Unless the people, through unified action, arise and take charge of their government, they will find that their government has taken charge of them. Independence and liberty will be gone, and the general public will find itself in a condition of servitude to an aggregation of organized and selfish interest.
—Calvin Coolidge—
Key points: Americans can be thankful for the influence English political philosopher John Locke had on the founding of America. In fact, we need to rediscover and reassert the principles Locke upheld and that the Founding Fathers affirmed. Liberty is worth it!
Ben Shapiro introduces an important and highly informative PragerU video titled “If We Lose John Locke, We Lose America,” this way:
When John Adams and Benjamin Franklin read Thomas Jefferson’s draft of the Declaration of Independence, they undoubtedly recognized two things: Jefferson’s peerless prose, and the political wisdom of the 17th-century English thinker, John Locke. We still admire Jefferson’s skill as a writer. But we have lost an appreciation for Jefferson’s philosophical mentor.
John Locke was born in 1632 in a small village in Somerset, England. He studied at Oxford to be a physician but achieved fame as a political theorist.
Through his writings, John Locke, like Samuel Rutherford, whom we considered last time, helped shape the ideas and thinking that set the stage for the American Revolution. At Discover Bedrock Truth, Word Foundation’s sister website, I have prepared a page that invites you to “Get to Know John Locke” — not just his life, but also his revolutionary ideas, ideas many of us today have come to take for granted. There you’ll be able to
-
-
- watch a series of videos presented by the Canada-based Fraser Institute on Locke and his political philosophy,
- watch the PragerU video on Locke presented by Mr. Shapiro, and
- read 76 quotes from John Locke himself.
-
Please do take a few minutes to become familiar with John Locke. His influence on the thinking of the Founding Fathers was huge. As your understanding of Locke increases, so will your grasp of the factors that drove the American Revolution and the ideas to which the Founding Fathers pointed when they established the United States of America in 1776 and drafted the Constitution in 1781. While many of these ideas are batted around frequently today, very few understand what they meant in the 17th and 18th centuries, including just how counter-cultural they were.
The following is adapted from Principles of Liberty: Ten Biblical Truths Embedded in the Declaration of Independence: A Five-Session Bible Study Series, Session 2:
According to an article at conservapedia.com, “The Declaration of Independence drew upon Christianity and the Enlightenment English philosopher John Locke.” The article goes on to add, “In his famous work “Two Treatises of Government” (1690), Locke declared that all men have the natural (inalienable) rights of ‘life, liberty and estate (property).’ Notably the Declaration of Independence does not emphasize a right to pursue property, however, speaking instead in favor of pursuit of ‘happiness.'”
The following items are important to know about John Locke:
-
-
-
- ‘Though Locke often is described just as this article characterizes him — as an “Enlightenment English philosopher” —
- John Locke’s thinking actually had numerous biblical and theological underpinnings, even bringing him to a point at which “he was considered a theologian by his peers and by subsequent generations.”
- This is not to say that all his views aligned with Scripture. Some did not, as we soon will see. Even so, he cannot accurately be thought of as a purely secular philosopher.
- In his influential work Two Treatises of Government, published in 1689 — a work from which the Founders who wrote and ratified the Declaration drew — Locke said this: “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.” (This work is available online here; the quote appears on page 115.)
-
-
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
—John Locke—
The Purpose of Civil Law
In other words, the law, properly written and applied, is far more liberating than restrictive. Yes, laws do impose restrictions. In the end, though, in a society that respects the law and where civil leaders do not seek to abuse it, the law serves to protect citizens from harm and maintain the order in society that is so essential to liberty. Without order, people would not have the freedom to exercise their God-given rights.
This is an idea we’ve explored previously in numerous articles, such as
-
-
- “Contending for the Recognition of Absolutes, Part 7,”
- “The Key to Freedom and Liberty, Parts 1 and 2, and
- “Finding Freedom and Liberty Where Many Today Would Never Expect to Find Them.”
