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 
conveniencies of life to be had there for him and his family.

     Sec. 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 use and value 
of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will 
begin presently to enlarge his possessions.

     Sec. 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 men have 
agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the 
earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found out, 
a way how a man may fairly possess 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 
possessor.  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.

     Sec. 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.

                        CHAP.  VI.

                   Of Paternal Power.

     Sec. 52.  IT may perhaps be censured as 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 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.  Whosoever curseth his 
father or his mother, Lev. xx. 9.  Ye shall fear every man his 
mother and his father, Lev. xix. 3.  Children, obey your 
parents, &c. Eph. vi. 1.  is the stile of the Old and New 
Testament.

     Sec. 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 shewn 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, 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.

     Sec. 54.  Though I have said above, Chap.  II. 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