# Two Treatises of Government: The Last Patriarch **URL:** **By** John Locke **Published:** January 1, 1689 --- In the Americas, two centuries after Locke, his system found its most devoted allies and it’s most deadly opponents. > **Editor’s Note** — Anthony Comegna > > For our final portion from Locke’s “First Treatise,”—the relatively neglected portion of his most famous work—our author concludes his dismantling of Sir Robert Filmer. As we have seen, his purpose in doing so was to prevent exactly the sort of disorderliness in government that produced England’s recent (and catastrophic) civil wars. This conflict remains the most deadly in all of English history in proportion to the population size, and genteel upper-middle class intellectual functionaries like Locke were almost universally determined that nothing of the kind should ever happen again. Systems like Filmer’s patriarchal monarchism turned out to be so flimsy in reality that they allowed for chaotic anarchy in practice. > > Filmer might yearn for a world in which the people passively absorb information and instruction from their social betters—but this was not the world Locke actually lived in. Far from it, in fact. European life had probably _never_ _actually_ worked that way in practice, but even as an ideal, Filmer’s version of patriarchal feudalism with all peoples in their proper order on the Great Chain of Being was long dead—especially in England; _especially_ by 1689. Few of Locke’s contemporaries seriously doubted that their world was no longer quite the same as what they were leaving behind—though they may not have used the term, they were now dealing with _modernity_, and it was markedly different from earlier times. It was the very beginning of a new period of history. Perhaps this is why the first treatise is so odd and tinny to our ears today. Something is off about it. It’s riddled with biblical allusions and references, to arcane disputes about minute and foreign subjects. It is much less meaningful to us than the “Second Treatise,” but Locke’s was the _Early Modern_ period—and we should not forget that Filmer’s patriarchalism did (does?) in fact have a long shadow. > > Fast forward two centuries from Locke (and across the ocean), and there was but one rather lone, terribly small, intellectually and politically isolated community of Filmerites left in the Americas. In Europe, of course, there were still plenty of monarchs, ca. 1889, and plenty of defenders for the old patriarchy. Indeed, there were also plenty of _new _and _rather unlikely_ defenses for statism in the form of socialism. But, alas!, in America—the spitting image of John Locke’s “state of Nature”-turned-civilization—Lockean liberalism reached the peak of its influence. Virtually no one contested the fundamentals of his “Second Treatise,” and even fewer paid any serious attention to Locke’s old nemesis, Sir Robert Filmer. Virtually no one, that is, outside the orbit of plantation slavery’s most vociferous and unreconstructed devotees. During the course of the nineteenth century, many Americans (rightly or wrongly) began to think of their society as something _they owned_, which _they_ had built from the bottom-up, but _now_ they had also defended it with arms from the most difficult of challenges. They had been through civil war, just like Locke’s England, and they had defended their republic from the domination of the Slave Power, and now abolition guaranteed that a _new and more popular order_ dominated American life. The outmoded slavocratic patriarchy simply had to give way to the far more natural northern Lockeanism. Anything less would mean northern freemen subjugating themselves to the whims of slavemasters as though there were no difference between the two categories of person. Again, to our ultra-modern perspectives this may seem an odd fixation for northerners, but abolitionists had the best proof out there in the form of George Fitzhugh, America’s arch-Filmerite, who openly argued that God’s natural order dictated that _even poor whites should be slaves to their social betters_. For Fitzhugh (who died in 1881), free society was a complete failure—a long string of disruptions and disasters tracing back in large part to John Locke’s _Two Treatises_, the takedown of Robert Filmer, and the sorts of whimsical modern inventions of fancy that Fitzhugh saw throughout this text. By John Locke Thomas Hollis Edition. (London: A. Millar et. al.) 1764. ## Two Treatises of Civil Government ### Book I: Of Government #### Chapter 11: Who HEIR? The scripture says not a word of their rulers or forms of government, but only gives an account, how mankind came to be divided into distinct languages and nations; and therefore it is not to argue from the authority of scripture, to tell us positively, _fathers_ were their _rulers,_ when the scripture says no such thing; but to set up fancies of one’s own brain, when we confidently aver matter of fact, where records are utterly silent. Upon a like ground, _i.e._ none at all, he says, _That they were not confused multitudes without heads and governors, and at liberty to choose what governors or governments they pleased…._ He that can think this arguing from scripture, may from thence make out what model of an _Eutopia _will best suit with his fancy or interest; and this _fatherhood,_ thus disposed of, will justify both a prince who claims an universal monarchy, and his subjects, who, being fathers of families, shall quit all subjection to him, and _canton_ his empire into less governments for themselves; for it will always remain a doubt in which of these the fatherly authority resided…. _Nimrod_ is his next instance of enjoying this patriarchal power, but I know not for what reason our author seems a little unkind