The Theory Of Divine Right

Abryl Navarro DBQ Essay During the 1500s and 1600s, Western Europe experienced a period of governments ruled by ab-solute monarchs. Absolute monarchies are forms of government in which the monarch has abso-lute power over the people. The absolutism was caused by religious and territorial conflicts which was crated fear and uncertainty. Rulers/ Kings abused their power of absolutism over their sub-jects.

“If God does not exist, then everything is permitted,” in other words, if there turns out to be no God then nothing is morally wrong.

He encouraged that subjects do not listen to the voice of God, and only their ruler. Bossuet, however, believed that God possesses all power and rulers were anointed by Him. Bossuet states, “But kings, although their power comes from on high, as has been said, should not regard themselves as masters of that power to use it at their pleasure; . . . they must employ it with fear and self-restraint, as a thing coming from God and of which God will demand and account” (Bousset). Although his views are similar to those of Hobbes, Bossuet 's theory of absolutism is favorable because God is the head of government. Nonetheless, this still leaves civilians in the hands of their rulers, who can falsely say they have a divine right to the throne.

The divine command theory states that “An act is morally required just because it is commanded by God and immoral just because God forbids it” (Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, p.67). In interviewing an Elder of a local Jehovah’s Witness congregation on the ethics involved in religion, he agreed that the divine command theory is correct, and that there are many commands and things that are forbidden in the bible that are considered to be God’s standards for the way we live our lives. But, when asked the modified version of the Euthyphro Question: is an action morally right because God commands it, or does God command an action because it is morally right, (Shafer-Landau, The Ethical Life, p.57) he picked the latter. Despite agreeing with the statement that the divine command theory makes, picking the latter is not uncommon even if the first affirms the theory. The statement that God commands an action because it is morally right, “implies that God did not invent morality, but rather recognized an existing moral law and then commanded us to obey it” (Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, p.67-68). This does not make the Elder’s message wrong, in fact most theists don’t follow the divine command theory. This is based on the fact that if the theory were true, whatever God says is a command, and therefore morally right, but God could have said that rape, murder, and stealing is morally right if that was the line of thinking.

In 17th-18th century Europe, the age of absolutism, absolute monarchs ruled most of Europe. Absolute monarchs are rulers that have complete control over the government and its people. They claimed to rule by “divine right,” where their authority comes from God and they were above the law. The views of being a proper role as an absolute monarch differed very much between rulers and their subjects. Certain rulers had ideas that both the people and ruler should be united, some abused their power with no sympathy towards the people they rule, and the subjects that suffered from the rulings of the monarch had a completely different perspective than the rulers that were in power.

It was widely believed that kings had the power to enforce God's works and messages in the country that he ruled. As expressed by King James the First of England,"...kings are...God's lieutenants on earth..."(Document B). Kings are meant to act as God's second in command on earth and enforce God's mission on the people that he rules. According to Bishop Jaques Bousset's Political Treatise,"... the king is sacred, and that to attack him in any way is sacrilege"(Document F). Kings were believed to be sent by God to rule and, therefore, should not be questioned. This belief allowed absolute monarchies to take hold in countries throughout Europe. The rule of these powerful governments allowed prosperity to take hold in

     According to Jacques-Benigne Bousset, a preacher and tutor to Louis the fourteenth’s son, there were four characteristics to royal authority. The first of being, royal authority is sacred. Second, royal authority is paternal. Third, it is absolute. Fourth, All power comes from God. (Text 596) To summarize Bousset he believes that, like God, a king is a father figure. To be idolized, respected and loved. So if God is the father of earth then his sons are the fathers of people, or kings. This makes a king both divine and undisputable, as a descendant of God. “Royal authority is absolute…The prince need account to no one for what he ordains…without this absolute authority, he can do no good nor suppress evil…” (Text 596).

This absolutist leader is portrayed by both King James I of England and King Louis XIV of France. King James I of England provided his people with a religious affiliation of himself and God. Through the divine right of kings, King James I believed he granted himself power from the authority of God. By means of this given right, King James I convinced his people was equal in power to God. Although this statement is false, many people, specifically the poor and illiterate, believed him. King James I used people’s relationships with God to create his own relationship amongst the people. In England there needed to be order when religious affiliation was breaking between the people and God. So rather than people looking up to God, they would look up to King James I. “The state of monarchy is the supreme thing upon earth; for kings are not only God’s lieutenants on earth and sit upon God’s throne, but even by God Himself they are called gods.”- Document B. Since King James was believed to be in connection and as powerful as God, no one could disobey or disagree with him. King James I granted himself the power to create and destroy, give life or sentence death and to determine the status of people. By making himself known as a god, King James I was able to fulfill several religious aspects in people’s lives and rule under a well-organized secure state of monarchy. Additionally,

