betwixt husband and wife, even to divorce and feparation and, I think, no body will fay a child may with-hold honour from his mother, or, as the fcripture terms it, fet light by her, though his father fhould command him to do fo; no more than the mother could difpenfe with him for neglecting to honour his father: whereby it is plain, that this command of God gives the father no fovereignty, no fupremacy. §. 63. I agree with our author that the title to this honour is vefted in the parents by nature, and is a right which accrues to them by their having begotten their children, and God by many pofitive declarations has confirmed it to them: I alfo allow our author's rule, that in grants and gifts, that have their original from God and nature, as the power of the father, (let me add and mother, for whom God hath joined together, let no man put asunder) no inferior power of men can limit, nor make any law of prefcription against them, Observations, 158. fo that the mother having, by this law of God, a right to honour from her children, which is not subject to the will of her husband, we fee this abfolute `monarchical power of the father can neither be founded on it, nor confift with it; and he has a power very far from monarchical, very far from that abfoluteness our author contends for, when another has over his fubjects the fame. power he hath, and by the fame fame title and therefore he cannot forbear faying himself that he cannot fee how any man's children can be free from fubjection to their parents, p. 12. which, in common speech, I think, fignifies mother as well as father, or if parents here fignifies only father, it is the first time I ever yet knew it to do fo, and by such an use of words one may say any thing. §. 64. By our author's doctrine, the father having abfolute jurifdiction over his children, has alfo the fame over their iffue ; and the confequence is good, were it true, that the father had such a power and yet I afk our author whether the grandfather, by his fovereignty, could discharge the grandchild from paying to his father the honour due to him by the 5th commandment. If the grandfather hath, by right of fatherhood, fole fovereign power in him, and that obedience which is due to the fupreme magiftrate, be commanded in these words, Honour thy father, it is certain the grandfather might difpenfe with the grandfon's honouring his father, which fince it is evident in common fense he cannot, it follows from hence, that Honour thy father and mother, cannot mean an abfolute fubjection to a fovereign power, but fomething elfe. The right therefore which parents have by nature, and which is confirmed to them by the 5th commandment, cannot be that political dominion, which our author > author would derive from it: for that being in every civil fociety fupreme fomewhere, can discharge any subject from any political obedience to any one of his fellow fubjects. But what law of the magiftrate can give a child liberty, not to honour his father and mother? It is an eternal law, annexed purely to the relation of parents and children, and fo contains nothing of the magiftrate's power in it, nor is fubjected to it. §. 65. Our author fays, God hath given to a father a right or liberty to alien his power over his children to any other, Obfervations, I doubt whether he can alien wholly 155. the right of honour that is due from them: but be that as it will, this I am fure, he cannot alien, and retain the fame power. If therefore the magiftrate's fovereignty be, as our author would have it, nothing but the authority of a fupreme father, p. 23. it is unavoidable, that if the magiftrate hath all this paternal right, as he must have if fatherbood be the fountain of all authority; then the fubjects, though fathers, can have no power over their children, no right to honour from them: for it cannot be all in another's hands, and a part remain with the parents. So that, according to our author's own doctrine, Honour thy father and mother cannot poffibly be understood of political fubjection and obedience; fince the laws both in the Old and New Teftament, that commanded manded children to honour and obey their parents, were given to fuch, whofe fathers were under civil government, and fellow fubjects with them in political focieties; and to have bid them honour and obey their parents, in our author's fenfe, had been to bid them be subjects to those who had no title to it; the right to obedience from subjects, being all vested in another; and instead of teaching obedience, this had been to foment fedition, by setting up powers that were not. If therefore this command, Honour thy father and mother, concern political dominion, it directly overthrows our author's monarchy; fince it being to be paid by every child to his father, even in fociety, every father must neceffarily have political dominion, and there will be as many fovereigns as there are fathers befides that the mother too hath her title, which destroys the fovereignty of one fupreme monarch. But if Honour thy father and mother mean fomething distinct from political power, as neceffarily it must, it is befides our author's bufinefs, and ferves nothing to his purpose. §. 66. The law that enjoins obedience to kings is delivered, fays our author, in the terms, Honour thy father, as if all power were originally in the father, Obfervations, 254: and that law is alfo delivered, fay I, in the terms, Honour thy mother, as if all power were originally in the mother. I appeal whether the the argument be not as good on one fide as the other, father and mother being joined all along in the Old and New Teftament where-ever honour or obedience is injoined children. Again our author tells us, Obfervations, 254. that this command, Honour thy father, gives the right to govern, and makes the form of government monarchical. To which I anfwer, that if by Honour thy father be meant obedience to the political power of the magiftrate, it concerns not any duty we owe to our natural fathers, who are fubjects; because they, by our author's doctrine, are divefted of all that power, it being placed wholly in the prince, and fo being equally fubjects and flaves with their children, can have no right, by that title, to any fuch honour or obedience, as contains in it political fubjection if Honour thy father and mother fignifies the duty we owe our natural parents, as by our Saviour's interpretation, Matth. 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 perfons, who have no title to fovereignty, nor any political authority as magiftrates over fubjects. For the perfon of a private father, and a title to obedience, due to the fupreme magiftrate, are things inconfiftent; and therefore this command, which muft neceffarily comprehend the perfons of our natural fathers, muft mean a duty we owe them : 3 |