obedience, this had been to foment sedition, by setting up powers that were not. If there- fore this command, Honour thy father and mother, concern political dominion, it directly OF GOVERNMENT. 73 overthrows our author's monarchy; since it being- to be paid by every child to his father, even in society, every father must necessarily have political dominion, and there will be as many sovereigns as there are fathers: besides that the mother too hath her title, which de- stroys the sovereignty of one supreme monarch. But if Honour thy father and mother mean something distinct from political power, as necessarily it must, it is besides our author's business, and serves nothing to his purpose.
§. 66. Hie law that enjoins obedience to kings is delivered, says our author, in the terms, Honour thy father, as if all power were ori- ginally in the father, Observations, 254. and that law is also delivered, say I, in the terms, Honour thy mother, as if all power were ori- ginally in the mother. I appeal whether the argument be not as good on one side as the other, father and mother being joined all along in the Old and New Testament wherever ho- nour or obedience is enjoined children. Again our author tells us, Observations, 254. that this command, Honour thy father gives the right, to govern, and makes the form of government mo- narchical. ■ To which I answer, that if by Honour thy father be meant obedience to the political power of the magistrate, it concerns not any duty we owe to our natural fathers, who are subjects; because they, by our author's doctrine, are divested of all that power, it being placed wholly in the prince, and so being 74 OF GOVERNMENT.
74 OF GOVERNMENT.
equally subjects and slaves with their children, can have no right, by that title, to any such honour or obedience, as contains in it political subjection: if Honour thy father and mother signifies the duty we owe our natural parents, as by our Saviour's interpretation, Matlli. xv. 4. and all the other mentioned places, it is plain it does, then it cannot concern political obedience, but a duty that is owing to persons, who have no title to sovereignty, nor any political authority as magistrates over subjects. For the person of a private father, and a title to obedience, due to the supreme magistrate, are things inconsistent; and therefore this command, which must necessarily comprehend the persons of our natural fathers, must mean a duty we owe them distinct from our obedience to the magistrate, and from which the most absolute power of princes cannot absolve us. What this duty is, we shall in its due place examine.
§. 67. And thus we have at last got through all, that in our author looks like an argument for that absolute unlimited sovereignty described, Sect. 8. which he supposes in Adam; so that mankind ever since have been all born slaves, without any title to freedom. But if creation, which gave nothing but a being, made not Adam prince of his posterity: if Adam, Gen. i. 28. was not constituted lord of mankind, nor had a private dominion given him exclusive of his children, but only a right and power over OF GOVERNMENT. 75 the earth, and inferior creatures in common with the children of men; if also Gen. iii. 16. God gave not any political power to Adam over his wife and children, but only subjected Eve to Adam, as a punishment, or foretold the subjection of the weaker sex, in the ordering the common concernments of their families, but gave not thereby to Adam, as to the hus- band, power of life and death, which necessarily belongs to the magistrate: if fathers by be- getting their children acquire no such power over them; and if the command, Honour thy father and mother, give it not, but only enjoins a duty owing to parents equally, whether subjects or not, and to the mother as well as the father; if all this be so, as I think, by what has been said, is very evident; then man has a natural freedom, notwithstanding all our author confidently says to the contrary; since all that share in the same common nature, faculties and powers, are in nature equal, and ought to partake in the same common rights and privi- leges, till the manifest appointment of God, who is Lord over all, blessed for ever, can be produced to shew any particular person's supremacy; or a man's own consent subjects him to a superior. This is so plain, that our author confesses, that Sir John Hayivard, Blackwood and Barclay, the great vindicators of the right of kings, could not deny it, but admit ivith one consent the natural liberty and equality of mankind, for a truth unquestionable.
7G OF GOVERNMENT.
And our author hath been so far from produ- cing any tiling*, that may make good his great position that Adam was absolute monarch, and so men are not naturally free, that even his own proofs make against him; so that to use his own way of arguing, the Jirst erroneous prin- ciplefailing, the whole fabric of this vast engine of absolute power and tyranny drops down of itself and there needs no more to be said in answer to all that he builds upon so false and frail a foundation.
