As Locke so clearly explains in his Second Treatise of Government "That Adam had not, either by natural right of fatherhood or by positive donation from God, any such authority over his children, nor dominion over the world, as is pretended.".
According to John Locke, there are no divine rights among men. All men are born into equality, and when a government is formed, all men have the right to select the designated official of their choice. This is completely the opposite of Hobbes suggestion of government. According to Thomas Hobbes, a monarchy is necessary to keep society in line, and men must give all their rights over to a single commonwealth of authority. This is logical in a Hobbesian prospective because Hobbes viewed all men as uncontrollable, bloodthirsty savages that will destroy all that is around them. They need the strict hand of the law and order entrusted into one man to keep them in line.
Locke believed in a more serene state of nature than Hobbes. He believed that all men were created by God, and were created equally. Everyone is entitled to their rights, and no one should be forced to sign over those rights.
Given the two very different views of the original state of nature, leads to the two different views that the government should be. Because Locke believes that people are not naturally brutal and are not constantly at war with one another, there is no need for a divine rule without the consideration of the people. Since man is naturally inclined to be cooperative and socially interactive with one another in society, a more lenient form of government is suitable. The government is formed to ensure that things run smoothly and everything goes according to the interest of the people.