« PreviousContinue »
than he could make use of. If he gave away a part to any body else, fo that it perished: not uselesly in his poffeflion, these he allow. made use of. And if he also bartered awayı plums, that would have rotted in a week, ! for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted! not the common stock ; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to otherse, so long as nothing perished uselesly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its cosci lours or exchange his sheep for thells, ors wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others, he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleafed ; the exceeding of the bounds of his juft property not lying in the largeness of his poffeffion, but the perishing of any thing uselesly in it.
§. 47. And thus came in the use of money, fome lasting thing that men might keep with out spoiling, and that by mutual consent men would take in exchange for the truly ufeful, but perishable supports of life.
S. 48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men poffeffions in different proportions, fo this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them for supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with the rest of the world, wherein there were but an hundred families, but there were iheep, horses
and cows, with other useful animals, wholfome fruits, I land land enough for corn for a hundred thousand times as many, but nothing in the ifland, either because of its commonness, or perishableness, fit to supply the place of money , what reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his family, and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced, or they could barter for like perishable, useful commodities, with others ? Where there is not some thing, both lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded
there men will be apt to enlarge their polesions of land, were it never so rich, never fo free for them to take : for I ask, what would'a man value ten thousand, or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated, and well stocked too with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the product ? It would not be worth the inclosing, and we fhould see him give up again to the wild common of nature, whatever was more than would supply the conveniencies of life to be had there for him and his family,
$. 49. Thus in the beginning all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was any where known. Find out something that hath the
tafe and value of money amongst his neighbours, you
thall see the same mantwill begin presently to enlarge his poffeffions: fg Ebe
Sł go. But since gold and silver, being little useful to the life ofriman in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men, whereof Inbour yet makes, in great part, the measure, it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal polefion of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary conTent, found out a way how a man may fairly poffefs more land than he himself can use the product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands of the poffeffor. This partage of things in an inequality of private possessions, men
have made practicable out of the bounds of society, and without compact, only by putting a value on gold and silver, and tacitly agreeing in the use of money : for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.
$. 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour hid could at first begin a title of property in the
common things of nature, and how the spend
ing it upon our ufes bounded it. So that u there could then be no reason of quarrelling
8.52; 238 ONI CIVIL-GOVERNMENT. about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of poffelpon it gave. Right and conveniency went together; for as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, fo he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make ufe of. This left no room for controverfy about the title, nor for incroachment on the right of others; what portion à man carved to himself, was easily seen ; and it was useless, as well as dishoneft, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.
CH A P. VI. Pand
Of Paternal Power.
impertinent criticism, in a discourse of this nature, to find fault with words and names, that have obtained in the world :
yet possibly it may not be amiss to offer new ones, when the old are apt to lead men into mistakes, as this of paternal power probably has done, which seems so to place the power
parents over their children wholly in the father, as if the mother had no share in it; whereas, if we consult reason or revelation, we shall find, the hath an equal title. This may give one reason to ask, whether this might not be more properly called parental power? for whatever obligation nature
and the right of generation lays on children, it must certainly bind them equal to both the concurrent causes of it. And accordingly we see the positive law of God every where joins them together, without distinction, when it commands the obedience of children, Honour thy father and thy mother, Exod. xx. 12. Wbofoever curseth his father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9: Ye Shall fear every man his mother and bis father, Lev. xix. 3. Children, obey your parents; &c. Eph. vi. I. is the file of the Old and New Testament.
§. 53. Had but this one thing been well considered, without looking any deeper into the matter, it might perhaps have kept men from running into those gross mistakes, they have made, about this power of parents ; which, however it might, without any great harshness, bear the name of absolute dominion, and regal authority, when under the title of paternal power it seemed appropriated to the father, would yet have founded but oddly, and in the very name fhewn the absurdity, if this supposed absolute power over children had been called parental; and thereby have discovered, that it belonged to the mother too : for it will but very ill serve the turn of those men, who contend so much for the absolute power and authority of the fatherhood, as they call it, that the mother should have any share in it, and it would have but ill supported the monarchy they contend for,