Page images
PDF
EPUB

by his fenfes and reafon, as he did the inferior animals by their fenfe and instinct, which were serviceable for his fubfiftence, and given him as the means of his prefervation. And therefore I doubt not, but before these words were pronounced, i. Gen. 28, 29. (if they must be understood literally to have been spoken) and without any fuch verbal donation, man had a right to an ufe of the creatures, by the will and grant of God: for the defire, ftrong defire of preferving his life and being, having been planted in him as a principle of action by God himself, reafon, which was the voice of God in him, could. not but teach him and affure him, that purfuing that natural inclination he had to preferve his being, he followed the will of his maker, and therefore had a right to make ufe of those creatures, which by his reafon or fenfes he could difcover would be ferviceable thereunto. And thus man's property in the creatures was founded upon the right he had to make use of those things that were neceffary or useful to his being.

§. 87. This being the reafon and foundation of Adam's property, gave the fame title, on the fame ground, to all his children, not only after his death, but in his life-time: fo that here was no privilege of his heir above his other children, which could exclude them from an equal right to the use of the inferior creatures, for the comfortable preservation

of

of their beings, which is all the property man hath in them; and fo Adam's fovereignty built on property, or, as our author calls it, private dominion, comes to nothing. Every man had a right to the creatures, by the fame title Adam had, viz. by the right every one had to take care of, and provide for their fubfiftence and thus men had a right in common, Adam's children in common with him. But if But if any one had began, and made himself a property in any particular thing, (which how he, or any one elfe, could do, hall be fhewn in another place) that thing, that poffeffion, if he difpofed not otherwife of it by his pofitive grant, defcended naturally to his children, and they had a right to fucceed to it, and poffefs it.

§. 88. It might reasonably be asked here, how come children by this right of poffeffing, before any other, the properties of their parents upon their decease? for it being perfonally the parents, when they die, without actually transferring their right to another, why does it not return again to the common stock of mankind? It will perhaps be anfwered, that common confent hath difpofed of it to their children. Common practice, we fee indeed, does fo difpofe of it; but we cannot say, that it is the common confent of mankind; for that hath never been asked, nor actually given; and if common tacit. confent hath established it, it would make

[blocks in formation]

but a pofitive, and not a natural right of children to inherit the goods of their parents: but where the practice is univerfal, it is reasonable to think the cause is natural. The ground then I think to be this. The first and strongest defire God planted in men, and wrought into the very principles of their nature, being that of felf-prefervation, that is the foundation of a right to the creatures for the particular fupport and use of each individual perfon himself. But, next to this, God planted in men a ftrong defire also of propagating their kind, and continuing themfelves in their pofterity; and this gives children a title to thare in the property of their parents, and a right to inherit their poffeffions. Men are not proprietors of what they have, meerly for themselves; their children have a title to part of it, and have their kind of right joined with their parents, in the poffeffion which comes to be wholly their's, when death, having put an end to their parents use of it, hath taken them from their poffeffions; and this we call inheritance: men being by a like obligation bound to preserve what they have begotten, as to preserve themselves, their iffue come to have a right in the goods they are poffeffed of That children have fuch a right, is plain from the laws of God; and that men are convinced that children have such a right, is evident from the law of the land; both which

which laws require parents to provide for their children.

§. 89. For children being by the course of nature, born weak, and unable to provide for themselves, they have by the appointment of God himself, who hath thus ordered the course of nature, a right to be nourished and maintained by their parents; nay, a right not only to a bare fubfiftence, but to the conveniencies and comforts of life, as far as the conditions of their parents can afford it. Hence it comes, that when their parents leave. the world, and fo the care due to their children ceases, the effects of it are to extend as far as poffibly they can, and the provifions they have made in their life-time, are understood to be intended, as nature requires they should, for their children, whom, after themselves, they are bound to provide for: though the dying parents, by exprefs words, declare nothing about them, nature appoints the descent of their property to their children, who thus come to have a title, and natural right of inheritance to their fathers goods, which the rest of mankind cannot pretend to.

§. 90. Were it not for this right of being nourished and maintained by their parents, which God and nature has given to children, and obliged parents to as a duty, it would be reasonable, that the father should inherit the eftate of his fon, and be preferred in the inheritance

inheritance before his grand-child: for to the grand-father there is due a long score of care and expences laid out upon the breeding and education of his fon, which one would think in justice ought to be paid. But that having been done in obedience to the fame law, whereby he received nourishment and education from his own parents; this score of education, received from a man's father, is paid by taking care, and providing for his own children; is paid, I fay, as much as is required of payment by alteration of property, unless prefent neceffity of the parents require a return of goods for their neceffary fupport and fubfiftence: for we are not now fpeaking of that reverence, acknowledgment, refpect and honour, that is always due from children to their parents; but of poffeffions and commodities of life valuable by money. But though it be incumbent on parents to bring up and provide for their children, yet this debt to their children does not quite cancel the score due to their parents; but only is made by nature preferable to it: for the debt a man owes his father takes place, and gives the father a right to inherit the fon's goods, where, for want of iffue, the right of children doth not exclude that title. And therefore a man having a right to be maintained by his children, where he needs it; and to enjoy also the comforts of life from them, when the neceffary provifion due

to

« PreviousContinue »