to him, and says, that he _against right enlarged his empire, by seizing violently on the rights of other lords of families._ These _lords of families_ here were called _fathers of families,_ in his account of the dispersion at _Babel:_ but it matters not how they were called, so we know who they are; for this fatherly authority must be in them, either as heirs to _Adam…_or else as natural parents over their children, and so every father will have _paternal authority_ over his children by the same right…and so be independent princes over their own offspring. Taking his _lords of families_ in this later sense, (as it is hard to give those words any other sense in this place) he gives us a very pretty account of the original of monarchy, in these following words, _And in this sense he may be said to be the author and founder of monarchy,_ viz. As against right seizing violently on the rights of fathers over their children; which paternal authority, if it be in them, by right of nature…no body can take from them without their own consents; and then I desire our author and his friends to consider, how far this will concern other princes, and whether it will not, according to his conclusion of that paragraph, resolve all regal power of those, whose dominions extend beyond their families, either into tyranny and usurpation, or election and consent of fathers of families, which will differ very little from consent of the people. All his instances, in the next _section,_ of the 12 dukes of _Edom,_ the nine kings in a little corner of _Asia_ in _Abraham_’s days, the 31 kings in _Canaan _destroyed by _Joshua,_ and the care he takes to prove that these were all sovereign princes, and that every town in those days had a king, are so many direct proofs against him, that it was not the _lordship of_ Adam _by right descending_ to them, that made kings: for if they had held their royalties by that title, either there must have been but one sovereign over them all, or else every father of a family had been as good a prince, and had as good a claim to royalty, as these: for if all the sons of _Esau_ had each of them, the younger as well as the eldest, the right of _fatherhood,_ and so were sovereign princes after their fathers death, the same right had their sons after them, and so on to all posterity; which will limit all the natural power of fatherhood, only to be over the issue of their own bodies, and their descendents; which power of fatherhood dies with the head of each family, and makes way for the like power of fatherhood to take place in each of his sons over their respective posterities: whereby the power of fatherhood will be preserved indeed, and is intelligible, but will not be at all to our author’s purpose. None of the instances he brings are proofs of any power they had, as heirs of _Adam_’s paternal authority by the title of his fatherhood descending to them; no, nor of any power they had by virtue of their own: for _Adam_’s _fatherhood _being over all mankind, it could descend but to one at once, and from him to his right heir only, and so there could by that title be but one king in the world at a time: and by right of fatherhood, not descending from _Adam,_ it must be only as they themselves were fathers, and so could be over none but their own posterity. So that if those 12 dukes of _Edom;_ if _Abraham_ and the nine kings his neighbours; if _Jacob_ and _Esau,_ and the 31 kings in _Canaan,_ the 72 kings mutilated by _Adonibeseck,_ the 32 kings that came to _Benhadad, _the 70 kings of _Greece_ making war at _Troy,_ were, as our author contends, all of them sovereign princes; it is evident that kings derived their power from some other original _than fatherhood,_ since some of these had power over more than their own posterity; and it is demonstration, they could not be all heirs to _Adam:_ for I challenge any man to make any pretence to power by right of _fatherhood,_ either intelligible or possible in any one, otherwise, than either as _Adam_’s heir, or as progenitor over his own descendents, naturally sprung from him. And if our author could shew that any one of these princes, of which he gives us here so large a catalogue, had his authority by either of these titles, I think I might yield him the cause; though it is manifest they are all impertinent, and directly contrary to what he brings them to prove, _viz._ That the _lordship which _Adam _had over the world by right descended to the patriarchs…._ All that his proofs amount to, is only this, that there were fathers, patriarchs and kings, in that age of the world; but that the fathers and patriarchs had any absolute arbitrary power, or by what titles those kings had their’s, and of what extent it was, the scripture is wholly silent; it is manifest by right of _fatherhood_ they neither did, nor could claim any title to dominion and empire. To say, _that the exercise of supreme patriarchal government was intermitted, because they were in subjection to a stronger prince,_ proves nothing but what I before suspected, _viz._ That _patriarchal jurisdiction or government_ is a fallacious expression, and does not in our author signify (what he would yet insinuate by it) _paternal_ and _regal power,_ such an absolute sovereignty as he supposes was in _Adam._ For how can he say that _patriarchal jurisdiction was intermitted in Egypt,_ where there was a king, under whose regal government the _Israelites_ were, if _patriarchal_ were _absolute monarchical jurisdiction?_ And if it were not, but something else, why does he make such ado about a power not in question, and nothing to the purpose?