (which though it be not Canonical Scripture, yet is allowed to be read in our Churches, as containing Examples of good Manners) you may read that Elea&er, the younger Brother of Judas Maccabeus, is there highly commended for his Valour in killing the Elephant, on which the supposed King

1 tj Antiochui Antiochus was mounted, that he might thereby destroy him likewise, though he might be assured of his own Death, by the Elephants falling upon him: And the Zeal for the Christian Religion amongst the Primitive Christians was so great, that we may read in TertuSian, and divers Ecclesiastical Historians, of whole Troops of Martyrs, who, though unaccused, yet offered up their Lives at the Heathen Tribunals to a voluntary Martyrdom. And farther, Eusebius himself doth not condemn, but rather commends some Primitive Christians, that being like to be taken by their Heathen Persecutors, cast themselves down headlong from the top of their Houses, esteeming (as he there tells us) a certain Death as an advantage, because they thereby avoided the crueltyand malice of their Persecutors. I could likewise give you (if it were not too tedious) several other Examples of Ancient Martyrs, who have given up themselves to certain Death, to save the Lives of some of their Friends, or else of Christian Bishops, whom they lookt upon as more useful to the Church than themselves, and which St.Paul himself does likewise suppose to be Lawful, when he tells the Romans, That though scarce'lyfor a righteousMan would one die; yet per adventure for a good Man some would even dare to die, that is, a Man highly beneficial to others. And the fame Apostle, in the last Chapter of this Epistle, returns thanks to PrifciUa andAquila, not only on his own behalf, but also for all the Churches of the Gentiles, because they had for his Lifelaid down their own Necks; that is, hazarded their Lives to save his, and where ever they might have thus exposed them, surely they might have lost them too. And therefore I think, I may with reason affirm, that in most Cases, where a Prince or Commonwealth may command a Man to expose his Life to certain Destruction for the publick good of his Religion or Country, he hath Power likewise to do it of his own accord, without any such command, the Obligation proceeding not only from the Orders of his Superior, but from that Zeal and Affection, which by the Laws of God and Nature he ought to have for h)s Religion and Country, even beyond the preservation os his own Life.

M. Well, I confess, that this that you have now said, carries some colour of reason with it, and is more than I had considered before. But pray resolve, me one difficulty more, which still lies upon my Mind. By what Authority, less than a Divine Commission from God himself revealed in Scripture, do Supream Powers take upon them to make Laws? And that under no less Penalty than Death itself, against such Offences, as by the Laws of Nature do no ways deserve Death, such as Theft, Counterfeiting the publick Coin, with divers other Offences, needless here to be reckoned up. And if a Father (as you will not allow him) hath no Right over the Lives or Persons of his Wife and Children, I cannot see how a Master of a separate Family can have any such Power, more than his Wife, or any other of the Family; and the Scripture seems to countenance this Power of punishing for Murder, to be in any that will take it upon them; and therefore you fee Cain said, whoever meets me, wiU flay me.And God tells Noah, whoever Jheddeth Man's Blood, by Man Jhatt his Blood be /bed, without restraining it to ariy Man particularly who is to do it.

F. This Objection is easily answered, if you please to consider, what you yourself did a good while since urge to me, that God endowed Adam with so much Authority, as should enable him' to govern his own Family and Children as long as he lived; which I readily granted you, and I only differed in the manner of its derivation, you affirming it to proceed from a Divine Charter or Grant by Revelation conferred upon him by God; and I maintaining, that both he, and every other Master of a separate Family, derive it only from God's natural, and not revealed Law, which if it be well proved, such Masters of Families, as also all Civil Powers (whom I suppose to be endued with the Power of all such Masters of Families or Freemen taken together) may for the fame end,(viz..) the good Government and Peace of their Families and Commonwealths, make Laws under no less a Penalty than Death it self, against such Offences as by the Law of Nature do not deserve it; since without such a Power (the wickedness of Man being come to this height it is) no Family or Commonwealth could be long preserved in Peace or Safety. And therefore, I suppose you will not affirm, but that such a Master of a Family may very well inflict any Punishment less than Death for such Offences, which if they find too gentle to amend those Crimes, they may likewise for the same reason increase the Punishments ordained for it. And therefore I yield, that tho* These doth not in its own Nature deserve Death, yet if the Master of such a separate Family shall find his Children or Serv ants to be so addicted to this Vice, as not to be amended by any less Punishments than Death, he may, for the quiet of his Family, make a general Law, that whosoever for the future shall commit Theft, shall suffer Death; and I doubt not but such a Law, when promulged, may belawsiolly executed; since this Master of a Family is intrusted by God with the sole Power of judging, not only what are Crimes, but also what are fit Punishments for them, since both are alike necessary for the happiness and preservation of the Family. And I so far agree with you, that such Masters of Families have as much Power ever the Lives'of their Children andServants, as the most abjolute Monarch* have over their Suhjetls, that is, for their common good, and no farther. And upon the fame Principles do all Kings and Commonwealths inflict capital Punishments for the Transgression of all siach Laws, as do any way entrench upon the common Interest and Safety of their People; and upon this ground, they may justly inflict no less Punishments than Death, for Coining of false Money, which is but a soct of Theft from the publick Treasure of the Commonwealth. And the same may be said for all capital Punishments ordained against other Ossences pf the fame Nature. ^ -;\ ■■, •

