Initial suggestions on ways to make sense of  this—or any other-- challenging author
 

• Find the core of the sentence
• Understand the supporting clauses and phrases
• Figure out difficult vocabulary
• Look out for parallelism
• Look for the oppositions
• Find the key concepts
• Some useful sources

This section may seem too elementary: please let me know if it does.

Locke’s prose sometimes seems amazingly intricate.  Here is an example from chapter 1, section 1:

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is
impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive
any the least shadow of authority from that which is held to be the fountain
of all power, "Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction"; so that
he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the
world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together
by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so
lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and
rebellion (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out
against), must of necessity find out another rise of government, another
original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the
persons that have it than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

Where can we begin to try to "translate"?  First of all, find the main action in the passage: who is doing what to whom?  That means:
 

• breaking the passage down into individual sentences.  Here there are two "sentences" separated by a semi-colon (;), which often functions as a "full stop" or equivalent of a period;
• looking for the "main clause," the subject and primary verb in each "sentence."  (In the first half, we have an "impersonal" verb without a real subject: "it is impossible…")

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out, it is
impossible that the rulers now on earth should make any benefit, or derive
any the least shadow of authority from that which is held to be the fountain
of all power, "Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction";

so that he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the
world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together
by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it, and so
lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and
rebellion (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out
against), must of necessity find out another rise of government, another
original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the
persons that have it than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

when we do this, we find that we’ve isolated some phrases that are parallel rather than essential to the main thought:

All these premises having … been clearly made out,

"Adam's private dominion and paternal jurisdiction";

a) as I think

b) that will not give just occasion to think
that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence,

and

that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts,
where the strongest carries it,

and so  lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and rebellion (things
that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against)

c) than what Sir Robert Filmer hath taught us.

Removing these "subordinate" clauses and phrases gives us two much shorter sentences:

It is impossible that rulers should make any benefit, or derive any shadow of authority from that which is held to be the fountain of all power;

so that he must find out another rise of government, another original of political power, and another way of designing and knowing the persons that have it.

rulers cannot benefit or derive their authority from the Bible;

so, we must find a non-biblical source of government and power, and another way to recognize political leaders

rulers cannot base any claims on the Bible;  we need another source, and another way to recognize political leaders

This does not mean that the words we’ve crossed out are irrelevant, just that we can put them aside for the moment as we seek the core force of the passage.  Going back, we find that they add important detail:

All these premises having, as I think, been clearly made out,

he that will not give just occasion to think that all government in the
world is the product only of force and violence, and that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts, where the strongest carries it,

or, "whoever wants to avoid giving the impression that government is just the result of violence"

and so lay a foundation for perpetual disorder and mischief, tumult, sedition, and rebellion (things that the followers of that hypothesis so loudly cry out against), must find out another rise of government, etc.

or, "and provoke  future disorder (…), must find another source of government,…"

since we’ve now removed these premises, whoever wants to avoid giving the impression that government is just the result of violence and provoke future disorder, must find another source of government,…

Working to make sense of sentences like these, we often find odd words. What does "premise" mean?  One way to get an answer is to look it up.  A good online source is the Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary at:
 

With older texts—Shakespeare, Locke, etc.—it can also help to ask if the spelling is correct. These works went through several editions and printings; some editions of Locke have "promise," which would be harder, though not impossible, to understand

If you have trouble with a word try looking it up and then ask your teacher.

Notice how many parallel phrases and clauses Locke uses.

give just occasion to think

that all government in the world is the product only of force and violence,

and

that men live together by no other rules but that of beasts,

Here the two uses of "that" indicate that we’re describing the "thoughts" introduced in the first line.  Here are other instances:
 

that the rulers now on earth should

make any benefit,
or
derive any the least shadow of authority

a foundation for

perpetual disorder and mischief,
tumult,
sedition, and
rebellion

sections 16-18, where we have the nice repetition of "take away" with different
objects:
 

exposed his life to the other's power to be taken away
take away that freedom (three times)
take away everything else (twice)
take away his money
take away my liberty
take away everything else

The point--shocking and counterintuitive to some of my students--is the equivalence
of money, liberty, and life in Locke's world-view. The parallelism makes this clear.

b) the parallel between the thieve in chapter 3 and the King in chapter 18 (and the
difference, too).

It’s also worthwhile to look for passages where two concepts are opposed to each other.  Here is an example from section 19, chapter 3:
 

And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and
the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant
as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a
state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from
another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior
on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of
Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another,
where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the
state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of
war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject.

Oppositions (or antitheses) such as these  are present in most utterances and in most social behavior.  Graphing them like this can often help you sort things out, giving you a quick sense of which topics fall under each head.   A glance at the bottom row, for instance, tells you one key distinction between the states of nature and war, and leads to this important conclusion: that even with "a common judge" such as a King, we can remain in a state of war, if "right" is not preserved.

If you find an author using a word repeatedly, that is a signal that you should get on top of that word.  In chapter 2, for instance, Locke uses "power" more than 10 times, "nature" about 40, and "law" about 30.  If you can figure out what he means when he uses these words, you’ll have a better understanding of the chapter’s overall meaning.

The American Heritage  Book of English Usage:
 

http://www.bartleby.com/64/

This takes a little while to load but will provide short answers to most questions about grammar and style.  Note that "that" is discussed a number of times, on pages  7, 34, 39, 40, 41, 70, & 90, a nice sign of how complex this word can be.

The Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary:

This is a decent online dictionary; the site also has a thesaurus.  It loads quickly.

You may want to try these techniques out on your own, or you may need to refer to them when I assign you to work on them.  In either case, if questions arise, let me know.  I'll be glad to help.