… For I thought he had been giving us out of scripture, proofs and examples of monarchical government, founded on paternal authority, descending from _Adam;_ and not an history of the _Jews:_ amongst whom yet we find no kings, till many years after they were a people: and when kings were their rulers, there is not the least mention or room for a pretence that they were heirs to _Adam,_ or kings by paternal authority. I expected, talking so much as he does of scripture, that he would have produced thence a series of monarchs, whose titles were clear to _Adam’s fatherhood,_ and who, as heirs to him, owned and exercised paternal jurisdiction over their subjects, and that this was the true patriarchical government; whereas he neither proves, that the patriarchs were kings; nor that either kings or patriarchs were heirs to _Adam,_ or so much as pretended to it: and one may as well prove, that the patriarchs were all absolute monarchs; that the power both of patriarchs and kings was only paternal; and that this power descended to them from _Adam:_ I say all these propositions may be as well proved by a confused account of a multitude of little kings in the _West-Indies,_ out of _Ferdinando Soto,_ or any of our late histories of the _Northern America,_ or by our author’s 70 kings of _Greece,_ out of _Homer,_ as by any thing he brings out of scripture, in that multitude of kings he has reckoned up. And methinks he should have let _Homer_ and his wars of _Troy_ alone, since his great zeal to truth or monarchy carried him to such a pitch of transport against _philosophers_ and _poets,_ that he tells us in his preface, that there _are too many in these days, who please themselves in running after the opinions of philosophers and poets, to find out such an original of government, as might promise them some title to liberty, to the great scandal of Christianity, and bringing in of atheism._ And yet these heathens, philosopher _Aristotle,_ and poet _Homer,_ are not rejected by our zealous Christian politician, whenever they offer any thing that seems to serve his turn; whether _to the great scandal of_ Christianity _and bringing in of_ atheism, let him look. This I cannot but observe, in authors who it is visible write not for truth, how ready zeal for interest and party is to entitle _Christianity_ to their designs, and to charge _atheism_ on those who will not without examining submit to their doctrines, and blindly swallow their nonsense. But to return to his scripture history, our author farther tells us, that _after the return of the _Israelites _out of_ bondage, _God, out of a special care of them, chose_ Moses _and_ Joshua _successively to govern as princes in the place and stead of the supreme fathers._ If it be true, that they _returned out of bondage,_ it must be into a state of freedom, and must imply, that both before and after this _bondage_ they were free, unless our author will say, that changing of masters is returning _out of bondage;_ or that a slave _returns out of bondage,_ when he is removed from one gally to another. If then they _returned out of bondage,_ it is plain that in those days, whatever our author in his preface says to the contrary, there were difference between a _son,_ a _subject,_ and a _slave;_ and that neither the _patriarchs_ before, nor their rulers after this _Egyptian bondage, numbered their sons or subjects amongst their possessions,_ and disposed of them with as absolute a dominion, as they did _their other goods…._ When they were out of this _bondage,_ what then? _God out of a special care of them, the_ Israelites. It is well that once in his book he will allow God to have any care of the people; for in other places he speaks of mankind, as if God had no care of any part of them, but only of their monarchs, and that the rest of the people, the societies of men, were made as so many herds of cattle, only for the service, use, and pleasure of their princes. …But says our author, _when God gave the_ Israelites _kings, he re-established the ancient and_ _prime right of lineal succession to paternal government._ How did God _re-establish_ it? by a law, a positive command? We find no such thing…. Next, there can be no _re-establishment of the prime and ancient right of lineal succession_ to any thing, unless he, that is put in possession of it, has the right to succeed, and be the true and next heir to him he succeeds to. Can that be a re-establishment, which begins in a new family? or that the _re-establishment of an ancient right of lineal succession,_ when a crown is given to one, who has no right of succession to it, and who, if the lineal succession had gone on, had been out of all possibility of pretence to it? _Saul,_ the first king God gave the _Israelites,_ was of the tribe of _Benjamin._ Was the _ancient and prime right of lineal succession re-established_ in him? The next was _David,_ the youngest son of _Jesse,_ of the posterity of _Judah, Jacob’s third son._ Was the _ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government re-established_ in him? or in _Solomon,_ his younger son and successor in the throne? or in _Jereboam_ over the ten tribes? or in _Athaliah,_ a woman who reigned six years an utter stranger to the royal blood? _If the ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government_ were _re-established_ in any of these or their posterity, _the ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government_ belongs to younger brothers as well as elder, and may be re-established in any man living; for whatever younger brothers, by _ancient and prime right of lineal succession,_ may have as well as the elder, that every man living may have a right to, by lineal succession, and Sir _Robert_ as well as any other. And so what a brave right of lineal succession, to his _paternal_ or _regal_ government, our author has _re-established,_ for the securing the rights and inheritance of