Abstract
This chapter will fall into two main parts. In the first and longer part, sections I through IV, we will map out, by means of a close reading of The First Treatise’s “Preface” and first two chapters, how Locke gradually unearths what he argues is the core of Filmer’s position, namely, Filmer’s belief that the source of the sovereignty of all princes is the biblical God, and, furthermore, that the first sovereign prince was Adam. In the second part, section V, we will offer a close reading of the first paragraph of chapter three.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Brubaker says that in Natural Right and History Leo Strauss “finds the ‘Reader’ addressed by Locke to be more Englishman than philosopher” (2012, footnote 1, 207–208). But in the passage to which Brubaker refers Strauss says nothing specifically about Locke’s “Reader”; he says that “In the Treatise, it is less Locke the philosopher than Locke the Englishman who addresses not philosophers, but Englishmen” (1965, 220–221). Furthermore, in the central set of the three sets of references that Strauss cites in the footnote that he attaches to this statement, he cites three examples from the First Treatise, the central of which, and among the three the example that perhaps most illustrates Strauss’ statement, is FT section 1, a section that, as we will see, Locke clearly directs toward English gentlemen. Note also that in the first two sets of references Strauss refers specifically to “Treatises” (plural; contrast Strauss’ reference to “Treatise” in the singular in the quotation above), and that he does so even though the central set of references contains citations to the First Treatise alone. In the third set, in which Strauss cites examples only from the Second Treatise, he makes no mention of “Treatises.”
- 2.
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government, edited by Peter Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991 [1960], 137. All references to Locke's First Treatise are from this edition. Hereafter, we shall refer to this edition as “Laslett.”
- 3.
Calvin would not approve of Locke’s substitution of “fate” for “providence.” See Pangle 2003, 45–46.
- 4.
See Tarcov 1989, 9–21; 65–66; Faulkner 2005, 456.
- 5.
The first fourteen lines of the first part of Butler’s Hudibras, which appeared in 1663, read as follows: “When civil dudgeon first grew high, And men fell out they knew not why; When hard words, jealousies, and fears, Set folks together by the ears, And made them fight, like mad or drunk, For Dame Religion, as for punk; Whose honesty they all durst swear for, Though not a man of them knew wherefore: When Gospel-Trumpeter, surrounded With long-ear'd rout, to battle sounded, And pulpit, drum ecclesiastick, Was beat with fist, instead of a stick; Then did Sir Knight abandon dwelling, And out he rode a colonelling.” Samuel Butler, Hudibras, Written in the Time of the Late Wars, edited by A.R. Waller, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014 [1905], 3. See also Tarcov 1989, 217.
- 6.
“1. There is no form of government, but monarchy only. 2. That there is no monarchy, but paternal. 3. That there is no paternal monarchy, but absolute, or arbitrary. 4. That there is no such thing as an aristocracy or democracy. 5. That there is no such form of government as a tyranny. 6. That the people are not born free by nature.” Robert Filmer, Patriarcha and Other Political Works, edited with an introduction by Peter Laslett, New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2009 [1949], 229. Hereafter, we will refer to this volume as “Filmer.”
- 7.
Filmer means “plausible” in its older sense: superficially pleasing and specious.
- 8.
See Laslett 1991, 47–48; Zuckert 2002, 129–130; Faulkner 2005, 451–453.
- 9.
“Head in the clouds.”
- 10.
“(Obligations of that Eternal Law) are so great, and so strong, in the case of Promises, that Omnipotency itself can be tyed by them. Grants, Promises, and Oaths are Bonds that hold the Almighty …” (Locke’s italics).
- 11.
“Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man (anthropinē ktisis) for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well” (I. Peter.ii.13–14; King James Version).
- 12.
Pangle 1988, 138–139.
- 13.
Filmer 2009, 284. Laslett 1991 misidentifies the page number for this quotation as 234 (144).
- 14.
See section VII, which Filmer entitles “Of the Agreement of Paternal and Regal Power,” Filmer 2009, 63. The title of Locke’s chapter II is simply “Of Paternal and Regal Power.”
- 15.
The importance of Locke’s argument concerning the creation of Adam is discounted by scholars who accept what appears to be Locke’s argument: God’s creation of Adam does not deny the natural freedom of mankind because this creation provides Adam only with being or existence and mere existence by itself gives Adam no sovereignty. See, for example, Pangle 1988, 141; 136–137; Tarcov 1989, 58; Brubaker 2012, 210; Foster 1997, 188–189. Foster raises the important question of how man can be free if man and world have been created by an omnipotent God, pointing out that “it is unlikely that Locke overlooked this important problem, but the brevity of his discussion makes it difficult to determine his response to it” (189–190). We shall argue that this is precisely the problem that Locke is addressing here, and that if we follow carefully what Locke says we can determine his response to it.
- 16.
See, for example, Isaiah 66:2; Acts 7:50; Psalms 8:3; Psalms 95:4; Isaiah 64:8; Job 12:10.
- 17.
Genesis 1:26–27.
- 18.
Scholars generally ignore this crucial point. An exception is Faulkner 2005, 472.
- 19.
Even today, when terms such as “parents” are undergoing substantial revision, Wikipedia’s first definition of “parent” is the following: “A parent is a caregiver of the offspring in their own species.” Wikipedia, March 14, 2022, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parent.
- 20.
Genesis 1:26–31.
- 21.
See “The Preface” l. 63 and I.i.4.1; consider also Zuckert 2002, 143–146.
- 22.
See again I.iii.3–10 and Locke’s remark that “our A—” offers no response to Locke’s supposition.
- 23.
Genesis 1:24–26; 2:7–20.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Davis, M.K. (2023). Locke and the Challenge of the Biblical God. In: Ancient and Modern Approaches to the Problem of Relativism. Recovering Political Philosophy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22304-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22304-4_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-22303-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-22304-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)