Two Treatises of Government · Chapter
VIII: Of the Conveyance of Adam’s Sovereign Monarchical Power explained
Locke examines Filmer's inconsistent arguments about how Adam's supposed monarchical power could be conveyed to future rulers—through inheritance, grant, usurpation, or election—and exposes the contradictions in Filmer's doctrine, ultimatel
What happens
Locke examines Filmer's inconsistent arguments about how Adam's supposed monarchical power could be conveyed to future rulers—through inheritance, grant, usurpation, or election—and exposes the contradictions in Filmer's doctrine, ultimately arguing that if any means of obtaining supreme power makes one a king, then even usurpers and commoners could be considered legitimate monarchs.
Themes in this chapter
Critique of Patriarchalism and Divine Right
Locke systematically dismantles Filmer's patriarchal argument by exposing its internal contradictions, particularly regarding how Adam's supposed authority could be transferred to later rulers.
Limited Government and Rule of Law
By showing that Filmer's theory would legitimize any usurper who seizes supreme power, Locke implicitly argues for a government bound by law and consent, not mere force.
Characters to notice
- Sir Robert Filmer
Filmer's contradictory claims about the conveyance of Adam's sovereign power are scrutinized; he variously asserts inheritance, grant, usurpation, or election as the means, undermining his own theory.
- Adam
Adam is referenced as the supposed original monarch whose royal authority Filmer attempts to convey to future kings, though Locke finds the arguments inconsistent.
Key passages
“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.”
Filmer claims that the method by which a king acquires power is irrelevant; what matters is that he governs with supreme authority, which alone makes him a true king.
Locke highlights this as a self-defeating statement that would legitimize any usurper, undermining Filmer's own defense of hereditary monarchy.
“This is so strange a doctrine, that the surprise of it hath made me pass by, without their due reflection, the contradictions he runs into, by making sometimes inheritance alone, sometimes only grant or inheritance, sometimes only inheritance or usurpation, sometimes all these three, and at last election, or any other means, added to them, the ways whereby Adam’s royal authority... could be conveyed down to future kings and governors.”
Locke points out that Filmer keeps changing his account of how Adam's power is passed on—sometimes it's inheritance, sometimes grant, sometimes usurpation, sometimes all three, and finally even election—showing his theory is hopelessly contradictory.
Locke uses Filmer's own inconsistencies to argue that the entire patriarchal theory of sovereignty is untenable.