Sect. 1. It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse,
1. As was shown in the previous discussion,
(1). That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended:
(1). Adam did not have such authority over his children. He did not have dominion over the world by natural right as a father. He also did not have it by an explicit grant from God, as some claim;
(2). That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:
(2). That if he had it, his heirs still had no right to it;
(3). That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:
(3). Suppose his heirs had the right of succession. No law of nature or positive law of God decides who the rightful heir is in all cases. So the right of succession, and therefore the right to rule, could not have been determined with certainty;
(4). That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the eldest line of Adam’s posterity, being so long since utterly lost, that in the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another, the least pretence to be the eldest house, and to have the right of inheritance:
(4). Even if that had been decided, the knowledge of which line of Adam’s descendants is eldest has been lost for so long. Among the races and families of the world, no one has even the smallest claim to be the eldest house. No one can claim a right of inheritance.
All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive any the least shadow of authority from that, which is held to be the fountain of all power, Adam’s private dominion and paternal jurisdiction; so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition and rebellion, (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against) must of necessity find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.
All these premises have, I think, been clearly made out. So it is impossible for the rulers now on earth to gain any benefit, or derive even the least shadow of authority, from what is held to be the fountain of all power: Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction. Someone may not want to give just cause for thinking two things. The first is that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence. The second is that men live together by no other rule than that of beasts, where the strongest wins. That view would lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and rebellion (the very things the followers of that hypothesis cry out against so loudly). Whoever wants to avoid this must of necessity find another rise of government, another origin of political power, and another way of designating and knowing the persons who have it, than what Sir Robert Filmer has taught us.
Sect. 2. To this purpose, I think it may not be amiss, to set down what I take to be political power; that the power of a MAGISTRATE over a subject may be distinguished from that of a FATHER over his children, a MASTER over his servant, a HUSBAND over his wife, and a LORD over his slave. All which distinct powers happening sometimes together in the same man, if he be considered under these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers one from another, and shew the difference betwixt a ruler of a common-wealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley.
2. For this purpose, I think it may not be amiss to set down what I take political power to be. Then the power of a MAGISTRATE over a subject may be distinguished from that of a FATHER over his children, a MASTER over his servant, a HUSBAND over his wife, and a LORD over his slave. All these distinct powers sometimes happen together in the same man. If we consider him in each of these different relations, it may help us to distinguish these powers from one another. It may show the difference between a ruler of a commonwealth, a father of a family, and a captain of a galley.
Sect. 3. POLITICAL POWER, then, I take to be a RIGHT of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the commonwealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good.
3. Political power, then, I understand as the right to make laws that may call for the death penalty and for lesser punishments. These laws are meant to regulate and preserve property. Political power also includes the right to use the community's force to enforce those laws. It includes using that force to defend the commonwealth from foreign harm. All of this is exercised only for the public good.