M. If Fathers or Masters of Families are endued by God, (as you your self Bow own) not only with this Power of Life and Death, for enormous Crimes against the Laws of Nature, but also to make new Laws, or ordain what Punishments they please for such Offences, as they shall judge destructive to the quiet and happiness of their Families, I fee no difference (notwithstanding what F. P. you have hitherto said- to the contrary) between Oeconomical and Civil Power. SectFor if we compare the natural Rights of a Father or Master with those of a King or Monarch, we shall find them all one without any difference at all, but only in the latitude or extent of them. For as the Father or Master over one Family in the State of Nature; so a King, as a Father or Master over many Families, extends his care to preserve, feed, cloath, instruct, and defend the whole ■Commonwealth; his War, his Peace, his Courts of Justice, and all his Acts of Sovereignty, tend only to preserve and distribute to every Subordinate, and Inferior . Father and his Children, their Rights and Privileges. Hath a Monarch Power to make new Laws, and appoint what Punishments he will to enforce their Observation? So also hath a Father of a Family. Hath an absolute Prince Power to command or dispose of the Goods and Estates of his Subjects, for their common Quiet and Security? So also hath a Father or Master of a Family. So that all the Duties of a King are summed up in this universal Fatherly care of his People; and if the Sovereignty be the-fame, I cannot see any Reason, why the Rights and Prerogatives of it should not be so too. And therefore, if Nonresistance against their Authority be an unseparable Prerogative of Sovereign Power; then if a Father or Master of a Family be endued with it, he ought no more to be resisted, than the most absolute Monarch.

F. I perceive your Head is very full of this Notion of the Identity of Natural and Civil Power, or else you woujd never insist so long upon it as you do, after what I have proved to the contrary. And therefore, since I see you look upon this as your topping Argument; ,1 shall do my endeavour to shew you more .plainly the difference between them.. For though I grant, that such Fathers or -Masters of Families, (as we here treat of) are endued by God with divers JPowers., which are analogous, or perhaps the fame wish those of a King or .Monarch, that is, of defending their Families, as far as they are able, from Foreign force, and Domestick injuries, and of revenging and punishing all Ossences that may ,prove prejudicial or destructive to the peace and happiness of their Families; yet doth it not therefore follow, that the Government of private Fajnilies and Kingdoms are all one, since they differ very much, not only in their Institution, but also in their End. For first, the Fatherly Power by the Law of •Nature is ordained only for the Generation and Education of the Children, till .they come to be grown up; and his Authority, as a Father, is ordained by God only for those ends; and therefore this Relationiof. a Father is so .inherent in him, .that it can never be parted with, or assigned, over to any other, so as to .make the Child or Son so assigned,, to .owe. JGhte /ame duty to him, as he did .to his Father. '.< ,:j . .; . -;

"there is also, besides the Power of a Father, that of a Master or Head of a Family over his Children and Servants, whilst they continue Members or Subjects of it, which Power I grant may be assigned, or made over to one, or more Persons, whenever such Master shall think fit to institute a Kingdom or Com*monwealth: Yet, as Dr.Sanderson very well observes, this Power of a Master differs very much from that of the Civil Powers of a Kingdom or Commonwealth, as well in the Object, as End of this Power. For first, the Power of a Father is only over one single Family; whereas that of a Commonwealth is over divers Families, united under one Civil Head-Secondly, In respect of the End, the Power of the Master is chiefly ordained for his own Interest and advantage; but that of the Civil Power chiefly respects the good of the whole People or Community. Lastly, the Power of the Master of the Family is only for the maintaining his own natural Property in those things which he hath acquired in the State of Nature; whereas one great End of Civil Government, is to introduce and establish Civil Property in things, according to the Laws of the Commonwealth, and also to maintain it when so constituted. To conclude; Fathers beget their Children, and Masters acquire to themselves Slaves and Servants, but it is from the consent ofseveral Fathers or Masters of separate Families, that / any fort of Civil Government commenced at first; so thatthe People at first made Kings, and not Kings the People: And further, it is the duty of Fathers and Masters to provide for their Children and Servants, but the People ought to provide fer their Kings, not only for their Necessities, but for their Magnificence and Grandeur; so that the Power of Fathers and Masters is Natural, whereas that of Kings and Republicks is Political and Artificial, as proceeding from Compacts or the Consents of divers Heads of Families or other Free-men. And as Kingdoms and Families differ in the manner of their Institution, so do they likewise in their Ends, which is of a far larger extent in the latter, than in the former; the main design of instituting Kingdoms and Commonwealths, being not only to defend their Subjects from such injuries or violence that they may do each other; but chiefly, by their united Forces, to guard them from the violence and invasion of Foreign Enemies.

For though I grant, it may sometimes happen, that a Family may consist of so great a number of Children, Servants or Slaves, as may make a little Army, such as Abrahams was, when he made War against the four Kings; yet is this purely accidental, and not at all essential to the being of a Family, which is as perfect in all its constituted parts, if it consists of three or four Persons, as of three or four hundred. Whereas a Kingdom or Commonwealth cannot subsist, unless it can either by its own Power, or united Forces, defend its Members from Foreign force and invasions: So also in private Families, in the State of Nature, there can be no Property acquired in Lands or Goods by any Member of it, without the Master's express will or permission. But in all Civil Governments, the very institution and preservation of Civil Property was one of its chiefest Ends, which may easily be proved by experience: Since in all Nations, where there is any Property either in Lands or Goods, there is a necessity of some Civil Government to maintain it. Whereas in divers parts of Africa and America, where there is no distinct Property in Land, and where there are no other Riches, than every Man's small Cottage and Garden, with their Hunting and Fishing Instruments, there is no need of any Common or Civil Power over them, higher than that of Masters or Fathers of Families, who own no Superiority among themselves, unless it be when they go to War, and then they chuse out of their own Numbers, for their Captains or Leaders, those whom they know to be stoutest and most experienced, whose Power determines as soon as the War ceases.

