Of Monarchy and Hereditary Succession, 1

Human beings were originally equals in the order of creation; that equality could only have been undone by some later circumstance. The distinctions between rich and poor can largely be explained without resorting to the harsh, discordant words oppression and greed. Oppression is often a consequence of wealth, but seldom, if ever, the means of acquiring it; and although greed may keep a person from desperate poverty, it generally makes him too timid to become wealthy.

But there is another, greater distinction for which no genuinely natural or religious reason can be given: the division of people into kings and subjects. Male and female are nature's distinctions; good and bad are heaven's. How one line of people came to be raised so high above the rest, set apart as though they were a new species, deserves investigation—as does the question whether they bring humanity happiness or misery.

In the world's early ages, according to the chronology of scripture, there were no kings; consequently there were no wars. It is the pride of kings that throws humanity into turmoil. Holland, without a king, has enjoyed more peace over this last century than any of Europe's monarchies. Antiquity bears out the same observation: there is something happily peaceful about the quiet, rural lives of the first patriarchs, and it vanishes when we reach the history of Jewish royalty.

Kingship was first introduced into the world by the pagans, from whom the children of Israel copied the custom. It was the most successful invention the Devil ever devised to promote idolatry. The pagans paid divine honors to their dead kings, and the Christian world has improved upon the plan by paying the same honors to living ones. How impious to call a worm “sacred majesty” when, even amid his splendor, he is crumbling into dust!

Exalting one man so far above the rest cannot be justified by the equal rights of nature, nor can it be defended by scripture. The will of the Almighty, as declared by Gideon and the prophet Samuel, expressly condemns government by kings. In monarchies, every passage of scripture opposed to monarchy has been smoothly explained away; but such passages certainly deserve the attention of countries still shaping their governments. “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” is the scriptural teaching favored by courts, yet it offers no support for monarchy: at that time the Jews had no king and lived as vassals of Rome.

Nearly three thousand years passed from the Mosaic account of creation before the Jews, under a national delusion, asked for a king. Until then their government—except on extraordinary occasions when the Almighty intervened—was a kind of republic administered by a judge and the elders of the tribes. They had no kings, and it was considered sinful to acknowledge anyone but the Lord of Hosts by that title. Anyone who seriously reflects on the idolatrous homage paid to the persons of kings need not wonder that the Almighty, ever jealous of his honor, should disapprove of a form of government that so impiously usurps heaven's prerogative.

Scripture ranks monarchy among the sins of the Jews and pronounces a curse held in reserve for them because of it. The story of that event deserves attention.

When the children of Israel were oppressed by the Midianites, Gideon marched against them with a small army, and divine intervention gave him victory. Elated by success and attributing it to Gideon's leadership, the Jews proposed to make him king, saying, “Rule over us, you and your son and your son's son.” Here was temptation in its fullest form: not just a kingdom, but a hereditary one. Yet Gideon answered in the piety of his soul, “I will not rule over you, nor shall my son rule over you. The Lord shall rule over you.” Words could hardly be more explicit. Gideon does not decline the honor but denies their right to bestow it. Nor does he flatter them with manufactured thanks: in the firm voice of a prophet he charges them with disloyalty to their rightful sovereign, the King of heaven.

