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 something both
lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men will
not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so
rich, never so 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 enclosing, and we should see him
give up again to the wild common of Nature whatever was more than
would supply the conveniences 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 anywhere known.
Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his
neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge
his possessions.

  50. But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of
man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value
only from the consent of men- whereof labour yet makes in great part
the measure- it is plain that the consent of men have agreed to a
disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth- I mean out of
the bounds of society and compact; for in governments the laws
regulate it; they having, by consent, found out and agreed in a way
how a man may, rightfully and without injury, possess more than he
himself can make use of by receiving gold and silver, which may
continue long in a man's possession without decaying for the overplus,
and agreeing those metals should have a value.

  51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any
difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the
common things of Nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded
it; so that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title,
nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and
conveniency went together. For as a man had a right to all he could
employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more
than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about
the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others. What portion
a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as well
as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed.

                              Chapter VI

                          Of Paternal Power

  52. IT may perhaps be censured an impertinent criticism in a
discourse of this nature to find fault with words and names that
have obtained in the world. And 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
of 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 she has an equal title, which 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
everywhere joins them together without distinction, when it commands
the obedience of children: "Honour thy father and thy mother" (Exod.
20. 12); "Whosoever curseth his father or his mother" (Lev. 20. 9);
"Ye shall fear every man his mother and his father" (Lev. 19. 3);
"Children, obey your parents" (Eph. 6. 1), etc., is the style 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
sounded but oddly, and in the very name shown the absurdity, if this
supposed absolute power over children had been called parental, and
thereby 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, when by the very name it
appeared that that fundamental authority from whence they would derive
their government of a single person only was not placed in one, but
two persons jointly. But to let this of names pass.

  54. Though I have said above (2) "That all men by nature are equal,"
I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of "equality." Age or
virtue may give men a just precedency. Excellency of parts and merit
may place others above the common level. Birth may subject some, and
alliance or benefits others, to pay an observance to those to whom
Nature, gratitude, or other respects, may have made it due; and yet
all this consists with the equality which all men are in respect of
jurisdiction or dominion one over another, which was the equality I
there spoke of as proper to the business in hand, being that equal
right that every man hath to his natural freedom, without being
subjected to the will or authority of any other man.

  55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of
equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of