-
Locke and the Founding Fathers understood an idea that most Americans today never have realized. Francis Schaeffer articulated it very effectively just before his death in 1984 in his last book, The Great Evangelical Disaster: True liberty is rare in the world. Without a respect for the law — ultimately, without a respect for God and His law — people eventually and inevitably will use their freedom to follow their own base instincts, or their own selfish desires. This approach (that today we might describe as “follow your heart”) disrupts the order that liberty cannot thrive without.
In item 24 of the 76-item list of John Locke quotes (also available here), Locke elaborates:
Moral laws are set as a curb and restraint to these exorbitant desires, which they cannot be but by rewards and punishments, that will over-balance the satisfaction any one shall propose to himself in the breach of the law.
This quotation is from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, Part 1 (available here). Steve Straub of the https://thefederalistpapers.org says this about this publication from Locke:
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding [by John Locke] concerns the foundation of human knowledge and understanding. Locke describes the mind at birth as a blank slate filled later through experience.
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding is sectioned into four books. Taken together, they comprise an extremely long and detailed theory of knowledge starting from the very basics and building up.
Here I am not trying to argue in favor of Locke’s idea that “the mind at birth is a blank state filled later through experience.” In How Shall We Then Live? Francis Schaeffer affirms Locke in important ways but criticizes his emphasis on experience as being inconsistent with his affirmations of “natural rights.”1
There’s more. Scripture indicates God’s law is “written in” people’s hearts, and that principle appears to stand contrary to Lock’s notion of a blank slate, as well. Even young children seem to have an innate sense of right and wrong. How many times have you heard “That’s not fair!” from toddlers and young children?
All of this reminds us that, as we indicated previously, not all of Locke’s views aligned with Scripture; however, he should not be thought of as a purely secular thinker. Many of his ideas are biblical. Significantly, what Locke says in this statement about the purpose of the law is profound. Here is the immediate context of the quote, which appears on page 57 of this edition of Part 1 of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
Principles of actions indeed there are lodged in men’s appetites, but these are so far from being innate moral principles, that if they were left to their full swing, they would carry men to the overturning of all morality. Moral laws are set as a curb and restraint to these exorbitant desires, which they cannot be but by rewards and punishments, that will overbalance the satisfaction any one shall propose to himself in the breach of the law. If therefore any thing be imprinted on the minds of all men as a law, all men must have a certain and unavoidable knowledge, that certain and unavoidable punishment will attend the breach of it.
Appetites! Appetites are innate, according to Locke. He apparently is talking about the basic inclinations of men’s and women’s hearts, inclinations that are far from noble and selfless. This at least strongly implies that man has a sinful nature. If these appetites were to remain unchecked in civil society or “left to their full swing, ” Locke argues, “they would carry men to the overturning of all morality.” Laws, though, have the effect of restraining these appetites, keeping them at bay so as to keep individuals on track as law-abiding citizens.
This is consistent with what we see Romans 13:1-7, 1 Peter 2:13-17, and 1 Timothy 2:1-4. God established the state to promote order in society by commending those who do right and by punishing those who do wrong. Although he doesn’t say it directly here, Locke implies it: Such restraint in society (from the force of law) keeps society from becoming chaotic or lawless; it establishes and preserves it as a place where freedom (lawful pursuit of one’s desires and goals) can thrive.
Can you now see how Locke’s contention that “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom” is on target? Laws act as guardrails that make efficient travel on highways possible.
Mutual Respect Needed
Let’s return to page 115 of Two Treatises of Government to read the larger context of Locke’s observation that “The end of law is…to preserve and enlarge freedom.” Locke writes,
[T]he end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, “where there is no law, there is no freedom;” for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is not law: but freedom is not, as we are told, “a liberty for every man to do what he lists:” (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
Wow! There is so much to unpack here. The dark bullets signify a portion of the actual quote by Locke, while the hollow bullets are observations about the item just quoted.
