Locke's Two Treatises of Government › The First Treatise: Demolishing Divine Right

The First Treatise receives less attention today because Filmer's theory no longer has many defenders. But Locke's critique is thorough and often incisive. He attacks on multiple fronts. ::: {.callout-note title="Patriarchalism"} The theory, defended by Robert Filmer, that political authority derives from the paternal authority God granted to Adam. Just as fathers have natural authority over their children, kings have natural authority over their subjects by inheritance from Adam. ::: First, Locke challenges the biblical interpretation. Even granting that God gave Adam dominion over the earth, this was dominion over animals and plants, not over other human beings. The text does not support the claim that Adam had political authority over Eve or his descendants. Filmer has simply misread Scripture. Second, even if Adam did have such authority, there is no clear line of inheritance to any current monarch. Adam's authority would have passed to his eldest son, but the genealogical record is hopelessly obscure. No king can actually trace his lineage back to Adam in an unbroken chain. The practical implications of patriarchalism are therefore impossible to determine. Third, Locke argues that paternal and political authority are fundamentally different in kind. A father's authority over young children is temporary and limited, based on the child's need for care and guidance. It ends when the child reaches maturity. Political authority over adult citizens cannot be derived from this model. To treat subjects as perpetual children is to misunderstand both childhood and citizenship. The First Treatise clears the ground. With Filmer refuted, Locke can build his own theory.