For Domat, divine kingship was of utmost importance; his theory behind royal absolutism was based off it and it held the idea of divine kingship at its center. On the other hand, for Machiavelli, according to his political theory, divine kingship did not appear to play any direct or significant part in politics.
According to Domat, every individual was assigned a duty and status by God himself. He claimed that “God has assigned each person in the body of society…He prescribes for each one in particular the duties proper to his condition and status”. As a result, any king would have also have been chosen by God and his duty would be to rule over others and ensure the stability of the nation. In addition, if people chose to rebel against this king then it…show more content… People would be afraid to go against the prince as it would be seen as an act against God and they wouldn’t want to invoke God’s wrath so they will follow the prince.
Domat believed that it was vital for a country to have a government or someone in charge in order to have stability in the country, that is how he justifies his need of giving certain people (e.g. Kings) authority over others. He stated that “since all people do not do their duty and some…commit injustices, for the sake of keeping order… all enterprises against this order must be repressed: which was possible only through authority given to some over others, and which made government necessary”. This shows that Domat believed that it was essential to give some people authority over others in order to run a country smoothly, otherwise, if there was no one at the top governing the people then people