As a result of the scientific revolution, people continued to question the truths of the government, as natural law grew. Joan Fichte, a German philosopher, repels the types of rulers as they “have no rights at all over our freedom of thought, you princes; no jurisdiction over that which is true or false” (Doc 4). Before the Scientific Revolution, the people believed what the government had told them, without any question. The natural law is now granting these rights to the people which is slowly nullifying the government's control over the people. As a result of the people questioning government, the people made changes to their government leaders way of ruling. Rulers used to be omnipotent in their rule, but the natural law constricts the rulers. English philosopher, John Locke, provides his views on rulers. If the rulers work in an unjust manner than the people should use ¨forces . . . nothing but . . . unjust and unlawful force; whoever makes any opposition in any other case draws on himself a just condemnation both from God and man” (Doc 2). If a ruler is abusing his power, the people can stand up to him in a way that is not morally correct. Knowing that the people can oppose the government leaders, the leaders have to be more judicious in their decisions and consistently lead in a moral manner. Not only do the people have strong disapproval but God is

Prior to the Enlightenment, the rules, laws, and social structures were set in stone, relying on the Kings and Queens to make all decisions and declare rights for them, even if they were completely unfair. People of this time argued that, "Royal power is sacred, and nothing is more firmly grounded in the Word of God than the obedience due, as a matter of faith and conscience, to lawful authority...the prince [is] one to whom obedience [is] due without exception."(Bossuet Doc. 4). They believed that God wishes for the King to rule over the people, and only those people could rule, making all decisions about the civilization on their own, and no person should give anything but

King James I, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes strongly believed in the idea of Absolute government. They believed that King's were "God's Lieutenant's" and they were in power simply because God sent them there. These men believed in divine power upon earth, and that "God hath power to create or destroy, make or unmake at his pleasure, to give life or sent death, to judge all and to be judged nor accountable to none, to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure…and the like power have Kings…" as quoted from doc. 2 of King James I. Being how King James I was a King, it is a conventional belief that Kings had divine rights. In one of Machiavelli's works "The Prince" Machiavelli writes "Men have less hesitation in offending a man who is loved than one who is feared."(Doc.1) Consequently Machiavelli believes in having a fear in your ruler, because if you fear your ruler, you will not hesitate to obey him, for you are afraid of the punishment. Where as, if you love your ruler, you are more lenient to challenge your ruler's authority.

If a ruler lacks power, he would not be able to fulfill his duty of protecting his people’s welfare. If the weak ruler is overthrown by rebels, the country would return to the brutish state of Anarchy. Thus, a ruler is only legitimate to rule if he has the willingness and the ability to protect the people, their property, and their rights. Having willingness means when the ruler has power, he is willing to use that power to serve his people instead of his own interests. Having ability means that the ruler has enough authorities to be able to protect the people, their rights, etc. If a ruler has the willingness and ability, he will gain the people’s loyalty and support. In the “Mandate of Heaven,” a ruler got legitimacy only if he could untie the people and overthrow the previous ruler. “Heaven decides as the people decide.” Heaven approves of a ruler only if the people support him. Therefore, a ruler is legitimate to rule only if he has the willingness and ability along with the people’s support and loyalty.

Many English monarchs believed in the divine right to rule. This right was given to them by God, therefore they believed that no one could take their crown or it would destroy the rightful line of succession. However, this was not always the case and some kings such as Richard II had their crown forced from them. If a king believed in the divine right he often had a close relationship with God. In William Shakespeare’s comedies, the divine right to rule a kingdom is present in the ways in which Richard II, Henry IV, and Henry V are come to rule England. Both Richard II and Henry V were powerful rulers, whose ruling was heavily dictated by their divine right to rule and their relationship with God. Through exploring the King’s relationship to God in Shakespeare’s tragedies Richard II, 1 Henry IV, 2 Henry IV, and Henry V, one can see that Henry V is the ideal Christian King.

One of the chief theorists of divine-right monarchy in the seventeenth century was the French theologian and court preacher Bishop Jacques Bossuet (1627-1704), who expressed his ideas in a book entitled Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy

For a lot of years Gods people were ruled by Judges; however, they looked out there across the borders and saw people being ruled by kings and they wanted a king, too. God did not favor them having a king, but they thought they would fair better if they just had a king. So God permitted them to have one.