men at liberty, at the fame time to unite and begin a new government under a regal, or any other form; it being demonstration, that if any one, born under the dominion of another, may be fo free as to have a right to command others in a new and diftinct empire, every one that is born under the dominion of another may be fo free too, and may become a ruler, or subject, of a distinct separate government. And so by this their own principle, either all men, however born, are free, or else there is but one lawful prince, one lawful government in the world. And then they have nothing to do, but barely to fhew us which that is; which when they have done, I doubt not but all mankind will easily agree to pay obedience to him. §. 114. Though it be a fufficient answer to their objection, to fhew that it involves them in the fame difficulties that it doth those they use it againft; yet I fhall endeavour to discover the weakness of this argument a little farther. All men, fay they, are born under government, and therefore they cannot be at liberty to begin a new one. Every one is born a subject to his father, or his prince, and is therefore under the perpetual tie of fubjection and allegiance. It is plain mankind never owned nor confidered any fuch natural fubjection that they were born in, to one or to the other that tied them, them, without their own consents, to a fubjection to them and their heirs. §. 115. For there are no examples fo frequent in hiftory, both facred and profane, as those of men withdrawing themselves, and their obedience, from the jurifdiction they were born under, and the family or community they were bred up in, and setting up new governments in other places; from whence fprang all that number of petty commonwealths in the beginning of ages, and which always multiplied, as long as there was room enough, till the ftronger, or more fortunate, fwallowed the weaker; and those great ones again breaking to pieces, diffolved into leffer dominions. All which are fo many teftimonies against paternal fovereignty, and plainly prove, that it was not the natural right of the father defcending to his heirs, that made governments in the beginning, fince it was impoffible, upon that ground, there fhould have been fo many little kingdoms; all must have been but only one univerfal monarchy, if men had not been at liberty to feparate themselves from their families, and the government, be it what it will, that was fet up in it, and go and make distinct common-wealths and other governments, as they thought fit. §. 116. This has been the practice of the world from its first beginning to this day; nor is it now any more hindrance to the freedom : freedom of mankind, that they are born under conftituted and ancient polities, that have eftablished laws, and fet forms of government, than if they were born in the woods, amongst the unconfined inhabitants, that run loofe in them for thofe, who would perfuade us, that by being born under any government, we are naturally fubjects to it, and have no more any title or pretence to the freedom of the state of nature, have no other reason (bating that of paternal power, which we have already answered) to produce for it, but only, because our fathers or progenitors paffed away their natural liberty, and thereby bound up themselves and their pofterity to a perpetual fubjection to the government, which they themselves fubmitted to. It is true, that whatever engagements or promises any one has made for himself, he is under the obligation of them, but cannot, by any compact whatsoever, bind his children or pofterity: for his fon, when a man, being altogether as free as the father, any act of the father can no more give away the liberty of the fon, than it can of any body elfe: he may indeed annex fuch conditions to the land, he enjoyed as a fubject of any common-wealth, as may oblige his fon to be of that community, if he will enjoy thofe poffeffions which were his father's; because that estate being his father's property, he may difpofe, or fettle it, as he pleafes. §. 117. §. 117. And this has generally given the occafion to mistake in this matter; because common-wealths not permitting any part of their dominions to be difmembered, nor to be enjoyed by any but thofe of their community, the fon cannot ordinarily enjoy the poffeffions of his father, but under the fame terms his father did, by becoming a member of the fociety; whereby he puts himself presently under the government he finds there established, as much as any other subject of that common-wealth. And thus the confent of freemen, born under government, which only makes them members of it, being given feparately in their turns, as each comes to be of age, and not in a multitude together; people take no notice of it, and thinking it not done at all, or not neceffary, conclude they are naturally fubjects as they are men. §. 118. But, it is plain, governments themfelves understand it otherwife; they claim no power over the fon, because of that they had over the father; nor look on children as being their subjects, by their fathers being fo. If a fubject of England have a child, by an English woman in France, whofe fubject is he? Not the king of England's; for he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges of it: nor the king of France's; for how then has his father a liberty to bring him away, and breed him as he pleases? and who ever was judged as a traytor or deferter, if he left, og warred warred against a country, for being barely born in it of parents that were aliens there? It is plain then, by the practice of governments themselves, as well as by the law of right reason, that a child is born a fubject of no, country or government. He is under his father's tuition and authority, till he comes to age of difcretion; and then he is a freeman, at liberty what government he will put himself under, what body politic he will unite himself to: for if an Englishman's fon, born in France, be at liberty, and may do fo, it is evident there is no tie upon him by his father's being a fubject of this kingdom; nor is he bound up by any compact of his ancestors. And why then hath not his fon, by the fame reason, the fame liberty, though he be born any where else? Since the power that a father hath naturally over his children, is the fame, where-ever they be born, and the ties of natural obligations, are not bounded by the pofitive limits of kingdoms and common-wealths. §. 119. Every man being, as has been fhewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into fubjection to any earthly power, but only his own confent; it is to be confidered, what fhall be understood to be a fufficient declaration of a man's confent, to make bim fubject to the laws of any government. There is a common diftinction of an exprefs and a tacit confent, which will concern our prefent |