But to make an end of this long Discourse, suppose I should grant all you can desire, that Oeconomical and Civil Government do not differ in kind, but in largeness or extent; yet will it not follow, that therefore it must be in all Cases irresistible, since I think I am able to prove, that no Power whatever (except that of God himself) can be endued with this Prerogative, if once it goes about to frustrate, and destroy all the main Ends of Government,(viz,.) the happiness and safety of the Subjects, either by downright destroying of them, or else by reducing them to a condition of Slavery and Misery. But to let you see, I would deal fairly with you, I will discourse this Point of Adam sSove

* reignty


{49}
no farther, but will at present take it as the Lawyers fay, de lene ejse, or for suated ; -and L desire you would shew me in the next place, when Adam died, by what Law^ either Divine or Natural, Cam or Seth (chuse which you will) COdhVirbmraand oVer all the rectos" his Brethren,' and their Descendants- And then again, if you could do this, what benefit this Doctrine would yield to all fences and -States -at this day, or how you intend to deduce a Title for them, from Adam or Noah, or any of their Sons, to their respective Kingdoms, and consequently to an absolute Subjection of their Subjects, without which all your Hypothesis willigfeiry siodi»|&;|^* *? i |'c * i f I 1 r I  M. U*nuft ietmji you thWfcSfr-Sir, fqrv^ur> candid ■dealing, .and for the great

pains you have taken to enlighten my Understanding in this important Question. And though I doubt, you have laid down Principles not so suitable to God's Will revealed in the Holy Scripture, yet I will not impute it to any want of sincerity

in yourself, who, I hope, are satisfied of the Truth of what you have maintained; so on the other life, I 'jcfesire you not to take jt ill^ if I canrtot leave my own Opinion, which*rhave always Hitherto lobRtupdn, as most suitable to the Doctrine of the Church of England, to the Practice of the Primitive Church, and to the Laws of the Land, and must continue therein, till I am convinced I am stf^an Erfdr.1 BltV since I1 defire'to have anirtnex^Conversation with you upon th^,|npc«jMiN Subje^)prajvsoilet ,me IpoV vhesti^ jhall ij\*et.kgain,. that I may* prove to you from \he Holy Scripture, as well as those Authors J have perused, that there is a -Divine.Right dfXBlm -institutei^if GfoJ'for theSucfejfion of Kingdoms, which cannot without a kind of" Sacrilege, or the highest Injustice, be taken away from the Right Heir.

fl 1 kindly accept youir proffer, and, if you please, shall discourse this important Question with you to Morrow in the Evening, if your Occasions will give you lea vet ' • '. no 1 •'• '016 '' r'V '* !.*

;fljf.. I expect yon between seven and eight, and in the mean time am your Ser-.



Bibliotheca politica


DIALOGUE II.

Whether there can he made out from the No* \ iuraly Or Revealed Law of God, any Suc•y cejswn toCrowns by Divine Right? »• i*j i"}

O U ate, I see, Sir, a punctual Man to your Hour: Pray 2S»^®^^I*' do me the favour tq 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 j 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. As for Commonwealths, which I must own to be of meer Humane Invention ,• tho'1 will not fay that they arc absolutely unlawful, yet I think they are not the Powers ordained by God in Scripture.

F. Well, Sir, we will discourse farther os that anon; and therefore I do assure you, I do not desire any more or" 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 arc nowT. P. Ch. i. the Fathers of their People, since you'll fay Experience shews the contrary. It 4 8. is true all Kings are not now the natural Parents of tliciij 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 Jurisdictions 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, thbugh it might be Ibii. questioned. But pray, who were those Heirs? many, or but one Person?

M. 1 suppose you will also grant me at presenr, 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 Grand-mother Eve * For if you mean by it one that first had had Children' she must come in as next Heir, to Adam by these Word*. {'

AT No, Sir, you altogether misapprehend me, I mean the eldest Son dt Adam; Eve was his Wise, and could have nothing to do to inherit in an Hereditary Monarchy as this was.

F. I beg your pardon, Sir, if I misunderstood you, but you must thank the Loosoess 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 of this Divine Power of Adam : But this I am sere of, Parents can never signifie Heirs Male or Female, much less a Child who may sometimes (according to your Hypothesis) happen to be Heir. But since I am gotten into this Mistake, I shall not leave my hold, but shall make bold a little,to argue our great Grand-mother's Title; for indeed I cannot, see any reason why her eldest Son (for Example) mould r have any right to govern his Mother, and all his Brothers and Sisters, whilst see was alive. .■ ,. .; "i , >-■ ■

For first, if your Argument from Generation must be good, that every Man that is born, becomes a Subject to him that begets him, this Argument will serve for Eve, as well as Adam; since (as I have already proved) the Mother hath as great (if not a greater) seare in the Generation of the Children, than the Father: Or, secondly, if you insist upon the Divine Grant, you so much talked os last time, of Adam's Dominion over the Creatures, in which his Children were; included j_ I then proved to you, that this Grant was made as well to Eve as Adam; and consequently, that either see must, have thereby an equal right with him, or at seast after his Decease, to this Dominion, as a Husband and Wife, when joint Purchasers have to an Estate at Common Law. And lastly, if the/Qommandment of, Honour thy Father and thy Mother, were then in force by the Law of Nature, or by express Command from God) and that by Honouring, obeying must be meant (as most Commentators agree) then it will follow, that after Adams Decease, all Eve's Sons and Descendants, though never so remote* were tp have obeyed, or been subject to her, and not to her eldest Son, unless you can ftew me that the Salique Law, against the Succession of Women, was made by Adam the first Monarch, which, I suppose, you will not undertake to prove*. . .. ;_.

M. I must confess I did not consider this Difficulty; for indeed it might never have happened, since £w might have died before Adam; or if see did outlive hiin (which is uncertain) yet see was then very old, and consequently (besides' the natural weakness of her Sex) uncapable or unfit for Government, and so might very well leaveittoSeth; since Cain, the eldest, had by the Murder of his Brother, and his flying away into another Country, forfeited his Birth-right, and made himself uncapable of the Succession.

