John Locke And Bishop Bossuet Arguments On Monarchy

600 Words3 Pages
According to Webster, "Monarchy is a form of government in which a country is ruled by a monarch, usually a king or queen." During the 17th century to renowned men had their own ideas on Monarchy. John Locke denounced the idea of absolute Monarchy because he believed Monarchy is an injustice to all. Having an absolute King who could do what he wanted when he wanted without any reprimand would steal the rights of freedom from all. To avoid this conflict and show that every man had undeniable rights, people needed a system that could distinguish who made the laws from who enforced the laws. However, to do this everyone's input and not just one person. On the other end of the spectrum Bishop Bossuet defended the divine rights of kings. What he called "The Divine Right of Kings" he defended with scripture from the Old Testament in the Bible. In the bible kings were only judged by God. Henceforth, his king and any other king needed to embrace not only the entire country but the will of the people, simultaneously being immune from judgment of anyone mortal. This paper will set up the key differences between both John Locke and Bishop Bossuet arguments on Monarchy.
Locke beliefs are what the constitution was built upon. In order to protect the well-being and property of others a
…show more content…
Nurture" type argument and both men were some of the best in their field. Locke argued that monarchy conflicted with the rights and privileges of the law of nature. Where as Bossuet argued that to go against the right of the king was to go against God. To avoid the sin of blasphemy everyone must acknowledge the king and without question obey his laws. And again, this was exactly what Locke was afraid of because who was to say what a King may demand the people to do. If he said go jump off a bridge or let me have your wife: are you suppose to do it? People need a system where they can govern who makes the laws and who enforces the
Open Document