CodalSearch this book — or all of Codal…⌘K
nydus/Two Treatises of GovernmentPublic

Locke critiques the concepts of absolute monarchy and divine right, arguing instead for a government founded on natural rights, individual freedom, and the consent of the governed, which protects the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property.

Page 11 of 315
Table of Contents

I

was to be the pattern in the mount, and the perfect standard of politics for the future. His system lies in a little compass, it is no more but this,

“That all government is absolute monarchy.”

And the ground he builds on is this,

“That no man is born free.”

In this last age a generation of men has sprung up amongst us, that would flatter princes with an opinion, that they have a divine right to absolute power, let the laws by which they are constituted and are to govern, and the conditions under which they enter upon their authority, be what they will; and their engagements to observe them ever so well ratified, by solemn oaths and promises. To make way for this doctrine, they have denied mankind a right to natural freedom; whereby they have not only, as much as in them lies, exposed all subjects to the utmost misery of tyranny and oppression, but have also unsettled the titles, and shaken the thrones of princes: (for they too, by these men’s system, except only one, are all born slaves, and by divine right are subjects to Adam’s right heir;) as if they had designed to make war upon all government, and subvert the very foundations of human society, to serve their present turn.

However we must believe them upon their own bare words, when they tell us, “We are all born slaves, and we must continue so”; there is no remedy for it; life and thraldom we entered into together, and can never be quit of the one, till we part with the other. Scripture or reason, I am sure, do not anywhere say so, notwithstanding the noise of divine right, as if divine authority had subjected us to the unlimited will of another. An admirable state of mankind, and that which they have not had wit enough to find out till this latter age! For, however Sir Robert Filmer seems to condemn the novelty of the contrary opinion, Patr. p. 3, yet I

11