F. §p then here is a Forfeiture, and an Abdication of this Divine Right of Succession in the very first Descent; whereas indeed I supposed, that this Divine, Right had been at least as unforfeitable as the Crown of England; the yery^ Descent of which, as our Lawyers tell us, purges all Defects in the next Heir,^ though he had murdered his Father and elder, Brother too. But I only shew, you the Absurdity of this Notion, and seall not longer insist upon it j therefore pray proceed. _ ■. \ , ,

M. I can't tell what might, have been said, if Cam had come to claim his Birth-right: But this is certain, that he neither did, or could come to do it, B- psince God condemned him to live in a strange Country far from his Brethren ; c z' Se""9' and we read, That Cain -went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land Gen. 4. 16, of Nod, on the East of Eden; and he built a City, and called tlx Name of it Enoch, 17. after the Name of hisSon Enoch. And there are four Descents set down immediately of his Family, which could be no other than the Princes of that City of Cains Race. So that you see, even in Cains Line, the Principality descended to the eldest Soh.: -  ' \  .

F. I confess Cain's Children and Grand-children are particularly set down in Scripture; but that they were Princes or Monarchs over their Posterity,or which way this City was governed after Cains Death, whether by one, or by all the Sons of Cain, is no where mentioned: But I see some Men can find even absolute Monarchy in a Text, where the Scripture mentions no such thing; and no wonder, for the Akhymists hav;e found .out likewise the Invention of their Elixir* or Philosophers Stone, in such Texts as you and I can see no such thing. But to be more serious: n

[ocr errors][merged small]

That a Father sliould be Lord over his Children and Posterity, I confess there may be some colour of Reason, though none cogent enough to make it out: But that an elder Brother hath any Natural or Divine Right to be Lord over all the rest of his Brethren, I can find no ground for in Reason, even upon your own Principles; for if every Man by his Birth becomes the Subject of him that begets him, it will neceslarily follow, that a Man by his Birth cannot become a Subject to his Brother, who (sure) did not beget him.

Therefore, I suppose, you will still insist upon that place in the fourth of Genesis, which you cited at our last Meeting, when God told Cain, speaking (as you suppose) of his Brother Abel, His iefire Jball be subjeU untothee, and thou Jhalt rule wer him. From which Words I then told you, I thought an absolute Subjection of Abel,and of all younger Brothers whatsoever, could not reasonably be inferred: For you may remember I sliewed you, that this Promise by God to Cain, concerning Abel, might be only personal, and ;relate to Abel ov&y, and not to the rest of his Brethren, much less all other younger Brothers, that sliould be in the World. And in the next Place, this Ruling might only have been by Ad-4 vice and Persuasion, and not by any Authority or Right of commanding hmr. So that if this be the Place (as I suppose it is) from whence you would deduce your Divine Right of elder Brothers being Monarchs over the younger in all Hereditary Monarchies, I must freely tell you, I think it a very bold Undertaking to found a Divine Right upon such doubtful Expression*;, as these of God to Cain. s i > ■'•>' • J

M. I confess, I was now about again to urge this Place to you j for as Lwas* not then well satisfied with your Explanation of ie, which: you now again repeat, so upon second Thoughts I am much more unsatisfied with your Paraphrase

4. upon them. For you seem to me plainly to pervert the Sense of the Words, and make them signifie just nothing. For sure when God spake the same Words to Eve concerning Adam, as he did to Cain concerning Abel,can you conceive they were meant personally to Eve only, and concerned no other Wife that sliould be after her? Or can you assign any Reason why these Words should be rather meant personally in the -last; and not in the first case? unless you will do it out of pure love to Anarchy and Confusion.- And if you fay these Words do not signifie any despotick Power, but a ruling or governing by fair means or Persuasion, this seemeth meer trifling with • God's Word, who fays expresly, Thy Brother s desire Jball be subject to thee, that-is, (fay you) as far as he thinks fit; and thou /halt rule over him, that is, if thou hast the knack to wheedle or per

7,suade him. Would not this have been a mighty Matter for God Almighty to have appeared to Cain about, and an excellent Argument to comfort him, and to appease his Wrath against his Brother? So tharit seems apparent, by this Law given by God to Cain and Abel, that this Regal and Paternal Authority was not to die with him, nor to be equally divided amongst all his Children at his Death; or that from thenceforth no-Man should have a Right, by Birth, of commanding another; for this Command to Abel-could not be supposed to take Place in the Life ofAdam, for then Adam was Lord over all his Children, and so none of them without his'Permission could rule over the rest ; and if it were otherwise by Adams Appointment, then Adam was the Sovereign still, and the Son or Grandson, so exercising this Power, was but his Deputy: But after Ada?n's Decease, then it became a real Sovereignty in his eldest Son, as having none butGod-superiour to it. •• '• ''

R I hope you will judge more charitably of me, than to believe that the Sense that I have put upon these Words, though different froni yours, is out1 of any love of Anarchy or Confusion, much less out of any design to1 pervert dr wrest this place of Scripture: And if I sliould be so severe as you are, perhaps I might with more reason lay this Charge at your Door. For, in the first place, I am not satisfied with your Arguments that these Words could not be* meant personally, or concerning Abel only; because the same Words-, when spoken of Eve, do likewise concern her Posterity ; and therefore, when spoken concerning Abel,they must likewise relate to all younger Brothers in Hereditary Monarchies; which consequence I may with very good- reason deny, for whatsoever Subjection may be due, by vertue of the like Words, from Eve and her Posterity, to Adam and all other Husbands, is to be supposed to have been enjoined, because all Women are descended from Eve, and so. were represented by her as their first


Parent. Thus St. Paul supposes all Men to be in a State of Sin and Death, as represented by Adam, their Ancestor,by -whose Disobedience all have finned. But no Row, 5. n, Man will affirm, that all the elder Brothers or Monarchs in the World were re^ presented by Cain, and all younger Brothers by Abel; no Man ar this day being (as appears in Scripture) descended from either of them: And I cannot but take notice, that the Better to strengthen your Notion, you again foist in out of the Margin of our English Bible, His Desire JhaU be subjectifaheei whereas in the Hebrew it is no more than, xHt?,'or its DesirefiaS be to thee.

