But if Adam cou'd make Laws to oblige his Pofterity, he came very near to the definition of a Monarch. But if no fucceffive Obedience cou'd take place, what is become of our obligation to ftand by the Contracts of Nimrod's Cotemporaries; if they bore no Relation to Adam, who was much nearer to them, what Relation can we have to them at this diftance of time? I conclude therefore, that fuch remote Compacts cannot affect me, if their immediate Children ow'd any Obedience to them, it has been effectually worn out in regard to us fince; and I am very confident, the next Generation will fcarce think themselves oblig'd to ftand by fome Contracts their Fathers have made at this Day. Confequently the firft Corollary muft ftand good, that every Man is free from his Birth, and may refufe to be Associated with his fellow Creatures. Such Obligations as have been here mention'd, cou'd never arise from fuch a State of Nature, and if we grant a State of Nature, we must deftroy the Power of Parents over their Children, and diffolve the 5th Commandment. From what has been faid, I may fafely Conclude that this State of Nature has the moft ugly Confequences fatal to Human Society, and induce a perfect Anarchy into the World. I fee no Reason to imagine that God God provided no better for the Creation, when he had rais'd it out of nothing. Nor cou'd the All-feeing Eye of Providence not be aware of this Havock amongst Mankind, tis a mischievous 'tis a wicked fuppofition to enter into the thoughts of Man to conceive; two Men cou'd never live fafely together without Government, and shall we believe that numbers of Rational Creatures were upon the level with Brutes, and had their Reafon given them only to worry one another, was it neceffary, they must feel the Confequences of fuch a State firft; cou'd not the Almighty Wisdom prevent fuch Miferies flowing in upon us. I can never entertain fuch mean and unworthy thoughts of the Deity, to whom I owe my Life, my Being, and all the Comforts of Living; fuch a Character better became Marcion's malignant God, than the Eternal Father of the Universe. But if the State of Nature is fpirited away, what bottom our Adverfaries will have to build their Scheme of Civil Government upon I cannot tell. The Parental Right is equally deftructive to them as the Monarchical, as it is of Divine Right, and thereby gives a Sanction to all Laws and Contracts deriv'd therefrom; and if feveral Heads of Families, or little Commonwealths fhould agree to Conftitute a King, the Obedience to that King is deriv'd from the Paternal Authority Authority which is Divine, This is very conclufive on our fide, tho' not on our Adverfaries, because their State of Nature must be a meer Rafa Tabula free from any positive Laws. Otherwife their Scheme, as I have fhewn is ruin'd; as I have undertaken to prove in the fourth Propofition, viz. If Parents had ever Dominion over their Children ; this Dominion was inconfiftent with a State of Equality, because the Laws of the Parent were the pofitive Laws of the Commonwealth. Having thus cleared my Way by taking away the troublesome Chimera of a State of Nature, which has had too much Honour done it by being patroniz'd by Mr. Hooker. I proceeded in my fifth Propofition to lay the Foundation of Civil Government, by proving the Parental Right first. The Power Parents exercise over their Children is either by Natural Right or by Confent. But I cannot fee how our Forefathers, when Children, could transfer fuch Powers; or that our felves, when Children, are capable of giving our Confent. They are fo far from that, that their repeated cries and struggles when under the care of the Nurfe, feem to declare an abhorrence of that Subjection. For my part, I cou'd never yet know what an involuntary Confent means: But if fuch Dominion is not founded on Confent, we muft be at a lofs to fix it any where but upon D Divine Divine Right, for if we derive it from the Sovereign Power. Children are part of the Civil Property of the Parents. But then this will not provide for them in a state of Nature when no Civil Authority was fuppos'd to be in Being; but however we have plain Scripture, as well as the univerfal Confent of all Ages to prove the Divine Right of Parents over their Children. Honour thy Father and thy Mother was a pofitive command of God, attended with a fuitable penalty for the neglect thereof, which is back'd by feveral concurrent Precepts, both in the Old and New Teftament; no one, I fuppofe, will contend, but that Fathers ever had the fame Right to that Obedience they have now; the Precept in the Decalogue transferred no new Right, but confirmed the old. Adam had as much Power over his Children as my Father has over me, if not more; if we confider the Parental Power is rather diminished than increased; fome of the most eminent Privileges being convey'd to the Civil Majeftrate: But if this Paternal Right had no Divine or Civil Sanction in those Days, Children might withdraw their affent. Why fhould we imagine that God should add fuch an heavy Curfe to abridge Men of their natural Rights. There is no Precept in the Decalogue but is founded upon eternal Truth and Justice, and tho' the Sabbath or Seventh Day is arbitrarily there fixed upon, yet the Reafon Reafon for fetting fuch a Portion of our Time afide, for the Service of God is founded upon immutable Laws, and fo is the Duty, Honour and Reverence we owe to our Parents: Kingly Power therefore, is no more than a Repartition of Parental Power, which I endeavour to prove in the next Propofition. The Parental Power extends to the fame Actions as the Majefterial Power doth; they muft have therefore, a mutual Dependence upon each other, because they would otherwife be independent Powers which regard the fame End, which is a Contradiction in Society: The Parental Power extends to Civil Actions, therefore it extends to Actions in Common with the Civil Power; they must therefore be mutual, the Parent must have dependance upon the King, or the King upon the Parent. To find how the Cafe ftands, we muft recur to the original of their Powers: if the Parent was firft, the Kingly Power must be only a Branch of the Parental; but if the King was firft, the latter is a Branch of the Royal Power; but if they were both conjoyn'd and coequal, they were at first one and the fame, and would have fo continued if Ufurpations had not broke the Line, for tho' every Son owed Obedience to his Natural Father, yet this was in Subordination to the Supream Parent, the eldest Branch of the Family; and thus I imagined I gave a tolerable Solution of Hereditary Right, and the reafon why the D 2 eldeft |