OF DOMINION PATERNAL, AND DESPOTICAL.
[Sidenote: A commonwealth by acquisition.]
A COMMONWEALTH _by acquisition_, is that, where the sovereign power is
acquired by force; and it is acquired by force, when men singly, or many
together by plurality of voices, for fear of death, or bonds, do
authorize all the actions of that man, or assembly, that hath their
lives and liberty in his power.
[Sidenote: Wherein different from a commonwealth by institution.]
And this kind of dominion, or sovereignty, differeth from sovereignty by
institution, only in this, that men who choose their sovereign, do it
for fear of one another, and not of him whom they institute: but in this
case, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases
they do it for fear: which is to be noted by them, that hold all such
covenants, as proceed from fear of death or violence, void: which if it
were true, no man, in any kind of commonwealth, could be obliged to
obedience. It is true, that in a commonwealth once instituted, or
acquired, promises proceeding from fear of death or violence, are no
covenants, nor obliging, when the thing promised is contrary to the
laws; but the reason is not, because it was made upon fear, but because
he that promiseth, hath no right in the thing promised. Also, when he
may lawfully perform, and doth not, it is not the invalidity of the
covenant, that absolveth him, but the sentence of the sovereign.
Otherwise, whensoever a man lawfully promiseth, he unlawfully breaketh:
but when the sovereign, who is the actor, acquitteth him, then he is
acquitted by him that extorted the promise, as by the author of such
absolution.
[Sidenote: The rights of sovereignty the same in both.]
But the rights, and consequences of sovereignty, are the same in both.
His power cannot, without his consent, be transferred to another: he
cannot forfeit it: he cannot be accused by any of his subjects, of
injury: he cannot be punished by them: he is judge of what is necessary
for peace; and judge of doctrines: he is sole legislator; and supreme
judge of controversies; and of the times, and occasions of war, and
peace: to him it belongeth to choose magistrates, counsellors,
commanders, and all other officers, and ministers; and to determine of
rewards, and punishments, honour, and order. The reasons whereof, are
the same which are alleged in the precedent chapter, for the same
rights, and consequences of sovereignty by institution.
[Sidenote: Dominion paternal how attained.]
Dominion is acquired two ways; by generation, and by conquest. The right
of dominion by generation, is that, which the parent hath over his
children; and is called PATERNAL. [Sidenote: Not by generation, but by
contract;] And is not so derived from the generation, as if therefore
the parent had dominion over his child because he begat him; but from
the child’s consent, either express, or by other sufficient arguments
declared. For as to the generation, God hath ordained to man a helper;
and there be always two that are equally parents: the dominion therefore
over the child, should belong equally to both; and he be equally subject
to both, which is impossible; for no man can obey two masters. And
whereas some have attributed the dominion to the man only, as being of
the more excellent sex; they misreckon in it. For there is not always
that difference of strength, or prudence between the man and the woman,
as that the right can be determined without war. In commonwealths, this
controversy is decided by the civil law; and for the most part, but not
always, the sentence is in favour of the father; because for the most
part commonwealths have been erected by the fathers, not by the mothers
of families. But the question lieth now in the state of mere nature;
where there are supposed no laws of matrimony; no laws for the education
of children; but the law of nature, and the natural inclination of the
sexes, one to another, and to their children. In this condition of mere
nature, either the parents between themselves dispose of the dominion
over the child by contract; or do not dispose thereof at all. If they
dispose thereof, the right passeth according to the contract. We find in
history that the Amazons contracted with the men of the neighbouring
countries, to whom they had recourse for issue, that the issue male
should be sent back, but the female remain with themselves: so that the
dominion of the females was in the mother.
