自然權利的語彙被應用於政治思想中，乃是始於17世紀。霍布 斯及平等黨人都使用自然權利的觀念以論述政治，但是前者卻導向君 王如神祇的威權政治，而後者則大力倡議民主，形成了兩種截然不同 的政治。本文首先比較此二種政治的內涵，認為在誰是主權者、國家 成立之目的及政教關係等面向上兩者皆大不同。其次，本文企圖指出 歷經宗教戰爭及宗教迫害後，歐洲的政治理論發展出兩種對立的國家 理論：主權者理論及民主理論，而霍布斯及平等黨人適各為其代表。 最後，本文探析兩者使用之自然權利概念，發現其內涵並不一致，因 而實乃是「兩種自然權利、兩種政治」。

The political language of natural right rose in the 17th century and was adopted by a number of contemporary theorists. Hobbes used it and developed his absolute sovereign politics, whereas the Levellers built on this notion to arrive at a democratic conclusion. This essay intends to compare the two politics before exploring the reasons behind the conflicting results. It is argued that this difference originates from two traditions of the theory of the state: one emphasizing the role of the sovereign, the other the people. In the end, the author wishes to show that even the imports of the concept of natural right are different for Hobbes and the Levellers.