About one hundred and thirty years later, they fell into the same error again. The Jews' longing for the idolatrous customs of the pagans is exceedingly hard to account for. Yet, seizing on the misconduct of Samuel's two sons, to whom some worldly affairs had been entrusted, they came abruptly and noisily to Samuel and said, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways. Now appoint us a king to judge us like all the other nations.” We cannot fail to see how bad their motive was: they wanted to be like the other nations—that is, the pagans—when their true glory lay in being as unlike them as possible. But Samuel was displeased when they said, “Give us a king to judge us”; and Samuel prayed to the Lord, and the Lord said to Samuel, “Listen to everything the people say to you, for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, SO THAT I SHOULD NOT REIGN OVER THEM. As they have done ever since the day I brought them out of Egypt, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but solemnly warn them and show them the ways of the king who will reign over them.” This meant not the ways of any particular king but those of kings in general, whom Israel was so eager to imitate. Despite the great passage of time and the change in customs, that portrait remains true to this day. Samuel told the people who had asked him for a king everything the Lord had said. And he said, “These will be the ways of the king who will reign over you: he will take your sons and assign them to his chariots and as his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots” (this description accords with the present practice of pressing men into service), “and he will appoint commanders over thousands and commanders over fifties, and set men to plow his land and reap his harvest, and to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots; and he will take your daughters to make confections, and to cook and bake” (this describes the expense and luxury of kings as well as their oppression), “and he will take your fields and your olive groves, even the best of them, and give them to his servants; and he will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give it to his officers and his servants” (from which we see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are the abiding vices of kings), “and he will take a tenth of your male servants and female servants, your finest young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work; and he will take a tenth of your sheep, and you will be his servants. On that day you will cry out because of the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not hear you on that day.” This explains why monarchy continues; nor do the few good kings who have lived since make the title sacred or erase the sin of its origin. The high praise given to David refers not to his office as king but only to him as a man after God's own heart. Nevertheless, the people refused to heed Samuel's voice and said, “No, we will have a king over us, so that we may be like all the nations, and our king may judge us, go out before us, and fight our battles.” Samuel went on reasoning with them, but in vain. He laid their ingratitude before them, but nothing prevailed. Seeing them fully committed to their folly, he cried out, “I will call upon the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain” (a punishment at that time, because it was the wheat harvest), “so that you may perceive and see how great a wickedness you have committed in the Lord's sight by asking for a king.” Samuel called upon the Lord, and the Lord sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel. And all the people said to Samuel, “Pray to the Lord your God for your servants, so that we do not die; for we have added this evil to our sins by asking for a king.” These passages of scripture are direct and definite. They admit of no ambiguous interpretation. Either the Almighty has here protested against monarchical government or scripture is false. There is good reason to believe that keeping scripture from the public in Catholic countries serves kings as much as it serves priests. For monarchy in every form is the papacy of government.

To the evil of monarchy we have added the evil of hereditary succession. The first degrades and diminishes us; the second, claimed as a right, insults and imposes upon posterity. Since all human beings were originally equals, no one could acquire by birth the right to place his family forever above all others. Though he himself might deserve a fitting measure of honor from his contemporaries, his descendants might be far too unworthy to inherit it. One of nature's strongest proofs of the folly of hereditary kingship is her own disapproval of it: otherwise she would not so often make a mockery of it by giving humanity an ass in place of a lion.

All people were created equal. Only something that happened later could have changed that equality. We can explain much of the difference between rich and poor without bringing in such harsh words as oppression and greed. Oppression often follows wealth, but it rarely, if ever, creates it. Greed may keep a person from becoming desperately poor, but it usually makes that person too afraid to become wealthy.

There is another, greater division that cannot be explained by nature or religion: the division between kings and subjects. Nature makes people male and female; heaven distinguishes good from bad. But we should ask how one group of people came to be placed so far above everyone else, as though they were a different species. We should also ask whether kings bring people happiness or misery.

According to the Bible's timeline, there were no kings in the world's earliest days, and therefore no wars. The pride of kings throws humanity into turmoil. Over the last century, Holland has enjoyed more peace without a king than any European country ruled by a monarch. Ancient history supports the same point. The peaceful country lives of the earliest patriarchs have an appealing quality that disappears when the history of Jewish kings begins.

The pagans first brought monarchy into the world, and the people of Israel copied them. It was the most successful idea the Devil ever had for spreading the worship of false gods. Pagans gave divine honors to dead kings. The Christian world went further and gives such honors to living kings. How offensive to God to call a mere mortal “sacred majesty”! Even at the height of his splendor, his body is turning to dust.

The equal rights people have by nature cannot justify placing one man so far above everyone else. Neither can the Bible justify it. As Gideon and the prophet Samuel declared, the Almighty clearly disapproves of rule by kings. Governments ruled by monarchs have glossed over all the passages in the Bible that oppose monarchy. But countries still deciding how to govern themselves should pay close attention to them. Courts cite the biblical command, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.” Yet that does not support monarchy. At the time, the Jews had no king and were under Roman rule.

According to Moses' account of creation, nearly three thousand years passed before the Jews, under a mistaken national belief, asked for a king. Until then, apart from unusual cases when the Almighty intervened, their government was a kind of republic led by a judge and the elders of the tribes. They had no kings. They believed it was a sin to give that title to anyone but the Lord of Hosts. Think seriously about the worshipful respect shown to kings as people. It is no wonder that the Almighty, who protects his honor, would reject a system that so offensively claims what belongs to heaven.