Arid that the Words rule over are to be interpreted according to the Subject, and do not always mean a rulingby force, or command, appears by the fame Hebrew Words made Use of in .the.'first' of Genesis, concerning themo great Lights 'that God Ver. 17,18. set in the Firmament, to give Light' Us on she Earth, to rule over the Dayand over the Night; which cannot signify a ruling by force or command, but only by a natural influence or preheminence of the Sun and Moon above the Stars or Planets. And tho!y6u are pleased to ridicdle this Explanation of mine, yet I think l may with as much reason tre^t yours with the like Contempt- For since your self grant, that this Power of Cam Over AM'was not to; commence tift after the Death of Adam, and that this.Murder of Abet was committed above'a hundred Years after Adam's Creation/ appears by the time of the Birth ot' Seth (who was born some time as- Ger.. 5. %. i£$ Jj&fs Dea^h). would Jripfc this "thing .'HaVe beest1a:mighty Comfort to Cain, •when he was iH his dogged^ Humour; if God had bid him cheat*"dp"; for the time fliDuld come, that, if hebe'haved himself"well, about eight hundred Years hence, whfcntu*s Father7 Adam should die, he should then lord it over his Brother, and be rtvenged 6f hiriifor the Affront he had received in having his Sacrifice preferred before his own? So that this Interpretation of yours is so absurd, that I do much rather agree with divers learned Commentators, as well Jews as Christians, who make'jiot only a quite different Interpretati6n, but also a different Version of these Wotds from the Hebrew Text : And if you have the Learned JesuitMenochim's Notes upon the Bible, I pray let me fee them. Here pray observe what he fays upon this place':' Sedsub te erif appetitus, ejni In Hebrao & apud LXX est, Ad te conVersio'pus. V Sinfusjfl'■:Peccatum ejufqueappetitus & concupisentia te foUicitabit ad confenfum ; fed itaf.'uf 'dd tecortverti^ & a te confenfum petere &impetraie debeat. Id noster interpret adfenfu'm'dare vert it, Sub te er it appetitm ejm. By all which he means no more7 than that Sin should tempt or sollicit him to offend, but that he should rule dver1 it, that is, had a Power so to do, if he would use it as he ought. So likewise Mr. Ainfworth upon this £lace (as you may fee inPool'sCriticks) puts a like Sense upon the.following Words, referring the whole Sentence to the Sin, in these Words:Peccatum ponitur pro pœna peccatV y'juxtaHibrxos ita accipitur, Gen. 19. 15. LeV. io. 2. 1 Reg. j- p. SeJtfus'est:Propete punitio piccati, & ad te desiderium tjm; i. e. cupit te pœna peccati tui, ut folet post peccatum admiffum ;fedtu, si vis, dominaberis iHi, i. e. potes declinare peccatum. Q. d. Pœna hacsicut' sanis est, qui ad ostium cubat,cupiens ingredi ; fed in potefl/ife'Domini ejt' yel claudere ostium ne irigrediatur, vel aperire ut iniret, Prcbattcrhie fens us i. Prim membrum de pramio loquitur, reportabis fcil.prar ntiutft; ergo poster/ut loquitur ak pœna,peccatum janb'merat ipsi, punitio vero nondum, fed ad fores erat. So that, according to these learned' Commentators, this Place is ^6"be thus turned out of Hebrew': Jf thou dost not roeH, Sin Heth at the door, and toimf is. its desire; but thou ttiam or fkalt nits'over it. Which seems to me to be a much more' genuine' and rational'jntcrpretationlthan thar qf our Englijl ot Latin Bibles. • So that I thfntf I'may justly except against the Authority of so doubtful and obscure a Place, as sufficient to, found your Monarchical Power of elder Brothers in the Stare of Nature. .its.:

J; M' Well, Shy since yon are no better1 satisfied with this Testimony out of Genesis, fat the Divine Right of .Primogeniture, I will no longer insist, upon it; tho' I am not yet cdrfviijced, but' that my Interpretation of this Place is truer than yonrs, 6nC<lrhave likewise great* Authorities on my side, both antient and modern, bcfieiisour common Versions* to authorize it; and therefore since I have many other Examples out of Scripture of this kind; I shall the less insist upon it, but will now proved to the Examples tsefore the Flood. First therefore, it seems highly probable,' if not ''certain,' that Whatever Civil Government there wis in the World before that Period of Time (as it is very rational to believe there necessarily must be some in so' fong' a Space as neat 20b Years) it was chiefly adrh'inistred by those first Patriarchs, whose Names you'll find particularly recited in the fifth of Genesis: "r . And


{54}

B.P.P. $ 51. And sure that long Chain we there have of them, by whose Lives the Chronology of the World is only reckoned 'till the Flood, were in their several Generations considerable Persons, nay Princes over their own Families, which'.could not but be very numerous: And indeed the very counting the Age of the Works by the Years of their Lives, is to me an Argument, that they were no obscure, unregarded Men, but that they were either Monarchs or Princes of all Mankind, or at least over that part of the World in which they lived: And Jcsepbtp is likewise of my Opinion, in the first Book of the- Jewish Antiquities, where (as you may fee) cap. 3. he exprefly tells us thus : Seth autem centefimo & qujnto anno genuit Enos. Qui dum quinque & nongentos vixijfet annos,rerum cur am tradjdit. filiosuo Cainx: And immediately after proceeds thus, Lamechum autem filiftm ger nuitMatbuselas, Enocho ortus, cum annos ipse haberet œtatis CLXXXVII. Imperium veto Lamecho eidem tradiditparens, quod jam temierat ipse annos DCCCCLXIX. JjOr mechus parker Principatum reliquit Noe filio, pojlquamregnajset annos DCCLXX VU> Noe deniq; rerum jummam tenuit annos nongentos 0" quinquaginta; Lajnecho )annos ififo atan's babenti genitus. And Noab, the last of the ten Patriarchs, and the surviving Patriarch of all Mankind, was declared by God the'\universal Monarch of "the; v. 2.5. World, as soon as he came out of the Ark;to whom he granted the DomTr.O.G.?.47- nion over all things, as appears by those Words of God to Noah, (?«z, p. whexej 1. 1. c. 4. t»y I conceive, that though it hath been thence concluded by Mr. Seldenin'ms Mare Clausum,that there was a general Community between Noah and his'Soiis. yet the Text doth not clearly warrant it. For although the Sons are there join-; ed with Noab in the Blessing, yet it may best be understood with a Subordination, or a Benediction in Succession; and the Blessing might truly be fulfilled, if the Sons, either under, or after their Father, enjoyned a private Dominion: Nor is it probable, that the private Dominion, which God gave to Adam, and by his Donation, Assignation or Cession to his Children, was abrogated, and a Community of all things instituted between Noah and his Sons after the Floods