[Sidenote: Or education;]
If there be no contract, the dominion is in the mother. For in the
condition of mere nature, where there are no matrimonial laws, it cannot
be known who is the father, unless it be declared by the mother: and
therefore the right of dominion over the child dependeth on her will,
and is consequently hers. Again, seeing the infant is first in the power
of the mother, so as she may either nourish, or expose it; if she
nourish it, it oweth its life to the mother; and is therefore obliged to
obey her, rather than any other; and by consequence the dominion over it
is hers. But if she expose it, and another find and nourish it, the
dominion is in him that nourisheth it. For it ought to obey him by whom
it is preserved; because preservation of life being the end, for which
one man becomes subject to another, every man is supposed to promise
obedience, to him, in whose power it is to save, or destroy him.
[Sidenote: Or precedent subjection of one of the parents to the other.]
If the mother be the father’s subject, the child, is in the father’s
power: and if the father be the mother’s subject, as when a sovereign
queen marrieth one of her subjects, the child is subject to the mother;
because the father also is her subject.
If a man and woman, monarchs of two several kingdoms, have a child, and
contract concerning who shall have the dominion of him, the right of the
dominion passeth by the contract. If they contract not, the dominion
followeth the dominion of the place of his residence. For the sovereign
of each country hath dominion over all that reside therein.
He that hath the dominion over the child, hath dominion also over the
children of the child; and over their children’s children. For he that
hath dominion over the person of a man, hath dominion over all that is
his; without which, dominion were but a title, without the effect.
[Sidenote: The right of succession followeth the rules of the right of
possession.]
The right of succession to paternal dominion, proceedeth in the same
manner, as doth the right of succession of monarchy; of which I have
already sufficiently spoken in the precedent chapter.
[Sidenote: Despotical dominion attained.]
Dominion acquired by conquest, or victory in war, is that which some
writers call DESPOTICAL, from Δεσπότης, which signifieth a _lord_, or
_master_; and is the dominion of the master over his servant. And this
dominion is then acquired to the victor, when the vanquished, to avoid
the present stroke of death, covenanteth either in express words, or by
other sufficient signs of the will, that so long as his life, and the
liberty of his body is allowed him, the victor shall have the use
thereof, at his pleasure. And after such covenant made, the vanquished
is a SERVANT, and not before: for by the word _servant_, whether it be
derived from _servire_, to serve, or from _servare_, to save, which I
leave to grammarians to dispute, is not meant a captive, which is kept
in prison, or bonds, till the owner of him that took him, or bought him
of one that did, shall consider what to do with him: for such men,
commonly called slaves, have no obligation at all; but may break their
bonds, or the prison; and kill, or carry away captive their master,
justly: but one, that being taken, hath corporal liberty allowed him;
and upon promise not to run away, nor to do violence to his master, is
trusted by him.
[Sidenote: Not by the victory, but by the consent of the vanquished.]
It is not therefore the victory, that giveth the right of dominion over
the vanquished, but his own covenant. Nor is he obliged because he is
conquered; that is to say, beaten, and taken, or put to flight; but
because he cometh in, and submitteth to the victor; nor is the victor
obliged by an enemy’s rendering himself, without promise of life, to
spare him for this his yielding to discretion; which obliges not the
victor longer, than in his own discretion he shall think fit.
And that which men do, when they demand, as it is now called, _quarter_,
which the Greeks called Ζωγρία, _taking alive_, is to evade the present
fury of the victor, by submission, and to compound for their life, with
ransom, or service: and therefore he that hath quarter, hath not his
life given, but deferred till farther deliberation; for it is not a
yielding on condition of life, but to discretion. And then only is his
life in security, and his service due, when the victor hath trusted him
with his corporal liberty. For slaves that work in prisons; or fetters,
do it not of duty, but to avoid the cruelty of their task-masters.
The master of the servant, is master also of all he hath: and may exact
the use thereof; that is to say, of his goods, of his labour, of his
servants, and of his children, as often as he shall think fit. For he
holdeth his life of his master, by the covenant of obedience; that is,
of owning, and authorizing whatsoever the master shall do. And in case
the master, if he refuse, kill him, or cast him into bonds, or otherwise
punish him for his disobedience, he is himself the author of the same;
and cannot accuse him of injury.
