divine right

 

doctrine that sovereigns derive their right to rule by virtue of their birth alone—a right based on the law of God and of nature. Authority is transmitted to a ruler from his ancestors, whom God himself appointed to rule. Because the sovereign was responsible not to the governed, but to God alone, active resistance to a king was a sin ensuring damnation. The doctrine evolved partly in reaction against papal claims to wield authority in the political sphere. In England, King James I and his son Charles I made many claims based on divine right, and a notable exponent of the theory was Sir Robert Filmer. It ceased to be important in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The epitome of the doctrine is found in the rule of Louis XIV of France.

Bibliography

See J. N. Figgis, The Theory of the Divine Right of Kings (1896, repr. 1965); F. Kern, Kingship and Law in the Middle Ages (tr. 1939, repr. 1970).

The Divine Right of Kings is a political and religious doctrine of political absolutism. It asserts that a monarch derives his right to rule from the will of God, and not from any temporal authority, including the will of his subjects, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. The doctrine implies that any attempt to depose the King or to restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God.

Such doctrines are, in the English-speaking world, largely associated with the early Stuart reigns in Britain and the theology of the Caroline divines who held their tenure at the pleasure of James I and Charles I and II. The English textbooks of the Divine Right of Kings were written in 1597-98 before his accession to the English throne by James VI of Scotland, whose Basilikon Doron, a manual on the duties of a King, was written to edify his four-year-old son Henry Frederick, Prince of Wales, who died young. A good King

"acknowledgeth himself ordained for his people, having received from God a burden of government, whereof he must be countable."

The conception of ordination brought with it largely unspoken parallels with the Anglican and Catholic priesthood, but the overriding metaphor in James' handbook was that of a father's relation to his children. "Just as no misconduct on the part of a father can free his children from obedience to the fifth commandment, so no misgovernment on the part of a King can release his subjects from their allegiance."^[1] James' reading of The Trew Law of Free Monarchies allowed that "A good King will frame his actions to be according to the law, yet he is not bound thereto but of his good will." James also had printed his Defense of the Right of Kings in the face of English theories of inalienable popular and clerical rights.

It is related to the ancient (not now) Catholic philosophies regarding Monarchy in which the monarch is God's viceregent upon the earth and therefore subject to no inferior power. However, in Roman Catholic jurisprudence the monarch is always subject to the following powers which are regarded as superior to the monarch:

(1) The Old Testament in which a line of kings was created by God through the prophecy of Jacob/Israel who created his son Judah to be king and retain the sceptre until the coming of the Messiah, alongside the line of priests created in his other son, Levi. Later a line of Judges who were, in effect, kings, was created alongside the line of High Priests created by Moses through Aaron. Later still, the Prophet Samuel re-instituted the line of kings in Saul, under the inspiration of God.

(2) The New Testament in which the first Pope, St Peter, commands that all Christians shall honour the Roman Emperor (1 Peter 2:13-17) even though, at that time, he was still a pagan emperor.

(3) The endorsement by the popes and the Church of the line of emperors beginning with the Emperors Constantine and Theodosius, later the Eastern Roman emperors, and finally the Western Roman emperor, Charlemagne.

The Caroline divines, having rejected the pope and Roman Catholicism, were left only with the supreme power of the King who, they taught, could not be gainsaid or judged by anyone. Since there was no longer the counter-veiling power of the Papacy and since the Church of England was a creature of the State and had become subservient to it, this meant that there was nothing to regulate the powers of the King and he became an absolute power. In theory, Divine, Natural, customary and constitutional law still held sway over the King but, absent a superior spiritual power, it was difficult to see how they could be enforced since the King could not be tried by any of his own courts. The Puritan revolutionaries seized the opportunity to fabricate charges against King Charles I so as to eradicate monarchy altogether and so bring in a revolutionary and tyrannical Calvinist republic.

Some of the symbolism within the coronation ceremony for British monarchs, in which they are anointed with Holy oils by the Archbishop of Canterbury, thereby ordaining them to monarchy, perpetuates the ancient Roman Catholic monarchical ideas and ceremonial (although few Protestants realise this, the ceremony is entirely based upon that of the Coronation of the Holy Roman Emperor). However, in the UK, the symbolism ends there since the real power of the Monarch was all but extinguished by the Whig revolution of 1688/9 (see Glorious Revolution). The king or queen of the United Kingdom is one of the last monarchs still to be crowned in the traditional Christian ceremonial, which in most other countries has been replaced by an inauguration or other declaration.

The concept of Divine Right incorporates, but exaggerates, the ancient Christian concept of "royal God-given rights", which teach that "the right to rule is anointed by God", although this idea is found in many other cultures including Aryan and Egyptian traditions. In pagan and heathen religions the King was often seen as a kind of god and so was an unchallengeable despot. The ancient Roman Catholic tradition overcame this idea with the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and so achieved, for the very first time, a balanced constitution for states. The advent of Protestantism saw something of a return to the idea of a mere unchallengeable despot.

Thomas Aquinas even allowed for the overthrow of a king (and even regicide when the king was a usurper and thus no true king) but he forbade, as did the Church, the overthrow by his subjects of any legitimate king. The only human power capable of deposing the king was the pope. The reasoning was impeccable. If a subject may overthrow his superior for some bad law who was to be the judge of whether the law was bad? If the subject could so judge his own superior then all lawful superior authority could lawfully be overthrown by the arbitrary judgement of an inferior and thus all law was under constant threat. So it has proved since the French Revolution and after, when revolutionaries have claimed the right to overthrow governments. Towards the end of the Middle Ages many philosophers such as Nicholas of Cusa and Francisco Suarez propounded similar theories. The Church was the final guarantor that Christian kings would follow the laws and constitutional traditions of their ancestors and the laws of God and of justice. Similarly, the Chinese concept of Mandate of Heaven required that the emperor properly carry out the proper rituals, consult his ministers, and made it extremely difficult to undo any acts carried out by an ancestor.

The Scriptural basis of the Divine Right of Kings comes partly from Romans 13:1-2, which states: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

However, this overlooks those parts of Scripture which provide for the doctrine of the "Two Swords" and for the ancient Roman Catholic understanding of the powers, rights and duties of kings to protect the Christian Constitution of states, to defend and extend the boundaries of Christendom by lawful means only, to protect and defend the innocent, the weak, the poor and vulnerable, and to protect the Church and the Papacy with the king's own life, if necessary. The emperor was the first knight of Christendom and the other Christian kings his brother-knights sworn to Christian chivalry with all its manifold obligations to justice and charity.

This concept partly lived on in the Divine Right of Kings but was much undermined and attentuated by the cutting away of the spiritual arm, turning it into a mere department of state, subsidiary to the king.

The result was that this then appeared to say that any attempt by his subjects to hold the king to his historic obligations would be contrary to the will of God and that any person so acting would be damned.

In Roman Catholic jurisprudence, this meant the Pope.

In many modern secular constitutions, an attempt has been made to replace the supreme pontifical and regal powers with a constitution that separates powers into the Executive (i.e. the kingly power), the Judicial (judges can restrain the Executive) and the Legislative, excluding the spiritual power altogether (classically in the USA).

See also

• Church and state in medieval Europe
• Cuius regio, eius religio
• Sovereignty
• Mandate of Heaven
• Robert Bellarmine Roman Catholic arguments denying such divine rights of monarchs
• Robert Filmer

Notes

Further reading

• Burgess, Glenn. "The Divine Right of Kings Reconsidered" The English Historical Review 107 No. 425 (October 1992:837-861).

Donate to Wikimedia