-
-
- [T]he end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom: for in all the states of created beings capable of laws, “where there is no law, there is no freedom;” for liberty is to be free from restraint and violence from others; which cannot be where there is not law:
-
-
-
- Laws are to prevent people from interfering with others as they go about pursuing their own dreams. This means that you have a right to pursue your dreams under the law, but you also have to respect the rights of all others to pursue their dreams under the law. It’s important at this point to understand the difference between negative and positive rights. Can you describe how they are different? Find out more here and here.
- Liberty thrives when people are unhindered from exercising their freedoms under the law, not when government enables them to do anything. It is not government’s business to enable cititzens in any way, except to restrain itself from standing in citizens’ way and to keep others from doing the same.
-
-
-
- but freedom is not, as we are told, “a liberty for every man to do what he lists:” (for who could be free, when every other man’s humour might domineer over him?) but a liberty to dispose, and order as he lists, his person, actions, possessions, and his whole property, within the allowance of those laws under which he is, and therein not to be subject to the arbitrary will of another, but freely follow his own.
-
-
-
- If any entity, whether it be the government or another individual, has an inclination to arbitrarily rule over another, then the acting out of that inclination should be a violation of the law. Why? Liberty is being free to pursue one’s desires and dreams under the law without hindering anyone else from pursuing his.
- Notice the emphasis here on property rights. Here and elsewhere, Locke affirmed property rights, including, first and foremost, property rights over one’s own person (see item 47 on this list and this one).
-
Self-Evident Truths
Before concluding, let’s consider one more important theme. Where did the Founding Fathers who penned the Declaration of Independence get the idea that certain truths, rights among them, are self-evident? Where did they get the idea of equality, that lawmakers and common citizens are equally subject to self-evident laws in nature? Wherever else they may have drawn inspiration for these ideas, they certainly could have looked to this quotation from John Locke (number 19 on this list and this one).
Thus the law of nature stands as an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that they make for other mens actions, must, as well as their own and other mens actions, be conformable to the law of nature, i.e. to the will of God, of which that is a declaration, and the fundamental law of nature being the preservation of mankind, no human sanction can be good, or valid against it.
This quotation is from Two Treatises of Government, and it can be found on pages 147 and 148 in this edition. Do not miss here the connection between this emphasis from John Locke and the emphasis of Samuel Rutherford in Lex Rex: The law is king; both the king and the common citizen are subject to God’s law and the laws of nature, or reality in the world as God has established it. Note as well that Locke emphasizes the right of people to protect and preserve themselves from those who might unlawfully harm or threaten them.
Not Yet Scratched the Surface
We’ve only gotten started with Locke, yet there’s so much we haven’t been able to cover. Use the resources to which this article points to explore further. We need to rediscover both Samuel Rutherford and Locke. Why?
Because we need a Second American Revolution.
Will you work to reassert the principles we’ve highlighted in our previous post and in this one?
Few endeavors would be greater or more worthwhile.
Copyright © 2022 by B. Nathaniel Sullivan. All rights reserved.
Unless otherwise indicated, Scripture has been taken from the New King James Version®. Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
Note:
1Francis Schaeffer, How Should We Then Live? (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1976), 109-110. Schaeffer writes,
The second mediator of Rutherford’s influence was John Locke (1632-1704), who, though secularizing the Presbyterian tradition, nevertheless drew heavily from it. He stressed inalienable rights, government by consent, separation of powers, and the right of revolution. But the biblical base for these is discovered in Rutherford’s work. Without this biblical background, the whole system would be without a foundation. This is seen in the fact that Locke’s own work has an inherent contradiction. His empiricism, as revealed in his Essay Concerning Human understanding (1690), really leaves no place for “natural rights.” Empiricism would rest everything on experience. But “natural rights” must either be innate to the nature of man and not based on experience (thereby conflicting with the concept of empiricism) or they must have an adequate base other than man’s experience. Locke’s difficulty was that he did not have Samuel Rutherford’s Christian base. He stated the results which come from biblical Christianity without having the base which produced them. That is, he secularized Christian teaching.
Be First to Comment