vinism; in Scotland, he had to reject bishops and believe in Calvinism. The Stuarts had genuine
religious convictions, which made this ambiguous attitude impossible for them, and caused them
even more trouble in Scotland than in England. But after 1688 political convenience led kings to
acquiesce in professing two religions at once. This militated against zeal, and made it difficult to
regard them as divine persons. In any case, neither Catholics nor Nonconformists could acquiesce
in any religious claims on behalf of the monarchy.
The three parties of king, aristocracy, and rich middle class made different combinations at
different times. Under Edward IV and Louis XI, king and middle class combined against the
aristocracy; under Louis XIV, king and aristocracy combined against the middle class; in England
in 1688, aristocracy and middle class combined against the king. When the king had one of the
other parties on his side, he was strong; when they combined against him, he was weak.
For these reasons among others, Locke had no difficulty in demolishing Filmer's arguments.
So far as reasoning is concerned, Locke has, of course, an easy task. He points out that, if parental
power is what is concerned, the mother's power should be equal to the father's. He lay stress on the
injustice of primogeniture, which is unavoidable if inheritance is to be the basis of monarchy. He
makes play with the absurdity of supposing that actual monarchs are, in any real sense, the heirs of
Adam. Adam can have only one heir, but no one knows who he is. Would Filmer maintain, he
asks, that, if the true heir could be discovered, all existing monarchs should lay their crowns at his
feet? If Filmer's basis for monarchy were accepted, all kings, except at most one, would be
usurpers, and would have no right to demand the obedience of their de facto subjects. Moreover
paternal power, he says, is temporary, and extends not to life or property.
For such reasons, apart from more fundamental grounds, heredity cannot, according to Locke, be
accepted as the basis of legitimate political power. Accordingly, in his Second Treatise on
Government he seeks a more defensible basis.
The hereditary principle has almost vanished from politics. During my lifetime, the emperors of
Brazil, China, Russia, Germany, and Austria have disappeared, to be replaced by dictators who do
not aim at the foundation of a hereditary dynasty. Aristocracy has lost its