III. Examples taken from the Spartans
III. Examples taken from the Spartans It is well known, too, that the Spartans were accustomed to elect their kings by a free vote from the family of the Heraclidae. Plutarch relates that Lysander wished to alter this, but without avail.1 But after the king had been elected upon definite conditions, they appointed the ephors 2 to restrain the kings in their office, and as it were, to curb them with reins. These moreover expelled some kings, and inflicted capital punishment on others, until at length — upon the treachery of Cleomenes — the tyrants all were killed.
Thereupon, Sparta lost her liberty at the same time as her absolute sway.3 Here I am reminded of that most beautiful passage in Xenophon,4 where he speaks of the Commonwealth of the Spartans. He records that the king and the ephors typically bound themselves by a mutual oath every month — they in the name of all the citizens, and he in his own name. In this oath, the king promised that he would rule in accordance with the terms of the laws laid down; and the ephors promised that they would guard the state for him, if he fulfilled his oath. 5
IV. Examples from the Monarchy of the Israelites Let us now proceed to the polity of Israel, the most perfect of all that ever were, if only the Israelites had been satisfied with it. The fact that the eternal God was its sole monarch from the beginning, exalted that polity beyond the stars, as it were; not merely because
He Himself held supreme authority over all things, but because He did so in a unique way.
For through Moses He visibly drew up their laws for the Israelites; through Joshua with arms thrust out, as it were, He brought His people into the Promised Land; and finally,
He commanded and governed them in the person of those men whom He Himself had directly appointed to the government of that polity, and who were called Judges.6
At that time, therefore, the Jewish polity was truly monarchical (although God employed the service of certain men in accordance with His will). And if all kingdoms had this
Monarch, or at least if all monarchs always allowed themselves to be directed by this supreme Lord of the universe, this present inquiry would be no less redundant, than it is indispensable. For that blessed state of the Israelite commonwealth (which never befell any other people but this) was changed in an amazing and unusual way. For the monarchical constitutions of other nations have degenerated into tyrannies by the fault of the monarchs themselves. But the Israelites, not recognizing such a great boon, and against His will as it were, compelled that true Monarch of theirs, who could never have become a tyrant, to appoint them a human king, as other people had. The Lord at length granted their wishes, but in anger and indignation 7 — not that He desired by that act to disapprove of a monarchical constitution as such, but because this change had proceeded from a hot-headed and stubborn people.
1 Plutarch, Lysander, XXIV.
2 Ephors: one of a body of five magistrates chosen by the people of ancient Sparta. – WHG
3 Ibid, Cleomenes, passim, VIII and XXXIX.
4 Greek general and historian; student of Socrates (430-355 BC) – WHG 5 Xenophon, Lakedaimonion Politeia, XV, 7.
6 Jdg 2:16.
7 1Sam 8: 5-22.
Meanwhile, it neither can nor should be disguised that there has never been a king since the origin of the world (even if you selected the very best), who did not in some measure abuse his authority. So it must indeed be conceded — as philosophers who are enlightened by natural reason alone have also recognized — that unless it is curbed by certain reins, monarchical rule brings ruin and destruction upon the people, rather than protection and welfare. So that, by these reins, it may come about that the greatest boon which can be derived from a monarchy may be secured, and the great evil which otherwise would result from it may be avoided or impeded.
I am giving this introduction while entering upon my discussion of the origins of the Israelite kingship, since clear examples of all these things are to be found there. It would be worth the effort if both kings and nations paid careful attention to these, so that the one class might not so often come to be oppressed by the other. But rather, the glory of God, from whom alone all tranquillity comes, might be such an object of care to both, that rulers and subjects alike might be content to maintain themselves peacefully.