crowns, where every one may have it, let the world consider. But says our author however, _Whensoever God made choice of any special person to be king, he intended that the issue also should have benefit thereof, as being comprehended sufficiently in the person of the father, altho’ the father was only named in the grant._ This yet will not help out succession; for if, as our author says, the benefit of the grant be intended to the _issue_ of the grantee, this will not direct the succession; since, if God give any thing to a man and his _issue_ in general, the claim cannot be to any one of that _issue_ in particular; every one that is of his race will have an equal right. If it be said, our author meant _heir,_ I believe our author was as willing as any body to have used that word, if it would have served his turn… But how will our author prove that whensoever God made choice of any special person to be a king, he intended that _the_ (I suppose he means his) _issue also should have benefit thereof?_… It is in vain then to say, that _whensoever God chooses any special person_ to have the exercise of _paternal authority,_ (for if that be not to be king, I desire to know the difference between a king and one having the exercise of _paternal authority) he intends the issue also should have the benefit of it, _since we find the authority, the judges had, ended with them, and descended not to their _issue;_ and if the judges had not _paternal authority,_ I fear it will trouble our author, or any of the friends to his principles, to tell who had then the _paternal authority,_ that is, the government and supreme power amongst the _Israelites;_ and I suspect they must confess that the chosen people of God continued a people several hundreds of years, without any knowledge or thought of this _paternal authority,_ or any appearance of monarchical government at all. To be satisfied of this, he need but read the story of the _Levite,_ and the war thereupon with the _Benjamites,_ in the three last _chapters_ of _Judges; _and when he finds, that the _Levite_ appeals to the people for justice that it was the tribes and the congregation, that debated, resolved, and directed all that was done on that occasion; he must conclude, either that _God_ was not _careful to preserve the fatherly authority_ amongst his own chosen people; or else that the _fatherly authority _may be preserved, where there is no monarchical government: if the latter, then it will follow, that though _fatherly authority_ be never so well proved, yet it will not infer a necessity of monarchical government; if the former, it will seem very strange and improbable, that God should ordain _fatherly authority_ to be so sacred amongst the sons of men, that there could be no power, or government without it, and yet that amongst his own people, even whilst he is providing a government for them, and therein prescribes rules to the several states and relations of men, this great and fundamental one, this most material and necessary of all the rest, should be concealed, and lie neglected for 400 years after. Before I leave this, I must ask how our author knows that _whensoever God makes choice of any special person to be king, he intends that the issue should have the benefit thereof?_ Does God by the law of nature or revelation say so? By the same law also he must say, which of his _issue_ must enjoy the crown in succession, and so point out the heir, or else leave his _issue_ to divide or scramble for the government: both alike absurd, and such as will destroy the benefit of such grant to the _issue. _When any such declaration of God’s intention is produced, it will be our duty to believe God intends it so; but till that be done, our author must shew us some better warrant, before we shall be obliged to receive him as the authentic revealer of God’s intentions. …But since our author has so confidently assured us of the care of God to preserve the _fatherhood,_ and pretends to build all he says upon the authority of the scripture, we may well expect that that people, whose law, constitution and history is chiefly contained in the scripture, should furnish him with the clearest instances of God’s care of preserving the fatherly authority, in that people who it is agreed he had a most peculiar care of. Let us see then what state this _paternal authority_ or government was in amongst the _Jews,_ from their beginning to be a people. It was omitted, by our author’s confession, from their coming into _Egypt, _till their return out of that bondage, above 200 years: from thence till God gave the _Israelites_ a king, about 400 years more, our author gives but a very slender account of it; nor indeed all that time are there the least footsteps of paternal or regal government amongst them. But then says our author, _God re-established the ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government._ What a _lineal succession to paternal government _was then established, we have already seen. I only now consider how long this lasted, and that was to their captivity, about 500 years: from thence to their destruction by the _Romans,_ above 650 years after, the _ancient and prime right of lineal succession to paternal government_ was again lost, and they continued a people in the promised land without it. So that of 1750 years that they were God’s peculiar people, they had hereditary kingly government amongst them not one third of the time; and of that time there is not the least footstep of one moment of _paternal government, nor the re-establishment of the ancient and prime right of lineal succession to it,_ whether we suppose it to be derived, as from its fountain, from _David, Saul, Abraham,_ or, which upon our author’s principles is the only true, from _Adam._