In sum, the rights and consequences of both _paternal_ and _despotical_
dominion, are the very same with those of a sovereign by institution;
and for the same reasons: which reasons are set down in the precedent
chapter. So that for a man that is monarch of divers nations, whereof he
hath, in one the sovereignty by institution of the people assembled, and
in another by conquest, that is by the submission of each particular, to
avoid death or bonds; to demand of one nation more than of the other,
from the title of conquest, as being a conquered nation, is an act of
ignorance of the rights of sovereignty; for the sovereign is absolute
over both alike; or else there is no sovereignty at all; and so every
man may lawfully protect himself, if he can, with his own sword, which
is the condition of war.
[Sidenote: Difference between a family and a kingdom.]
By this it appears; that a great family, if it be not part of some
commonwealth, is of itself, as to the rights of sovereignty, a little
monarchy: whether that family consist of a man and his children; or of a
man and his servants; or of a man, and his children, and servants
together: wherein the father or master is the sovereign. But yet a
family is not properly a commonwealth; unless it be of that power by its
own number, or by other opportunities, as not to be subdued without the
hazard of war. For where a number of men are manifestly too weak to
defend themselves united, every one may use his own reason in time of
danger, to save his own life, either by flight, or by submission to the
enemy, as he shall think best; in the same manner as a very small
company of soldiers, surprised by an army, may cast down their arms, and
demand quarter, or run away, rather than be put to the sword. And thus
much shall suffice, concerning what I find by speculation, and
deduction, of sovereign rights, from the nature, need, and designs of
men, in erecting of commonwealths, and putting themselves under
monarchs, or assemblies, entrusted with power enough for their
protection.
[Sidenote: The rights of monarchy from Scripture.]
Let us now consider what the Scripture teacheth in the same point. To
Moses, the children of Israel say thus: _Speak thou to us, and we will
hear thee; but let not God speak to us, lest we die_. (_Exod._ xx. 19.)
This is absolute obedience to Moses. Concerning the right of kings, God
himself by the mouth of Samuel, saith, (_1 Sam._ viii. 11, 12, &c.)
_This shall be the right of the king you will have to reign over you. He
shall take your sons, and set them to drive his chariots, and to be his
horsemen, and to run before his chariots; and gather in his harvest; and
to make his engines of war, and instruments of his chariots; and shall
take your daughters to make perfumes, to be his cooks, and bakers. He
shall take your fields, your vine-yards, and your olive-yards, and give
them to his servants. He shall take the tithe of your corn and wine, and
give it to the men of his chamber, and to his other servants. He shall
take your man-servants, and your maid-servants, and the choice of your
youth, and employ them in his business. He shall take the tithe of your
flocks; and you shall be his servants._ This is absolute power, and
summed up in the last words, _you shall be his servants_. Again, when
the people heard what power their king was to have, yet they consented
thereto, and say thus, (_verse_ 10) _we will be as all other nations,
and our king shall judge our causes, and go before us, to conduct our
wars_. Here is confirmed the right that sovereigns have, both to the
_militia_, and to all _judicature_; in which is contained as absolute
power, as one man can possibly transfer to another. Again, the prayer of
king Solomon to God, was this (_1 Kings_, iii. 9): _Give to thy servant
understanding, to judge thy people, and to discern between good and
evil_. It belongeth therefore to the sovereign to be _judge_, and to
prescribe the rules of _discerning good_ and _evil_: which rules are
laws; and therefore in him is the legislative power. Saul sought the
life of David; yet when it was in his power to slay Saul, and his
servants would have done it, David forbad them, saying, (_1 Sam._ xxiv.
6) _God forbid I should do such an act against my Lord, the anointed of
God_. For obedience of servants St. Paul saith; (_Col._ iii. 22)
_Servants obey your masters in all things_; and, (_Col._ iii. 20)
_children obey your parents in all things_. There is simple obedience in
those that are subject to paternal, or despotical dominion. Again,
(_Matt._ xxiii. 2, 3) _The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses’ chair,
and therefore all that they shall bid you observe, that observe and do_.