Wf^Lib"*' "^nt* w^en was t'ie ^e ^eir °^ t^ie World, why mould it be thoughts ~* "„ j"*' that God would disinherit him of his Birth-right, and make him.only Tenant in OxonEdit, common with his Children? And if the Blessing given to Adam, Gen. 1. 28. be compared to that given to Noah and his Sons, Gen. p. 2. there will be found a considerable difference between these two Texts. In the Benediction of Adam we find expressed a subduing of the Earth, and a Dominion over the Creatures; neither of which are exprefled in the Blessing of Noah, nor the Earth there once named : It is only said, The Fear os you shall be upon the Creatures, and into your Hands are theydelivered; then immediately follows, Every moving thing jhaU be Meat for you, as the green Herb, &c. The first Blessing gave Adam Dominion over the Earth, and all Creatures; the latter allows Noah Liberty to use the living Creatures for Food : Here is no Alteration or Diirunisliing of his Title to an absolute Propriety of all things, but only an Enlargement of his Commons.

F. As tor the Government of the World before the Flood, I have already acknowledged, that the Scriptures being silent in it, no Man can affirm any thing positively concerning it,whether it was Regal, Aristocratical, or Paternal: Neither is it any Proof, that because God thought fit, for our understanding the Age of the World, or the Genealogy of Noah, from whom all Mankind now takes its Original, to set down a Series of the Patriarchs from Father to Son ,• or, that because they were no obscure, unregarded Men, that therefore they must all be absolute Princes or Monarchs over their Families. This is, as a Father said long ago, Divinare magis quam scire- But I see, when Prejudice once blinds our Reasons, we easily make good the old Saying, Facile aedimus quod volumm. But as for your Quotation out of JosephTM, I grant indeed, that at the first sight it . makes for you: But suppose it doth, I cannot see how a Man can lay any stress upon it, since the Scripture, being silent of any such Monarchy, or Principality in these Patriarchs; since this Author writes his History above three thousand Years after the Time that these Patriarchs lived, which he there mentions; and that we are sure there were no Authors then extant, that writ of the Anti-diluvian Patriarchs, but Moses only, Josephm could speak no otherwise than by guess, or from some uncertain Traditions preserved amongst the Pharisees, of which Sect he was: To which Traditions, when not warranted by Scripture, how little credit is to be given, our Saviour himself teaches us; and also the many futilous Tiaditions of the Rabbins, at this Day, do sufficiently shew us. But, I


suppose, that by this Word «p%>i, there used by Josephns, (which is rendred by .the Latin Version Principatm) is not meant any Monarchical Power, but only that Principality or Eminency, or that Reverence and Respect which their Posterity paid them, either in regard of their great Age and Experience, or of the Spirit of God, with which they might be supposed to be endued, sufficient to make them to be taken notice of, and reverenced above all other Men living in their Time. I have likewise, upon better Consideration, two other Reasons to add, why by thecur am rerum, mentioned in this place, cannot be meant a Regal Power, because Josephm mentions no such thing of Adam the sirst Father, and, as you suppose, Monarch os Mankind; which sure he would have done, had he believed him endued by God with such a Power.

The second Reason is, that if you please to observe, he, ascribes, to Mathuselah, Lamech and Noah, as many Years of Empire, as of Life: So that either this, place of Josepbus signifies nothing at all,.'or else will make nothing to your purpose to prove these ancient Patriarchs to have been so many Monarchs.

Tcome now to the next Period of Time after the Flood, and whereof I grant we may discourse with more certainty : But I could have wislied you would have repeated more particularly the Words, whereby you suppose God granted to Ndah alone, an absolute Dominion over the whole Earth, and all the Creatures' therein contained. But I perceive you thought the Words not very favourable^ for you, or else you would have repeated^ or read them to me ; which since you;. Omitted, I pray give me leave to do it for you, and then I will leave it to your self to judge whether there, can be any thing drawn from this Text to counte-i nance your Opinion: The Words are these, And God blessed Noah, and his Sons, Gen- 9- f, *» and said unto them, Be fruitful, arid multiply, andreplenish the Earth, And the fear.!' is you, and the dread oj you stall be upon every Beast os the Earth, and uponevery Fonut os the Air, upon all that moveth upon the Earth, upon all the Fijhes of the Sea, into your hand arethey delivered. Every moving thing that liveth Jhall be Meat for you ; even Cm the green Herb have I given you allthings. Where you may plainly see, that Noah hath no Preheminencc in this Grant above his Children, who were (for as .much as 1 can see) by this Text to be Tenants in common with him of the Earth,, and all its Creatures. Nor is there much difference between this Grant to Noah '• " '" *' and his Sons, and that made to Adam and Eve,which I proved extended alike to all Mankind, more than that the Brute Animals are here exprefly granted1|oNoah and his Sons for Food, which they were not before to Adam. . v.

