Monarchist and democratic Christian perspectives preceding and subsequent to the reformation: a survey of selected authors.

• Author: Gee, Todd W.

1. INTRODUCTION

   As the flaws of democratic forms of government come to the forefront of political thought in recent years, (1) the natural question for Christians is whether their faith either mandates or prefers any particular form of government. In the early years of Christianity, Christians knew monarchy and little else in matters of government. In contemporary Christendom, Christian thinkers are most familiar with popular forms of government, ranging from constitutional monarchy to democratic republicanism to forms verging on direct democracy. To question the common form of government in one's day is generally unpopular. Thus, the centuries preceding and following the Reformation are a source of much interesting dialogue as they reveal a clash between Christian ideologies, including Christian perspectives about the proper form of government.

   Part II examines the works of Sir Robert Filmer and Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, while Part III surveys the writings of Marsilius of Padua and John Ponet. Part IV evaluates and critiques each of the aforementioned authors, and Part V summarizes my conclusions.

2. MONARCHIST PERSPECTIVES

   1. Sir Robert Filmer

      Sir Robert Filmer (c. A.D. 1588-1653) was an English philosopher who promoted the concept of absolute monarchy in his work, Patriarcha, or, The Natural Power of Kings. In addition to whatever attention the work's merits have attracted, Filmer's thought is also well-known for serving as John Locke's philosophical target in the first of his Two Treatises of Government, as fully explained by the rest of the first treatise's full title: The False Principles, and Foundation of Sir Robert Filmer, and His Followers, Are Detected and Overthrown.

      Filmer begins his polemic against democracy boldly, attacking the principle that "[m]ankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection, and at liberty to cho[o]se what Form of Government it please." (2) He claims that, despite the principle's popularity among academics and church figures, it is neither supported by the early Church Fathers nor in accordance with Scripture, ancient monarchical practice, or natural law. (3) He objects to it on grounds of both theology and pragmatism. (4) Filmer notes that a dangerous consequence of the idea of popular sovereignty is that it undermines the authority of kings. (5)

      In objecting to popular sovereignty, Filmer makes theological, natural law, historical, and practical arguments for monarchy. Filmer's thesis is fairly simple:

      [i]t is true, all Kings be not the Natural Parents of their Subjects, yet they all either are, or are to be reputed the next Heirs to those first Progenitors, who were at first the Natural Parents of the whole People, and in their Right succeed to the Exercise of Supreme Jurisdiction; and such Heirs are not only Lords of their own Children, but also of their Brethren, and all others that were subject to their Fathers ... (6) It is clear that Filmer's point relies heavily on the proposition that monarchical power is derived from patriarchal authority, as it existed under the Patriarchal Dispensation described in the book of Genesis.

      However, since Genesis is not primarily a prescriptive text, but is instead descriptive, most, if not all, of Filmer's arguments from Scripture are based on inductive reasoning. This inductive approach extends to Filmer's treatment of other Old Testament historical books that discuss the Israelite monarchy.

      For example, Filmer states that, by creating humanity from one man, God showed a natural preference for rule by one man. (7) Apparently thinking of the original command to Adam, "[f]ill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth," (8) Filmer writes, "[t]his Lordship which Adam by Command had over the whole World, and by Right descending from him the Patriarchs did enjoy, was as large and ample as the Absolutest Dominion of any Monarch which hath been since the Creation." (9) Indeed:

      Adam and the Patriarchs had Absolute power of Life and Death, of Peace and War, and the like, within their Houses or Families; [therefore they are at least] ... Kings of their Houses or Families; and if they be so by the Law of Nature, what Liberty will be left to their Children to dispose of? (10) He notes that the patriarchs did not receive their paternal authority from their children, i.e., by consent of the governed. (11) Making an etymological argument, Filmer states that "the Hebrew Word for a Family ... is derived from a Word that signifies a Head, a Prince, or Lord ..." (12) Filmer even argues that to this day there is a single heir to the throne of Adam, one who is ostensibly entitled to wear the crown of all humanity. (13) However, since humanity has forgotten who that heir is, "the Kingly Power escheats in such cases to the Princes and independent Heads of Families: for every Kingdom is resolved into those parts whereof at first it was made." (14)