But to return to the point from where I digressed, the Lord being rightly incensed against His people, that He might clearly make known to them what they were to expect from that reckless disposition by which they were being disturbed, prophesied to them through Samuel, in wondrous words, what indeed that right would be which history calls the Royal
Prerogative — in short, that the king would arbitrarily seize the persons and possessions of his subjects, and convert them to his own uses. Doubtless, this is tyrannical rather than royal. For who would dare to seriously doubt that God alone is competent to thrust His arbitrary will in the place of reason, since nothing can be called just except what God has first willed? For the will of God alone is the true and certain rule of all justice, as it was maintained from the beginning. But the contrary happens in the case of men whose reason too should be subject to and guided by just and inviolable laws — particularly in the case of those who are placed in authority over others. So that those who interpret
Samuel's words as if he desired to be the authority over kings, for the commission of any daring deed; or as if he approved of whatever they did in blind willfulness, are entirely mistaken. Equally accursed is that saying of the notorious incestuous woman "Si liber, licet." 1 This is a standpoint which, alas, is excessively bandied about and acted upon in this present century. Indeed, the works of Samuel must rather be interpreted as if he spoke them to rebuke Israel: "It is not enough for you to have God Himself as your monarch, which thus far has been an extraordinary favor; but you demand another monarch, like the other nations have. Therefore, such a one will fall to your lot. But again, listen to what rights he will claim over you, and with what fairness and justice he will hold sway over you." The subsequent course of history has shown that this was the purport of Samuel's words.
The Kings of Judah elected by the people I therefore maintain that, although God expressly elected David, he also had to be elected by the people; and in electing him rightly, as they should, they followed the will of God.2
The same thing occurred in the case of Solomon, who after being first elected by God, was in the second instance made king by the people.3 And in general: although the royal
1 "What I want, I may." Historia Augustae, Caracalla, X, 2.
2 2Sam 5: 1-4.
3 1Chr 29:22.
crown, in accordance with the command of God, belonged to the House of David by hereditary right, yet as we have shown above, the people always elected from among the children of the late king, that one whom the people preferred to hold sway. And with this election went a twofold obligation, as it appears from the history of Joash.1 For both the king and the people first promised God under solemn oath to observe His laws, both ecclesiastical and political. Afterwards, another mutual oath was taken between the king himself and the people. "But," someone will say, "did the people — that is, the Estates 2 of the people — for that reason have the right to punish their elected candidate when he failed to perform his duty?" They certainly had that right, as can be particularly proved by four examples.
(1) For if David might defend himself against the tyranny of Saul, as described a while ago, and (2) if the people of Libnah, who were but subordinate magistrates, might revolt from their allegiance to Jehoram, may I not rightly infer from these, that the royal Estates per se (ipso jure) had many more rights? (3) Also relevant to this point, is the deed that was done by those very Estates, upon the wise counsel of Jehoiada the priest, against Athaliah, who had been appointed queen and reigned over the kingdom for six whole years.3 (4) Lastly, the example of Amaziah is much clearer still: the people of Jerusalem pursued him even till they slew him.4 But if anyone were to think that this was done seditiously and not lawfully, I would have him attend carefully to the following arguments.
It is nowhere declared that Amaziah was slain by the slaves of his household 5 — as we read happened to his father Joash, and to Amon the son of Manasseh 6 — but rather by some common agreement of the people of Jerusalem. And this did not happen secretly, as if by ambush, as the end of tyrants has mostly been. But it was by undisguised violence, and as it were, upon the authority of the people. Neither was it the result of some sudden uprising, but after he had taken flight to the city of Lachish, from where it is recorded that his body was returned and buried in the sepulcher of his fathers. In short, neither before nor after the death of Amaziah is anything to be found here offering any indication of revolt; but all the circumstances prove rather clearly that everything was attempted and carried into effect in accordance with the resolution and studied deliberation of the people of Jerusalem,7 and also by the tacit treaty of those who joined in it, presumably a majority of the tribes — although this occurred in an exceptional and perfunctory way. Certainly it was not from any private feeling of animosity, but as a result of his wickedness by which he had in great part violated his oath. For that reason, we nowhere read that after his death, there was any complaint or inquiry, or in short, that any punishment was secured or meted out against the perpetrators of the murder, either by the people, or by his children, as happened after the deaths of Amon,8 and Joash,9 For there, the conspirators
1 2Kng 11:4, 17.
2 Estates: a major social class or order of persons regarded collectively as part of the body politic of the country, and possessing distinct political rights. – WHG
3 2Kng 11.
4 2Kng 14:19-21; 2Chr 25:27-28, and 26:1, 5 2Chr 24:25.
6 2Kng 21:23.
7 2Chr 25:27.
8 2Kng 21:24.
9 2Kng 14:5.