Gunn 1 Allen Gunn Professor Jess Edwards British Writing & the Enlightenment 27 October 2011 Progression versus

Regression: Locke and Filmer During the middle of 17th century, England was undergoing a struggle of power between supporters of a pro power-shared Parliament and supporters of an absolute monarchy that were in support of Charles I. Sir Robert Filmers ideas of a united monarchy throughout England was supplanted by the publishing of Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings Asserted in 1680. Although written in 1628, it wasnt published until 1680 following the conclusion of the English Civil War. Filmers work outlined the way in which power was handed directly from God to the King to do as he pleased. Compared to that of John Locke, who was out to correct many consequences and faults in Filmers work; Locke sought to find equality and equal distribution of land and to bind governments position as a purpose to serve the people and protect its peoples property. John Lockes An Essay concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government was written during the early 1680s but didnt achieve publishing till 1690. Locke wrote with a more scholarly and legal tone, as opposed to Filmers almost editorial tone. Even though Filmer argues Biblically, where religion holds such importance to a country, he would have trouble finding a sincere audience because he is arguing for a return to a natural siege of power within the monarchy. The stronger argument lies within Lockes sectioned essay because it called for a

Gunn 2 more direct approach to protecting an individuals assets. It also led to influencing many western hemisphere countries for developing a stable government within the constraints of the societys core values. In Section 1, Locke immediately begins to unravel Filmers goal of a true heir of Adam. He states it would almost be impossible to determine the heir and if one could do so, because God had the power and that Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood, or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, or dominion over the world, as is pretended,1 which would dismiss Filmers claim that power comes from God to the King, not from the King to the people or vice versa. This means, if Filmers notion of power comes from God is understood correctly, there would be no political right or political power of any individual other than God Himself that would be able to appoint the next heir to the throne because they do not possess the qualities of a God themselves as there would be only one true God in a monotheist religion. Although Locke argues that power does not directly come from God, he does not discredit Filmers notion of the existence of a God, but he instead directs the notion of Gods existence to the reason why God provided His creation with the land rather than providing absolute rule to the monarchy. In Section 25, Locke states, It is very clear, that God, as king David says, Psal. cxv. 16. has given the earth to the children of men; given it to mankind in common.2 Such a statement allows for free reign of property by which Locke describes as property by improvement. If an individual develops the land through labour, then the land is considered his property because he made it is by nature. According to Filmer, the same land
1

John Locke, from An Essay concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government (1690), British Writing and the Enlightenment 1688-1789, Reading Materials, Part 1: Set Reading , p. 10. 2 John Locke, p. 12.

Gunn 3 would be provided by God to be the Kings land. The King in return allows his stewards to live and develop the area on his land under his direction. If not done in this regard, the land would be considered private which would be considered theft [of the Crowns property]. Communist ideas reflect Filmers discourse in which private property is non-existent. Locke is able to put forth an argument in Section 26 and in Section 27, and 28 that clarifies how private property comes to be ones own and how property is rightfully protected. It is by labour in which one obtains property. Property belongs directly to the individual. Filmer believes the property belongs to the Crown and is distributed by the King himself. At the time of the Glorious Revolution in 1688, one of the main ideas was to directly limit the royal power. Filmers Patriarcha does not outline any means of limiting this power. It only further establishes the need for a constant and stable monarchy within England. Lockes discourse strategically offers an alternative suggestion that not only limits royal power, but also beings to secure the rights of the individual. It reveals the need for a separation between State and Church or Gods influence on politics. The idea of nature is there for the good of man,3 has a great influence on global politics. Lockes discourse allows for several adaptations of the need for government to serve its people rather than inhibit them. The United States Founding Fathers found much solace in Lockes words on the laws of nature because they detail a possible government that could form within a society that combines both the political standpoint, protection of the law, as well as the views of the common individual. Liberty Section 4, Paragraph 1: To understand political power right, and derive it from its original, we must consider, what state all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom in order to their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as
3

Spoken by Professor Jess Edwards; written in notes from lecture.

Gunn 4 they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature, without asking leave, or depending up the will of any other man.4 Liberty is structured on the basis of the idea that political power is formed within reason. The boundaries of constraint cannot be challenged, but all individuals are bound to these constraints. Individuals are responsible for their actions and are subject to the legal laws in place within the society. Equality Section 4, Paragraph 2: A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal amongst another without subordination or subjection an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.5 Equality is outlined that no man or individual is placed above the law. Everyone is subject to the same jurisdiction. Within government, jurisdiction and power is set in check by a process of checks and balances [within the United States of America]. All citizens are born into a society where they may make full use of the land surrounding them, within reason (trespassing, destruction), without fear of prosecution. Equality is closely in hand with liberty as both fall within the boundaries and the laws of a society. Locke defends his point of equality in Section 6 stating, for men being the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us,6 that all men are created equal.

4 5

John Locke, p. 10. John Locke, p. 10. 6 John Locke, p. 11.

Gunn 5 Property Section 26: God, who hath given the world to men in common, hath also given them reason to make use of it to the best advantage of life, and convenience.7 Nature is there for the good of man.8 And God has provided the land as a place of labour for man to put his bodys work into it. The omnipotent being stated in Filmers discourse as well as in Lockes discourse both declare the land has been provided by God with the intentions that the land be developed to its full potential. Filmer fails to persuade his audience because the land would not technically be considered ones own as private property is considered a crime to Filmer. Theft can be viewed as a sin. Thus, Filmer leaves no room in his discourse to provide possessions or property as belong to a distinct individual. Lockes stated God that he develops in his writings allows the individuals labour to be the claim of his land. This property is protected once the labourer claims the possession as his. God has provided the land almost as a token of gratitude to his creation. To finalize Lockes discourse and its comparison to Filmers: Locke gives God the job of provider in the sense that He provides the land in which His creation develops nature into something greater. It is an idea of progression rather than regression. Filmer claims that God is a provider of power rather than of a provider of land. God creates the land, but the King is able to distribute as he so chooses. In Filmers scenario, the King is given similar qualities of a God, when in actuality that would have to be false. In both scenarios, if God is an omnipotent deity then Filmers discourse would fail in VI OF THE ESCHEATING OF KINGDOMS9 where God grants the people the ability to overthrow the King if they so feel. This would be impossible

7 8

John Locke, p. 12. Spoken by Professor Jess Edwards; written in notes from lecture. 9 Sir Robert Filmer, from Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings Asserted (1680), British Writing and the Enlightenment 168801789, Reading Materials, Part 1: Set Reading, p. 7.

Gunn 6 as Gods selection would have to come with no fault. Locke allows God to hold a different position that shows no fault, which coincides with the idea of an omnipotent being. Lockes discourse transcends the ideal values of 17th century politics into a process that allows for change as well as the ability to adapt over time.

Gunn 7

Bibliography Filmer, Sir Robert, Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings Asserted (1680), British Writing and the Enlightenment 1688-1789, Reading Materials, Part 1: Set Reading. pp 7-8. Locke, John, An Essay concerning the True Original British Writing and the Enlightenment 1688-1789, Reading Materials, Part 1: Set Reading. pp 7-8.