§. 68. But to save others the pains, were there any need, he is not sparing himself to shew, by his own contradictions, the weak- ness of his own doctrine. Adams absolute and sole dominion is that, which he is every where full of, and all along builds on, and yet he tells us, p. 12. that as Adam was lord of his children, so his children under him had a command and power over their own children. The unlimited and undivided sovereignty of Adams fatherhood, by our author's computa- tion, stood but a little while, only during the first generation, but as soon as he had grand- children, Sir Robert could give but a very ill account of it. Adam, asjather of his children, saith he, hath an absolute, unlimited royal power over them, and by virtue thereof over those that they begot, and so to all generations; and yet his children, viz. Cain and Seth, have a paternal power over their children at the same lime; so that Ihey are at the same time OF GOVERNMENT. 77 absolute lords, and yet vassals and slares; Adam has all the authority, as grandfather of the people, and they have a part of it as fathers of a part of them: lie is absolute over them and their posterity, by having- begotten them, and yet they are absolute over their own chil- dren by the same title. No, says our author, Adams children under him had power over their own children, but still with subordination to the first parent. A good distinction that sounds well, and it is pity it signifies nothing, nor can be reconciled with our author's words. I readily grant, that supposing Adams absolute power over his posterity, any of his children might have from him a delegated, and so a subordinate power over a part, or all the rest: but that cannot be the power our author speaks of here; it is not a power by grant and com- mission, but the natural paternal power he supposes a father to have over his children. For 1. he says, As Adam ivas lord of his chil- dren, so his children under him had a power over their own children: they were then lords over their own children after the same manner, and by the same title, that Adam was, i. e. by right of generation, by right of fatherhood. 2. It is plain he means the natural power of fathers, because he limits it to be only over their own children; a delegated power has no such limi- tation, as only over their own children, it might be over others, as well as their own children. 3. If it were a delegated power, it must ap- 78 OF GOVERNMENT.
pear in scripture; but there is no ground in scripture to affirm, that Adams children had any other power over theirs, than what they naturally had as fathers.
§. 69. But that he means here paternal power and no other, is past doubt, from the inference he makes in these words immediately following, I see not then hoiv the children of Adam, or of any man else, can be free from subjection to their 'parents. Whereby it appears that the power on one side, and the subjection on the other, our author here speaks of, is that natural power \ and subjection between parents and children: for that which every man's children owed, could be no other; and that our author always affirms to be absolute and unlimited. This natural power of parents over their children, Adam had over his posterity, says our author; and thispower of parents over their children, his children had over theirs in his life-time, says our author also; so that Adam, by a natural right of father, had an absolute unlimited power over all his posterity, and at the same time his children had by the same right abso- lute unlimited power over theirs. Here then are two absolute unlimited powers existing to- gether, which I would have any body reconcile one to another, or to common sense. For the salvo he has put in of subordination, makes it more absurd: To have one absolute, unlimited, nay, unit mil able power, in subordination to another, is so manifest a contradiction, that OF GOVERNMENT. 79 nothing can be more. Adam is absolute prince ivith the unlimited authority of fatherhood over all his posterity; all his posterity are then absolutely his subjects; and, as our author says, his slaves, children, and grandchildren, are equally in this state of subjection and slavery; and yet, says our anthor, the chil- dren of Adam have paternal, i. c. absolute un- limited power over their own children: which in plain English is, they are slaves and abso- lute princes at the same time, and in the same government; and one part of the subjects have an absolute unlimited power over the other by the natural right of parentage.
<§. 70. If any one will suppose, in favour of our author, that he here meant, that parents, who are in subjection themselves to the abso- lute authority of their father, have yet some power over their children; I confess he is something nearer the truth: but he will not at all hereby help our author: for he no where speaking of the paternal power, but as an absolute unlimited authority, cannot be sup- posed to understand any thing else here, unless he himself had limited it, and shewed how far it reached. And that he means here pater- nal authority in that large extent, is plain from the immediately following words; This sub- jection of children being, says he, the founda- tion of all regal authority, p. J 2. the subjection then that in the former line, he says, every man is in to his parents, and consequently what Adam's 80 OF GOVERNMENT.
80 OF GOVERNMENT.
grand-children were in to their parents, was that which was the fountain of all regal au- thority, i. e. according to our author, absolute unlimited authority. And thus Adams chil- dren had regal authority over their children, whilst they themselves were subjects to their father, and fellow-subjects with their children. But let him mean as he pleases, it is plain he allows Adam 's children to have paternal power y p. 12. as also all other fathers to have paternal power over their children, Observations, 156. From whence one of these two things will necessarily follow, that either Adam's children, even in his life-time, had, and so all fathers have, as he phrases it, p. 12. by right of father- hood, royal authority over their children, or else, that Adam, by right of fatherhood, had not royal authority. For it cannot be but that paternal power does, or does not, give royal authority to them that have it: if it does not, then Adam could not be sovereign by this title, nor any body else; and then there is an end of all our author's politics at once: if it does give royal authority, then every one that has pa- ternal power, has royal authority; and then by our authors patriarchal government, there will be as many kings as there are fathers.