But I perceive you your self are sensible, that this is the most plain, and obvious Sense of these Words^ and therefore you have thought good to wrest them so as may best serve your purpose; and indeed you deal very cunningly to lay, that this Grant may be bcst'understood with a Subordination in Succession. 'Tis^ T.g. C. 4. true indeed, it serves best for your purpose that it should be so understood ,• but/>» 41. that will be best understood by any Body else, which bast agrees with the plain and obvious Sense of the Words. Nor will your Reason signifie any thing, that the Blessing might be truly fulfilled if the Sons either under, or after their Farther, enjoyed a private Dominion : Since that were to fay, that a Grant whose" express Words give a joint Title in present, (for the Text faith, Into your Hands they are delivered) may best be understood with a Subordination, or in Succession; because Jtis possible that in Subordination, or Succession, it may be so enjoyed, is all one as to fay, that a Grant of any thing in present Possession may best be understood in Reversion, because 'tis possible one may live so to enjoy it. And as for the other parts of this Grant, they are so expressed. that they must needs heunderstood to belong to Noah's Sons, not with a Subordination, or in Succession, but as full and equally as toNoah himself: The fear of you, and the dread of you (fays God) stall be upon every Beast, &c. Can any Body in reason say, that the Creatures were to sear, and stand in awe of Noah only, and not of his Sons without his leave, or 'till after his Death? And are the following Words, (Intoyour Hands they are delivered) to be understood (as you fay) if your Father please, or they shall be delivered into your Hands hereafter? You do also as wisely to lay, that if Adam had a private Dominion given him by God, that he would not now abrogate it: For I grant, that if he had given Adam any such private Dominion, that there had been no reason for him now to have changed it. But I think I haVe sufficiently proved at our last Meeting, that he had no such private Dominion given him any more than Eve, and those Children


that were to proceed from them. So that this Supposition being false, there will be no such considerable difference as you suppose between these two Texts. For certainly, (though it be not here expressed) Noah'sSons had as much right to subdue or possess the Earths as the Posterity of Adam had before the Flood, and likewise to enjoy, or eat the Products thereof; only here is granted to Noah Ibid. p. 47. an£j his Sons a Power to kill the Creatures for Food, which was not granted to Adam, or rhose that lived befbre the Flood: And tho' you will have this Grant to be no diminishing of Noah's Title to a sole Propriety in all things, but only an Enlargement of his Commons; yet methinks it is a considerable Privilege not only to himself, but his Sons likewise, who are hereby impo'wered to use the Creatures for Food, as well as their Father, or else their £aTe had been very' hard, if when the Creatures were sufficiently multiplied, tfieir might nqf^haye killed so1 much as aHart, or a Partridge, without his leave. And if they'Had a right thus to use these Creatures, how this differs from an absolute Propriety in them whenever they are: taken, my dull Understanding is /not abletqcdm-^ ■ nrehend.' '/*"'

M. Well, since you will not admit of this sole Dominsoh of Noah (dyerill

for the present admit, that ' Noah was a Prince or Monarch olet ■ah his'Pdst^rity ^ but then pray shew me t6 whom this Power descended after !His I^cea'sej."*foif I can fee nothing in Scripture that favours your Divine Right of Primogeniture,

was a Prince alike over his dwn Faand all its Products," the one as niuch

'but that every one of Noah's three Sons .... .

mily,
and had an equal share in the Earth, and all its Products,'the one as
as the other : So that here it is apparent that your sole Monarchy of the,'1
dwindles into a fort of davel-~kirid, where
all the Sons inherit alike* ' '. '* ,

M. I cannot deny the Matter of Fact to be as you have laid down; but then there might be very good reason for it, which might render the sole Prihcipahty'

T. O.G. p. 49. of Noah's eldest Son to be not only unlawful, but impracticable • for, in the '£rst'

/. 1. c. 4. place, Mr. Selden in his Mare Claufum (in the place aforecited) tests usi/fi*om, the ancient Tradition of the Jewish Rabbins, That "Noah himself, as Lord of ally waj% Author of the Distribution of the World, and ofprivate Dominion; and that by the Appointment of an Oracle from God, he did confirm this Distribution by hislast Will and Testament, -which at his Death he left in the Hands of his eldest Son Shem ; and also warned all hisSons, that none of them stould invade any of their Brothers ' Dominions, or injure one another, because fromthence Discord and Civil Wars would necessarily follow. Nor do I fee any reason why Noah might not emancipate his two younger • Sons from the Dominion cf the elder, and likewise give them a separate share of

the Earth, and also an independant Power over their own Family and Posterity. In the second pJace, it might be impracticable for one Man to govern all Mankind, when in a little time it became so multiplied and dispersed over the Faceof the Earth, and the Languages so confounded by the Act, or Will of God., thkt it was impossible for the three elder Sons of these three great Patriarchs to govern

B.T.P. j to. them. But during the Life of Noah, we do not read that any of his Children, or Descendants, withdrew themselves from him without his leave, but rather die

Gen. ii. i,2. contrary; for it is said, "The whole Earth was of one Language, and of one Speech;

and it came to pass, as they journeyed from the East, that they found a Plain in the Land of Shinar, &c. By which Words it appears they kept well enough togef Mt; and the very reason why they began to build the Tower, was, lest (said they) We should be scattered abroad upon the Face of the whole Earth: So that there was no Disunion amongst, them, nor so much as a desire of it whilst Noah lived."1

