This is not to say that Locke didn't argue his point with religion, because he did, but he was more logistical than Bossuet on this particular question. John Locke wrote his second Treatise on Civil Government in 1690, which advocated a smaller government run by the people and for the people. He believed that the governed should be the focal point of government and that without them as such, government could not realistically function. This is why one of the arguments he made was that in an absolute government where the monarchy has all the power, it is logically improbable that the people would be able to make just appeals, and that indeed, they There will not even be impartial judges if the king is the only judge. He called the idea of ​​absolutism uncivilized, based on his position that we are born with the right to unbridled freedom, which he believed would have been a redundant statement, because, as l As Locke put it, the people must be restrained (to prevent them from governing themselves) and they cannot do it. be free by definition! He made himself understood: men are equal, so even if Bossuet defended his ideas with the Bible, in the eyes of John Locke, Bossuet's ideas were not biblical, because an absolutist government favors the king above all men, and “God is no stranger to anyone”. (Acts