§.71. And thus what a monarchy he hath set up, let him and his disciples consider. Princes certainly will have great reason to thank him for these new politics, which set up as many absolute kings in every country as OF GOVERNMENT. 01 there are fathers of children. And yet who can blame our author for it, it lying unavoid- ably in the way of one discoursing upon our author's principles? For having placed an ab- solute power in fathers by right of begetting, he could not easily resolve how much of this power belonged to a son over the children he had begotten; and so it fell out to be a hard matter to give all the power, as he does, to Adam, and yet allow a part in his life-time to his children, when they were parents, and which he knew not well how to deny them. This makes him so doubtful in his expressions, and so uncertain where to place this absolute natural power, which he calls fatherhood. Sometimes Adam alone has it all, as p. 13. Observations, 244, 245. 6f Pre/.
Sometimes parents have it, which word scarce signifies the father alone, p. 12, 19.
Sometimes children during their fathers life- time, as p. 12.
Sometimes fathers of families, as p. 78, &79.
Sometimes fathers indefinitely, Observations, Sometimes the heir to Adam, Observations, Sometimes the posterity o/*Adam, 244, 246.
Sometimes prime fathers, all sons or grand- children o/'Noah, Observations, 244.
Sometimes the eldest parents, p. 12, Sometimes all kings, p. 19.
G 82 OF GOVERNMENT.
Sometimes all that have supreme power, Ob- servations, 245.
Sometimes heirs to those first progenitors, who were at first the natural parents of the whole people, p. 19.
Sometimes an elective king, p. 23.
Sometimes those, whether a few or a multi- titude, that govern the commonwealth, p. 23.
Sometimes he that can catch it, an usurper, p. 23. Observations, 155.
§. 72. Thus this neiv nothing, that is to carry with it all power, authority, and government; this fatherhood, which is to design the person, and establish the throne of monarch's, whom the people are to obey, may, according to Sir Robert, come into any hands, any how, and so by his politics give to democracy royal autho- rity, and make an usurper a lawful prince. And if it will do all these fine feats, much good do our author and all his followers with their omnipotent fatherhood, which can serve for nothing but to unsettle and destroy all the lawful governments in the world, and to es- tablish in their room disorder, tyranny, and usurpation.
OF GOVERNMENT. 83 CHAPTER VIT.
Of Fatherhood and Property considered together as Fountains of Sovereignty.
§. 73. In the foregoing chapters we have seen what Adam's monarchy was, in our au- thor's opinion, and upon what titles he founded it. The foundations which he lays the chief stress on, as those from which he thinks he may derive monarchical power to future princes, are two, viz. Fatherhood and property: and therefore the way he proposes to remove the ab- surdities and inconveniencies of the doctrine of natural freedom^ is, to maintain the natural and private dominion of Adam, Observations, 222. Conformable hereunto, he tells us, the grounds and jjrinciplcs of government necessarily depend upon the original of property. Observations, 108. The subjection of children to their pa- rents is the fountain of all regal authority, p. 12. And all power on earth is either derived or usurped from the fatherly poiver, their being no other original to be found of any power what- soever, Observations, 158. I will not stand here to examine how it can be said without a contradiction, that the first grounds and princi- ples of government necessarily depend upon the original of property, and yet, that there is no other original of any power whatsoever, but that of the father; it being hard to understand how 84 OF GOVERNMENT.
there can be no other original but fatherhood, and yet that the grounds and principles of go- vernment depend upon the original of property; property and fatherhood being- as far different as lord of a manor and father of children. Nor do I see how they will either of them agree with what our author says, Observations* 244. of God's sentence against Eve, Gen. iii. 16. That it is the original grant of government: so that if that were the original, government had not its original, by our authors own con- fession, cither from property or fatherhood: and this text, which he brings as a proof of Adam's power over Eve, necessarily contradicts what he says of the fatherhood, that it is the sole fountain of all poiuer: for if Adam had any such regal power over Eve, as our author contends for, it must be by some other title than that of begetting.