F. I pray give me leave to answer what you have said concerning this Distribution of the Earth by Noah's last Will, and also his making all his Sons Lords', ot Monarchs alike, both which savour so strongly of the Rabbinical Liberty of Invention, that I wonder how any learned Man can believe such jdle Stories, especially when the Scripture, and the most ancient Histories and Records that are extant in the World, mention no such thing. And though tfofefhm may, in the place you have cfted, suppose that e.very one of the Patriarchs he mentions., were Princes or Monarchs, yet he doth not fay any, thing like 'flu concerning|the three" Sons of Noab's being Monarchs, or of this Partition of the Earth between them; but maketh them to live together in those mountainous Parts, 'till they




descended from thence into the Plain : So that it was impossible for Noah to make a Distribution of those Parts of the Earth, which were not yet discovered. And it is apparent by the Scripture it self, that a considerable time afterNoah's Death all Mankind lived together ; and therefore there was no Impossibility (as you suppose) why Noah'seldest Son could not have commanded his Brethren, and their Descendants, they being not as yet dispersed, or separated from each other; as you may fee by the first Verses of the 11 th of Genesis, which you cited but now. So that if Noah's eldest Son was disinherited of his Right of governing his Brethren, and their Descendants, that could not be the cause of it, which you assign: And if Primogeniture be a Divine Right, appointed by God himself, and unalterable by Humane Laws, as you suppose, I cannot see how the Will of a Father, which is but aHumane Institution, can ever alter it : For I remember you laid it down as a Maxim, at our last Meeting, 'that theDivine Right of the right Heir javer dies, can le left, or taken away; so that if there hath been any such thing as a Divine Right of Primogeniture belonging to the eldest Son of Noah, it is not likely that he would have permitted his two Brothers to have usurped it from him. r ,

As. I shall not insist longer, on this Tradition, concerning the Distribution of the Earth amongst the Sons ofNoah. But certainly it is not a thing to be made so flight of as you do, since Cedrenm, a modern Greek historian, is very particular-in it; besides, so many other learned Men (and the great Selden among the rest;) -have given countenance to it: And though I grant that Primogeniture is of Divine Right, yet that might very well be altered by Noah's Will, especially since his Children might he. satisfied that he being a Prophet, and Preacher of Righteousness,, made: this Division of his Paternal Power by a Divine Command. - r. ■: -•  . ■•■

But I shall not dwell longer upon this, • but proceed to the next Period of Time; (viz,.) that of the Confusion, and Dispersion of Tongues, in which there are more evident Footsteps of this Right of Primogeniture, as also of the Pa- T triarchal Power I maintain: And therpfpre pray turn to the 10th of Genesis,, and there you will find (after the Recital of the Genealogy of every one of the Sons of Noah, whose Descendants are there particularly set down) these Words in the fifth Verse; By these -were the Isles of t/je Gentiles divided in tloeir Lands; every p. p. $4. one after his Tongue, after their Families, in their Nations. And likewise in the 20th Verse, These are the Sonsas Ham, after, their Families, after their Tongues, in their Countries, and in their Nations. And in the last Verse,These are the Families of the Sons of Noah, after their Generations, in their Nations ; and by these were theNations divided in the Earth after the Flood. So that if we consider the first Plantations of the World, which were after the Building of Babel, and the Confusion of Tongues, w&may find the Division of the Earth into distinct Kingdoms, or Nations, by several Families and Languages, whereof the Sons, or Grand-children p. A. MM. ofNoah, were the Kings, or Governors, by a fatherly Right. And for the prefer- p* 275vation of this Power, and Right in these Fathers, G od was pleased to bestow upon several Families a Language on each by it self, the better to unite it into a Nation or Kingdom. So that it becoming impossible (as I said before) for the elder Sons or -Descendants of these three great Parriarchs to govern all Mankind, who now no longer understood each others Language, it was absolutely necessary that the Heads of the several Families should take that care upon them, and their Children submit to them; wherein they had the Direction of God Almighty, who had commanded them to obey their Parents j and a miraculous Declaration of his Will for their Dispersion, by the confounding of their Language; and that so ordered by God too, that the Descendants of the fame Person, and Family, spoke one Tongue: Was not this a declaring these Fathers Princes of these several Families, and Tongues by God himself, who by his Providence had thus confounded their Tongues, and dispersed them by Families, that they could no longer be governed by three or four Patriarchs, but must have as many distinct Governments, as there were different Tongues, there being no means at present of any Intercourse, or Correspondence one with another, or with their former ■Governors? So that however in this Confusion of Tongues (by which, as jfc~ Jefhm supposes, -there were seventy two distinct Nations erected) yet- were they not confused Multitudes without Heads, or Governors, and at liberty to chuse what Governors, or Government they pleased; but were so many distinct Fa

I milies


 iomilies which had Fathers for Rulers over them of the fame Speech: Whereby it is manifest, that even in the Confusion, God was careful to preserve Fatherly Authority, and Monarchical Power entire, by diilributing the Diversity of Languages according to the Diversity of Families ; which shews that God was still for Gor vernment, and that Paternal too; since it is evident that every People followed their Ancestor, or Patriarch, as their Prince or Leader in this Dispersion, who had a. Patriarchal Authority over their Posterity: For by what else can you suppose they could have made their Children and Descendants to have followed them as far as the utmost Isles of the Gentiles? \ - ■.

F. I confess there are many Difficulties as well in the time, as manner of this Dispersion, according to our common Chronology; for if you suppose, that the Building of the Tower of Babel fell out within two hundred Years after the Flood; as most of our Chronologers, who follow the Hebrew Account, do;. then it is certain, thatNoah, and his Sons, were still alive, who lived 'till above four hundred Years after the Flood; so that'either Noah,and his Sons, did not travel with the rest cf their Descendants into the Plain of Shiner, where they built the Tower of Babel, which yet seems contrary to the Text, which fays, All Mankind being of one Language, they travelled,&c. And it these Children and Grandchildren left their Ancestors at home, what became of their Monarchical Authority, when their Subjects were gone ? And you your self do assert, that none of Noah's Posterity divided from him, as long as he lived. So on the other side, if you suppose that Noah and his Sons marched along with them in this Expedition, you must make them either to have quitted their Authority over, their Descendants, or else to have joined with them in this wicked and foolish Enterprize of building a Tower, whose top should reach to Heaven; which is., very hard to conceive of Noah, a Preacher of Righteousness, or his Sons, whom the Scripture no where mentions, or blames for having a hand in. this Attempt. ■

£. i.