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

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 s» 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