There again is simple obedience. And St. Paul, (_Titus_ iii. 2) _Warn
them that they subject themselves to princes, and to those that are in
authority, and obey them_. This obedience is also simple. Lastly, our
Saviour himself acknowledges, that men ought to pay such taxes as are by
kings imposed, where he says, _give to Cæsar that which is Cæsar’s_; and
paid such taxes himself. And that the king’s word, is sufficient to take
anything from any subject, when there is need; and that the king is
judge of that need: for he himself, as king of the Jews, commanded his
disciples to take the ass, and ass’s colt to carry him into Jerusalem,
saying, (_Matth._ xxi. 2, 3) _Go into the village over against you, and
you shall find a she ass tied, and her colt with her, untie them, and
bring them to me. And if any man ask you, what you mean by it, say the
Lord hath need of them: and they will let them go._ They will not ask
whether his necessity be a sufficient title; nor whether he be judge of
that necessity; but acquiesce in the will of the Lord.
To these places may be added also that of _Genesis_, (iii. 5) _Ye shall
be as gods, knowing good and evil_. And (_verse_ 11) _Who told thee that
thou wast naked? hast thou eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee
thou shouldest not eat?_ For the cognizance or judicature of _good_ and
_evil_, being forbidden by the name of the fruit of the tree of
knowledge, as a trial of Adam’s obedience; the devil to inflame the
ambition of the woman, to whom that fruit already seemed beautiful, told
her that by tasting it, they should be as gods, knowing _good_ and
_evil_. Whereupon having both eaten, they did indeed take upon them
God’s office, which is judicature of good and evil; but acquired no new
ability to distinguish between them aright. And whereas it is said, that
having eaten, they saw they were naked; no man hath so interpreted that
place, as if they had been formerly blind, and saw not their own skins:
the meaning is plain, that it was then they first judged their
nakedness, wherein it was God’s will to create them, to be uncomely; and
by being ashamed, did tacitly censure God himself. And thereupon God
saith; _Hast thou eaten, &c._ as if he should say, doest thou that owest
me obedience, take upon thee to judge of my commandments? Whereby it is
clearly, though allegorically, signified, that the commands of them that
have the right to command, are not by their subjects to be censured, nor
disputed.
[Sidenote: Sovereign power ought in all commonwealths to be absolute.]
So that it appeareth plainly, to my understanding, both from reason, and
Scripture, that the sovereign power, whether placed in one man, as in
monarchy, or in one assembly of men, as in popular, and aristocratical
commonwealths, is as great, as possibly men can be imagined to make it.
And though of so unlimited a power, men may fancy many evil
consequences, yet the consequences of the want of it, which is perpetual
war of every man against his neighbour, are much worse. The condition of
man in this life shall never be without inconveniences; but there
happeneth in no commonwealth any great inconvenience, but what proceeds
from the subject’s disobedience, and breach of those covenants, from
which the commonwealth hath its being. And whosoever thinking sovereign
power too great, will seek to make it less, must subject himself, to the
power, that can limit it; that is to say, to a greater.
The greatest objection is, that of the practice; when men ask, where,
and when, such power has by subjects been acknowledged. But one may ask
them again, when, or where has there been a kingdom long free from
sedition and civil war. In those nations, whose commonwealths have been
long-lived, and not been destroyed but by foreign war, the subjects
never did dispute of the sovereign power. But howsoever, an argument
from the practice of men, that have not sifted to the bottom, and with
exact reason weighed the causes, and nature of commonwealths, and suffer
daily those miseries, that proceed from the ignorance thereof, is
invalid. For though in all places of the world, men should lay the
foundation of their houses on the sand, it could not thence be inferred,
that so it ought to be. The skill of making, and maintaining
commonwealths, consisteth in certain rules, as doth arithmetic and
geometry; not, as tennis-play, on practice only: which rules, neither
poor men have the leisure, nor men that have had the leisure, have
hitherto had the curiosity, or the method to find out.
-------