XI: Who Heir? explained

What happens

Themes in this chapter

• Critique of Patriarchalism and Divine Right

  Locke systematically dismantles Filmer's claim that political power is divinely assigned to Adam's heir, showing the theory is incoherent without a rule to identify that heir.

• Consent of the Governed

  Locke implies that without a clear divine designation, government must rest on human prudence and consent, not on an unknowable hereditary right.

• Limited Government and Rule of Law

  Locke argues that Filmer's doctrine undermines all civil government by making obedience depend on an unknowable person, leaving no room for law or compact.

Characters to notice

• Adam

  Locke argues that Filmer's claim of Adam's heir having divine right to rule is useless without a way to identify that heir.

• Sir Robert Filmer

  Locke critiques Filmer's assertion that civil power is assigned by divine institution to Adam's heir, showing it leads to confusion and usurpation.

• Abraham

  Locke uses the example of God's grant of Canaan to Abraham and his seed to illustrate the absurdity of a grant without a clear heir.

• Isaac

  Locke references Sarah's concern that Ishmael might be heir with Isaac, showing that the biblical concept of heir differs from Filmer's.

• Ishmael

  Locke mentions Ishmael as a potential heir with Isaac, illustrating the ambiguity of inheritance in scripture.

• Aaron

  Locke compares the clear succession of the Jewish priesthood (limited to Aaron's line) to the unclear succession of political power in Filmer's theory.

Key passages

• “The great question which in all ages has disturbed mankind, and brought on them the greatest part of those mischiefs which have ruined cities, depopulated countries, and disordered the peace of the world, has been, not whether there be power in the world, nor whence it came, but who should have it.”

  The most important and troubling question throughout history has not been about the existence or origin of power, but about who is entitled to wield it.

  Locke identifies the core political problem as the identity of the ruler, not the nature of power itself.

• “If an usurper dispossess the true heir, the subjects obedience to the fatherly power must go along, and wait upon God's providence.”

  If a usurper takes power from the rightful heir, subjects must still obey that usurper as if he were the legitimate ruler, because obedience is owed to whoever holds paternal power.

  Locke quotes Filmer to show that his theory leads to the absurd conclusion that usurpers deserve the same obedience as lawful kings.

• “God not having anywhere said, the next heir shall inherit all his father's estate or dominion, we are not to wonder, that he hath nowhere appointed who that heir should be; for never having intended any such thing, never designed any heir in that sense, we cannot expect he should anywhere nominate, or appoint any person to it.”

  Since God never commanded that the next heir should inherit everything, it is no surprise that He never specified who that heir is; He never intended such a rule.

  Locke argues that the absence of a divine rule for identifying the heir proves that no such hereditary divine right exists.