§. 74. But I leave him to reconcile these contradictions, as well as many others, which may plentifully be found in him by any one, who will but read him with a little attention; and shall come now to consider, how these two originals of government, Adams natural and private dominion, will consist, and serve to make out and establish the titles of suc- ceeding monarchs, who, as our author obliges them, must all derive their power from these fountains. Let us then suppose Adam made, by God's donation, lord and sole proprietor of the whole earth, in as large and ample a manner OF GOVERNMENT. 85 as Sir ^Robert could wish; let us suppose him also, by right of fatherhood, absolute ruler over his children with au unlimited supremacy; I ask then, upon Adams death what becomes of both his natural and private dominion? and I doubt not it will be answered, that they descended to his next heir, as our author tells us in several places. But this way, it is plain, cannot possibly convey both his natural and private dominion to the same person: for should we allow, that all the property, all the estate of the father, ought to descend to the eldest son, (which will need some proof to establish it) and so he has by that title all the private do- minion of the father, yet the father's natural dominion, the paternal power cannot descend to him by inheritance: for it being a right that accrues to a man ouly by begetting, no man can have this natural dominion over any one he does not beget; unless it can be supposed, that a man can have a right to any thing, with- out doing that upon which that right is solely founded: for if a father by begetting, and no other title, has natural dominion over his chil- dren, he that does not beget them cannot have this natural dominion over them; and therefore be it true or false, that our author says, Observations, 1 5t>. That every man that is born, by his very birth becomes subject to him that begets him, this necessarily follows, viz. That a man by his birth cannot become a subject to his brother, who did not beget him; unless it can 86 OF GOVERNMENT.
be supposed that a man by the very same title can come to be under the natural and absolute dominion of two different men at once; or it be sense to say, that a man by birth is under the natural dominion of his father, only be- cause he begat him, and a man by birth also is under the natural dominion of his eldest brother, though he did not beget him.
§. 75. If then the private dominion of Adam, i. e. his property in the creatures, descended at his death all entirely to his eldest son, his heir; (for, if it did not, there is presently an end of all Sir Robert's monarchy) and his natural dominion, the dominion a father has over his children by begetting them, belonged immediately, upon Adams decease, equally to all his sons who had children, by the same title their father had it, the sovereignty founded upon property, and the sovereignty founded upon fatherhood, come to be divided; since Cain, as heir, had that or property alone; Seth, and the other sons, that of fatherhood equally with him. This is the best that can be made of our authors doctrine, and of the two titles of sovereignty he sets up in Adam: one of them Will either signify nothing; or, if (hey both must stand, they can serve only to confound the rights of princes, and disorder government in his posterity: for by building upon two titles to dominion, which cannot descend together, and which he allows may be separated, (for he yields that Adam's chil- OF GOVERNMENT. 87 dren had their distinct territories by right of private dominion, Observations, 210, p. 40.) he makes it perpetually a doubt upon his prin- ciples where the sovereignty is, or to whom we owe our obedience, since fatherhood and property are distinct titles, and began presently upon Adams death to be in distinct persons. And which then was to give way to the other? §. 76. Let us take the account of it, as he himself gives it us. He tells us out of Grotius, That Adams children by donation, assignation, or some kind of cession before he was dead, had their distinct territories by right of private dominion; Abel had his flocks and pastures for them: Cain had his fields for corn, and the land of Nod, where he built him a city, Obser- vations, 210. Here it is obvious to demand, which of these two after Adams death was sovereign? Cain, says our author, p. 19. By what title? As heir; for heirs to progenitors, ivho ivere natural parents of their people, are not only lords of their own children, but also of their brethren, says our author, p. 19. What was Cain heir to? Not the entire possessions, not all that which Adam had private dominion in; for our author allows that Abel by a title derived from his father, had his distinct terri- tory for pasture by right of private dominion.
What then Abel had by private dominion, was exempt from Cain's dominion: for he could not have private dominion over that which was under the private dominion of another; and 88 OF GOVERNMENT.
therefore his sovereignty over his brother is gone with this private dominion, and so there are presently two sovereigns, and his imaginary title of fatherhood is out of doors, and Cain is no prince over his brother: or else, if Cain retain his sovereignty over Abel, notwithstand- ing his private dominion, it will follow, that the first grounds and principles of government have nothing to do with property, whatever our author says to the contrary. Jt is true, Abel did not outlive his father Adam; but that makes nothing to the argument, which will hold good against Sir Robert in Abels issue, or in Seth, or any of the posterity of Adam% not descended from Cain.
\. 77. The same inconvenience he runs into about the three sons of Noah, who, as he says, p. 13. had the whole world divided amongst them by their father. I ask then, in which of the three shall we find the establishment of regal poiver after Noah's death? If in all three, as our author there seems to say; then it will follow, that regal power is founded in property of land, and follows private dominion, and not in paternal power, or natural dominion; and so there is an end of paternal power as the fountain of regal authority, and the so-much- magnified fatherhood quite vanishes. If the regal power descended to Shem as eldest, and heir to his father, then NoaJts division of the world by lot, to his sons or his ten years sailing about the Mediterranean to appoint each son OF GOVERNMENT. Hi)