The Bible counts monarchy among the sins of the Jews and declares that a curse awaits them for it. The story of what happened is worth examining.

When the Midianites oppressed the people of Israel, Gideon marched against them with a small army. With God's help, he won. The Jews were excited by their success and credited Gideon's leadership. They proposed making him king, saying, “Rule over us, you and your son and your son's son.” This offered him every possible temptation: not just a kingdom but one his family would inherit. Yet Gideon answered with sincere devotion: “I will not rule over you, and my son will not rule over you. The Lord will rule over you.” He could not have spoken more clearly. Gideon did not simply turn down the honor; he denied that the people had the right to offer it. He did not flatter them with a made-up speech of thanks. Speaking firmly like a prophet, he accused them of disloyalty to their rightful ruler, the King of heaven.

About one hundred and thirty years later, they made the same mistake again. It is hard to explain why the Jews wanted so badly to copy the pagan customs of people who worshiped false gods. Yet they used the bad conduct of Samuel's two sons, who had been given responsibility for some worldly affairs, as a reason to come to Samuel with loud, sudden demands. They said, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways. Now appoint a king to govern us, like all the other nations.” Their reason was bad: they wanted to be like the other nations, meaning the pagans. In fact, their greatest honor lay in being as different from them as possible. But Samuel was displeased when they said, “Give us a king to govern us.” He prayed to the Lord, and the Lord told him, “Listen to everything the people are saying to you. They have not rejected you; they have rejected me as their ruler. They are doing to you what they have done to me since the day I brought them out of Egypt. They have abandoned me and served other gods. So listen to them now. But warn them solemnly, and tell them how the king who rules over them will behave.” This was not a warning about one particular king. It described how kings in general behave, the very kings Israel was so eager to copy. Though times and customs have changed greatly, that behavior is still common. Samuel told the people who asked for a king everything the Lord had said. He told them, “This is how the king who rules over you will behave. He will take your sons to serve with his chariots and as his horsemen. Some will run ahead of his chariots.” This describes the modern practice of forcing men into service. “He will appoint commanders over thousands and commanders over fifties. He will make men plow his land and harvest his crops, and make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to prepare sweets, cook, and bake.” This shows the expense and luxury of kings, as well as their oppression. “He will take your fields and olive groves, even the best ones, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your seed and of your vineyards, and give it to his officers and servants.” We can see that bribery, corruption, and favoritism are lasting habits of kings. “He will take a tenth of your male servants, female servants, finest young men, and donkeys, and put them to work for him. He will take a tenth of your sheep, and you will become his servants. One day you will cry out because of the king you have chosen, and the Lord will not answer you that day.” This explains why monarchy has continued. The few good kings who have lived since then do not make the title sacred or erase the sin at its beginning. The great praise given to David concerns him as a man close to God's heart, not his position as king. Even so, the people refused to listen to Samuel. They said, “No, we will have a king over us. Then we can be like all the other nations. Our king can govern us, lead us into battle, and fight our battles.” Samuel kept trying to reason with them, but it did no good. He showed them how ungrateful they were, but nothing changed their minds. Seeing that they were determined to act foolishly, he called out, “I will call on the Lord, and he will send thunder and rain. Then you will understand how greatly you have sinned before the Lord by asking for a king.” At wheat harvest, when this happened, rain was a punishment. Samuel called on the Lord, who sent thunder and rain that day. All the people became very afraid of the Lord and of Samuel. They told Samuel, “Pray to the Lord your God for us, his servants, so that we do not die. By asking for a king, we have added this evil to all our sins.” These parts of the Bible are clear and direct. They cannot reasonably mean something else. Either God has spoken against monarchy here, or the Bible is false. It is reasonable to suspect that kings, as well as priests, have had a hand in keeping the Bible from the public in Catholic countries. In every case, monarchy is the equivalent of Catholic Church rule in government.

As if monarchy were not bad enough, we have added hereditary succession. Monarchy reduces our standing as people. Claiming a right to pass the crown down through a family also insults and cheats future generations. Since all people were equal to begin with, no one can have a birthright to put their family ahead of every other family forever. A person might deserve some respect from those living at the same time, but that person's descendants might not deserve it at all. One of the strongest natural arguments against a king's hereditary right is that nature herself rejects it. Otherwise she would not so often make a joke of it by giving us a donkey where we expected a lion.