At the outset, I defined this effort as a discussion of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Of course, as the name suggests, there is also a First Treatise of Government which I had not as yet read. Therefore, I set to reading Locke’s First Treatise to find out what its relationship is to the Second. Was it a first draft supplanted by the Second or was the Second a continuation of the First.
Locke’s First Treatise of Government is in fact a rebuttal to a work by Sir Robert Fuller who sought to justify divine right kings. He found Fuller’s work to be generally absurd, and proceeded to spend great effort to expose those absurdities. Locke accuses Fuller of making vague and repetitive arguments, which in turn causes Locke’s rebuttal to be repetitive as well. Having satisfied with himself that he had debunked Fuller’s work, Locke set about defining what in fact does constitute legitimate government. Lock had in fact at least begun his Second Treatise when he was writing the last chapters of his First Treatise since he makes direct reference to the Sixth Chapter of his Second Treatise regarding paternal power.
In his first Treatise, he exposes Fuller for taking three verses out of the Bible Genesis out of context 1:28, where Adam is given dominion over the world, Genesis 9:2 where God renews that charter with Noah and his sons, and Exodus 20:12 where children are commanded to honor their father and mother, though Fuller conveniently leaves mother out of the quotation. Fuller uses these verses to confer upon Adam an absolute monarchy of the world which transfers to his heirs. Fuller then ignores all scripture to the contrary. Like any prophet establishing a cult, he takes one or a few scripture out of context, and assigns his own interpretation, while ignoring entire balance of scripture.
Locke first analyzes the Hebrew text concerning the grants of authority showing that it referred specifically lower orders of creation. He also goes to great pains to show that the grants of power and the requirements of showing honor are separate edicts, and therefore cannot be conflated into universal political power. He shows the inconsistency of using the parental power as the justification since the son would owe allegiance to the father and the grandson to the son. If the father is absolute monarch, then the son can not have complete political power over the grandson, and if the son retains any power over the son, then neither the father the absolute monarch. Locke also points out that in Mark 15:4 Christ himself highlights the equal share that father and mother have in the honor of the children.
Locke deals with the issue of inheritance showing that the biblical birth right simply gives a double portion to the eldest not absolute dominion. Nor does it inherently contain political power. When Esau sold his birthright to Jacob, and then Jacob stole Esau’s blessing which included a political power, they were two separate events; and therefore, cannot be concurrent powers. If one reads further in the Bible, both Jacob and Esau become the founders of independent nations, and when they meet the meet as equals.
Locke also deals with the absolute absurdity of the claim of monarchy deriving from Adam or subsequently from Noah. For if Fuller’s thesis is right, there can be only one legitimate monarch and that of the whole world, who is to know which of us is the son of Adam the fewest generations separated from Adam, and the eldest of that generation, and therefore, heir of the world. Fuller himself obviates his theory with the quotes: “All kings that now are, or ever were, are or were either fathers of their people, or the heirs of such fathers or usurpers of the right of such fathers,”; “this fatherly empire, as it was of itself hereditary, so it was alienable by patent, and seizable by an usurper,”; and “It skills not which way kings come by their power, whether by election, donation, succession, or by any other means, for it is still the manner of the government by supreme power, that makes them properly kings, and not the means of obtaining their crowns.” Fuller himself legitimizes power by usurpation from the legitimate holder. Who then can be an illegitimate holder of power? Any method of establishing power becomes legitimate.
Locke then goes on to point out the occasions where God himself anointed or selected the younger to rule over the elder: Isaac, Joseph, David, and Solomon. Furthermore, God himself supplants Saul’s heir Jonathan with David. Interestingly, neither author addresses the God’s diatribe against Monarchy in 1 Samuel 8 where through Samuel, God enumerates the reasons why Israel, and presumably every society should reject the idea of an earthly king. Rather they should accept God as their King and his appointees, and their subordinates as their judges. Why Fuller did not go there is obvious. Why Locke did not is more obscure. First, to speak so bluntly and biblically against monarchical power would probably have landed him in prison, or worse. But, more generally, he believed that as God accepted in freedom of choice in 1 Samuel 9 and 10, so should he.
This leaves us with what is his Second Treatise. Having debunked hereditary monarchy as a divine institution and the only legitimate form of government to his own satisfaction (and mine) in his First Treatise, he set about discovering what the divine model is. He did this by arguing solely from scripture and logic of the fundamental nature and condition of human kind and the fundamental rights and powers of human kind. He is the first political philosopher not to rely on the writings of pagan philosophers such as Socrates and Plato, nor those who followed in their foot steps such as Aquinas and Hobbes. He developed a uniquely Christian and evangelical perspective on political society. It is from this perspective that for the most part British and in every respect American government is founded and most modern governments of the world have tried to emulate. However, those governments which have tried to imitate evangelical government (founding by constitution at the consent of the people) without being truly culturally evangelical are doomed to perpetual internal conflict between their governmental construction and their religious culture. Imposing “free, democratic” government on a culture which is not founded upon recognizing fundamental liberties is a fools errand; and ignoring fundamental liberties in a free society will inevitably lead to tyranny.
