introduction
Welcome to the class weblog (or "blog") for History 599 at Shippensburg University. I'm stealing a good idea, and much of the language of this post, from my former colleague Mills Kelly.
This weblog will be the place where each of you publishes your weekly essay and your materials for your class presentations. Because the Blogger software does not provide a spell-check function, you need to write your work in a word processor first, then cut and paste it into the Posting box Blogger provides.
In addition to being the place where you post your assignments, this weblog is also a place where you can leave announcements for the group, post questions, pose problems, etc. It is not a public weblog, so only members of our class have access to it. You should check the blog periodically, so that you can learn from your classmates.
Allan
posted by Allan Tulchin @ 10:47 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
(My apologies if this is not as coherent or profound as I think it is, but I wrote this at 5:45 am before work.)
The early theorists seemed to hold a basic idea: monarchs rule because God created the system that way, as evidenced in the bible. Period. They do not leave room for other ideas, and find ways to refute other possibilities.
In the Wootton reading [who is the author?], he talks about early Old Testament writings that say that the kings “do reign by God’s ordinance, and the subjects are bound to obey them”.1 He further argues that the bible claims that earthly organization “should resemble his heavenly governance,”2 and therefore, as God rules over the whole of creation, kings should rule over kingdoms. If creation is not to choose its god, then why should a kingdom have choice of its king?
Bossuet quotes St. Paul in his defense of monarchy. He sees kings as given to a people by God, and therefore are sacred, and to overthrow one would be overthrowing God’s will. He does go on to warn kings though, that they should be careful how they use the power of God that has been given to them as “how horrible is the sacrilege if they use for evil a power which comes from God.”3 His argument recognizes that while monarchs are given by God, they are still human, and are subject to die like other humans, simply because no human can contain all the majesty of God, because they are but human.
Filmer goes beyond defending monarchy and also explains why democracy cannot be God’s will. He argues that if people have personal liberty, but no means to use it except to pass it to another, then a true democracy cannot work. He argues that there has never been a meeting of an entire kingdom where decisions were made, and that it is wrong to believe this possible.4 [What would he say of our modern election systems?] Further, he says that because monarchs are descendants of the original kings as assigned by God in the bible, then they are sent to care for the people in the way he sees fit. A bad monarch is simply punishment for the sins of the people, and to overthrow God’s punishment would be going against God, not to mention would bring further strife to the people.
The early monarchists believed that people were not able to give power to a leader, but that their power flowed from God. They believed that to rise against this was to rise against God. They felt that to deny this was a mistake in understanding the nature of man.
1, Wootton, 95.
2, Ibid, 97.
3, Bossuet, 275.
4, Filmer, 5-6.
Post a Comment
<< Home