whom they are owing。 And it is plain all this is due； not to the
bare title of father； not only because as has been said； it is owing
to the mother too； but because these obligations to parents； and the
degrees of what is required of children； may be varied by the
different care and kindness trouble and expense； is often employed
upon one child more than another。
71。 This shows the reason how it comes to pass that parents in
societies； where they themselves are subjects； retain a power over
their children and have as much right to their subjection as those who
are in the state of Nature； which could not possibly be if all
political power were only paternal； and that； in truth； they were
one and the same thing； for then； all paternal power being in the
prince； the subject could naturally have none of it。 But these two
powers； political and paternal； are so perfectly distinct and
separate； and built upon so different foundations； and given to so
different ends； that every subject that is a father has as much a
paternal power over his children as the prince has over his。 And every
prince that has parents owes them as much filial duty and obedience as
the meanest of his subjects do to theirs； and can therefore contain
not any part or degree of that kind of dominion which a prince or
magistrate has over his subject。
72。 Though the obligation on the parents to bring up their children；
and the obligation on children to honour their parents； contain all
the power； on the one hand； and submission on the other； which are
proper to this relation； yet there is another power ordinarily in
the father； whereby he has a tie on the obedience of his children；
which； though it be common to him with other men； yet the occasions of
showing it； almost constantly happening to fathers in their private
families and in instances of it elsewhere being rare； and less taken
notice of； it passes in the world for a part of 〃paternal
jurisdiction。〃 And this is the power men generally have to bestow
their estates on those who please them best。 The possession of the
father being the expectation and inheritance of the children
ordinarily； in certain proportions； according to the law and custom of
each country； yet it is commonly in the father's power to bestow it
with a more sparing or liberal hand； according as the behaviour of
this or that child hath comported with his will and humour。
73。 This is no small tie to the obedience of children； and there
being always annexed to the enjoyment of land a submission to the
government of the country of which that land is a part； it has been
commonly supposed that a father could oblige his posterity to that
government of which he himself was a subject； that his compact held
them； whereas； it being only a necessary condition annexed to the land
which is under that government； reaches only those who will take it on
that condition； and so is no natural tie or engagement； but a
voluntary submission； for every man's children being； by Nature； as
free as himself or any of his ancestors ever were； may； whilst they
are in that freedom； choose what society they will join themselves to；
what commonwealth they will put themselves under。 But if they will
enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors； they must take it on the
same terms their ancestors had it； and submit to all the conditions
annexed to such a possession。 By this power； indeed； fathers oblige
their children to obedience to themselves even when they are past
minority； and most commonly； too； subject them to this or that
political power。 But neither of these by any peculiar right of
fatherhood； but by the reward they have in their hands to enforce
and recompense such a compliance； and is no more power than what a
Frenchman has over an Englishman； who； by the hopes of an estate he
will leave him； will certainly have a strong tie on his obedience； and
if when it is left him； he will enjoy it； he must certainly take it
upon the conditions annexed to the possession of land in that
country where it lies； whether it be France or England。
74。 To conclude； then； though the father's power of commanding
extends no farther than the minority of his children； and to a
degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age； and
though that honour and respect； and all that which the Latins called
piety； which they indispensably owe to their parents all their
lifetime； and in all estates； with all that support and defence； is
due to them； gives the father no power of governing… i。e。； making laws
and exacting penalties on his children； though by this he has no
dominion over the property or actions of his son； yet it is obvious to
conceive how easy it was； in the first ages of the world； and in
places still where the thinness of people gives families leave to
separate into unpossessed quarters； and they have room to remove and
plant themselves in yet vacant habitations； for the father of the
family to become the prince of it；* he had been a ruler from the
beginning of the infancy of his children； and when they were grown up；
since without some government it would be hard for them to live
together； it was likeliest it should； by the express or tacit
consent of the children； be in the father； where it seemed； without
any change； barely to continue。 And when； indeed； nothing more was
required to it than the permitting the father to exercise alone in his
family that executive power of the law of Nature which every free
man naturally hath； and by that permission resigning up to him a
monarchical power whilst they remained in it。 But that this was not by
any paternal right； but only by the consent of his children； is
evident from hence； that nobody doubts but if a stranger； whom
chance or business had brought to his family； had there killed any
of his children； or committed any other act； he might condemn and
put him to death； or otherwise have punished him as well as any of his
children。 which was impossible he should do by virtue of any
paternal authority over one who was not his child； but by virtue of
that executive power of the law of Nature which； as a man； he had a
right to； and he alone could punish him in his family where the
respect of his children had laid by the exercise of such a power； to
give way to the dignity and authority they were willing should
remain in him above the rest of his family。
* 〃It is no improbable opinion； therefore； which the
arch…philosopher was of； That the chief person in every household
was always； as it were； a king； so when numbers of households joined
themselves in civil societies together； kings were the first kind of
governors among them； which is also； as it seemeth； the reason why the
name of fathers continued still in them； who of fathers were made
rulers； as also the ancient custom of governors to do as
Melchizedec； and being kings； to exercise the office of priests； which
fathers did； at the first； grew； perhaps； by the same occasion。
Howbeit； this is not the only kind of regimen that has been received
in the world。 The inconveniencies of one kind have caused sundry
others to be devised； so that； in a word； all public regimen； of
what kind soever； seemeth evidently to have risen from the
deliberate advice； consultation and composition between men； judging
it convenient and behoveful； there being no impossibility in Nature；
considered by itself； but that man might have lived without any public
regimen。〃 Hooker； Eccl。 Pol。； i。 10。
75。 Thus it was easy and almost natural for children； by a tacit and
almost natural consent； to make way for the father's authority and
government。 They had been accustomed in their childhood to follow
his direction； and to refer their little differences to him； and
when they were men； who was fitter to rule them？ Their little
properties and less covetousness seldom afforded greater
controversies； and when any should arise； where could they have a
fitter umpire than he； by whose care they had every one been sustained
and brought up。 and who had a tenderness for them all？ It is no wonder
that they made no distinction betwixt minority and full age； nor
looked after one…and…twenty； or any other age； that might make them
the free disposers of themselves and fortunes； when they could have no
desire to be out of their pupilage。 The government they had been under
during it continued still to be more their protection than
restraint； and they could nowhere find a greater security to their
peace； liberties； and fortunes than in the rule of a father。
76。 Thus the natural fathers of families； by an insensible change；
became the politic monarchs of them too； and as they chanced to live
long； and leave able and worthy heirs for several successions or
otherwise； so they laid the foundations of hereditary or elective
kingdoms under several constitutions and manors； according as
chance； contrivance； or occasions happened to mould them。 But if
princes have their titles in the father's right； and it be a
sufficient proof of the natural right of fathers to political
authority； because they commonly were those in whose hands we find； de
facto； the exercise of government； I say； if this argument be good； it
will as strongly prove that all princes； nay； princes only； ought to
be priests； since it is as certain that in the beginning 〃the father
of the family was priest； as that he was ruler in his own household。〃
Chapter VII
Of Political or Civil Society
77。 GOD； having made man such a creature that； in His own
judgment； it was not good for him to be alone； put him under strong
obligations of necessity； convenience； and inclination； to drive him
into society； as well as fitted him with understanding and language to
continue and enjoy it。 The first society was between man and wife；
which gave beginning to that between parents and children； to which；
in time； that between master and servant came to be added。 And
though all these might； and commonly did； meet together； and make up
but on