The Natural and Divine Right of Kings: The Concept of Kingship in England, 1603-1642
Abstract
Figgis' contention that Filmer was the first to defend the divine right of kings by using the law of nature was not seriously challenged by modern historians until the publication of G. Schochet's Patriarchalism in Political Thought (1975). In this work, Schochet examined the evolution of patriarchalism, the political theory which related the father's authority in a family to the origins and/or organization of government, from the period 1603-1642 until the publication of Filmer's Patriarcha. However, Schochet only investigated the use of patriarchal arguments in political tracts of this period; he did not study the many other natural arguments also used by the authors of these tracts. Moreover, he studied these patriarchal views only to determine their influence on patriarchalism and disregarded their influence on the larger theory of the divine right of kings. Therefore, the use of natural and other non-scriptural arguments in support of divine right prior to their use by Filmer has been largely disregarded in the study of the divine right of kings; even the name of this political theory implies that the right of kingship was defended only by the law of God.
However, it is not true that the Stuart kings of England from 1603-1642 and the divines that pleaded their cause defended the divine right of kings by divine law alone. In the works of James I. the official pronouncements of the church of England, and the works of ecclesiastics allied to the king, there is ample evidence that the law of God, the law of nature, the ancient laws of England, and the works of the ancient philosophers were all used to support the divine right of kings prior to the composition or publication of Filmer's Patriarcha. But first. before I begin to discuss the arguments of these divine right authors, I need to establish a basis for this discussion by formally defining the term 'divine right of kings' and by carefully examining the arguments Filmer used to support the divine right of kings. The definition of the divine right of kings, as stated by J. N. Figgis, includes four concepts:
"1. Monarchy is a divinely ordained institution." Monarchy was created by God and the monarch is invested with power by God.
"2. Hereditary right is indefeasible." The succession to the king's throne is determined by hereditary right and primogeniture, and this right may not be transferred away from the rightful king by usurpation.
"3. Kings are accountable to God alone." The king's performance in the duties of his office may be judged only by God. He is not subject to any mortal person and is not required to adhere to any law.
"4. Non-resistance and passive obedience are enjoined by God." Subjects of the king are required to submit themselves to his commands and ordinances, for this obedience is required of them by God.
Description
Program year: 1990/1991Digitized from print original stored in HDR
Subject
divine right of kingshistoriography
patriarchalism
law of nature
hereditary right
passive obedience
Citation
Kim, Helen (1991). The Natural and Divine Right of Kings: The Concept of Kingship in England, 1603-1642. University Undergraduate Fellow. Available electronically from https : / /hdl .handle .net /1969 .1 /CAPSTONE -RobinsonE _1986.