      In later Biblical history, as the text begins to describe the beginnings of the Israelite monarchy, Filmer continues to find scriptural support for monarchy. Similar to Bossuet later, Filmer notes that even when Israel begged God for a king, they already had a King: God Himself. (15) As opposed to the view that Israel was a democracy that chose a king for itself, Filmer argues that Israel was a monarchy in which the people petitioned their King for another king. Significantly, Israel did not ask God that they be allowed to choose their own king, but instead asked that He choose their king for them. (16) In respect to those accounts in the Biblical narrative in which it is said that Israel "set up" a man as king, Filmer draws a distinction between a ceremonial coronation and an actual selection of a king. He states that the people of Israel had the authority to do the former, but not the latter. (17) In Filmer's view, Israel was never a democracy in which the people necessarily consented to their government, but a divinely sanctioned absolute monarchy.

      Perhaps Filmer's strongest argument against democracy is rooted in his understanding of human nature. "[T]he Nature of all People is[] to desire Liberty without Restraint ..." (18) And majority rule is not wise because "the Wicked and Vicious [are] still the Greatest Part of the People." (19) The "[l]iberty without Restraint" that the people desire is only possible "where the Wicked bear rule." (20) On the off chance that wise, good men would be placed in office, Filmer thinks that they would eventually prevent the wicked from taking office and essentially establish a kind of aristocracy of the wise. (21) Therefore, in Filmer's view, a democracy results in either wicked, unrestrained chaos, or a non-democratic polity ruled by a wise aristocracy. Either way, democracy is to be eschewed.

      Filmer is also skeptical of the "social contract" theory of government. He rhetorically asks where this social contract is that either elects one leader of the human race or designates a division of the people into separate polities. (22) He questions whether natural law states that a majority can make decisions for the minority. (23) If not, each individual governed must consent to grant authority to the government, and silent acquiescence to government is not consent, or every ruler could be said to have been "elected." (24) (Of course, Filmer does not believe that the consent of the governed is necessary for legitimacy; he is simply taking the social contract theory to its logical conclusion.) Filmer makes the point that even if the people do have a "contract" with the king, there is no human authority to judge a breach of that contract because the king is the ultimate judge in the kingdom. (25)

      Not even the positive law limits the power of a king, according to Filmer, because "Kingly Power is by the Law of God, so it hath no inferiour Law to limit it." (26) Only God's Law has primacy to the king's law: "[w]e must obey where the Commandment of God is not hind[e]red; there is no other Law but God's Law to hinder our Obedience." (27) Just as a father has a duty to do his best to care for his family, so a king has a duty to keep the kingdom safe, but abrogation of either duty (paternal or royal) does not give rise (at the time of Filmer's writing) to a cause of action against the one in authority. (28) Filmer states that the only remedy an oppressed people might seek is in "crying and praying unto God," (29) referencing Samuel's words to the Israelites after they asked for a king. (30) Lord Bracton is quoted approvingly for the proposition that one should not even question the actions of the king. (31)

      Lest a democrat or similarly-minded person make the argument that Romans 13 upholds obedience to the law rather than the king, Filmer scathingly replies that:

      [i]t is not the Law that is the Minister of God, or that carries the Sword, but the Ruler or Magistrate; so they that say the Law governs the Kingdom, may as well say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House, and not the Carpenter; for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler. (32) Instead, positive laws exist only for the convenience of the monarch, so that the kingdom can be rightly ordered when he is not available to make his will known (for example, when he is away at war or otherwise preoccupied). (33) If the king's command contradicts the law of the land, the king's command takes priority. (34)

      Clearly, Sir Filmer's thought represents a strong absolutist position that emphasizes the power and autonomy of kings and the foolishness of populist forms of government. Filmer's position is rooted in a notion that the authority the patriarchs held in Genesis has been passed down patrilineally, and monarchy is based on that authority. Additionally, Filmer's argument is based on a very negative view of human nature, a view based both in human experience and the Biblical teaching of man's...