We can now turn to the text itself. Locke begins with a summary of what he proved in the First Treatise:
§1 It having been shewn in the foregoing discourse [that is the First Treatise],
1. 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:
2. That if he had, his heirs, yet, had no right to it:
3. That if his heirs had, there being no law of nature nor positive law of God that determines which is the right heir in all cases that may arise, the right of succession, and consequently of bearing rule, could not have been certainly determined:
4. That if even that had been determined, yet the knowledge of which is the eldest line of Adam's posterity, being so long since utterly lost, that in the races of mankind and families of the world, there remains not to one above another, the least pretense to be the eldest house, and to have the right of inheritance:
The decisive argument is the first one – that even if Adam had divine authority it did not pass on to his heirs – but like a good lawyer, he provides more.
He distinguishes the law of nature from the positive law of God, and it is not clear if this latter one is a supplement to the first.
But the killer argument is …