Report Template - Jubilee Centre

More documents

Recommendations

Info

THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY MODERN BRITAIN: Eve established the same sort of husband/fatherly authority and dominion. Regardless, Adam passed this authority on to his male prodigy, the first Patriarchs, who became kings over their families now translated into subjects. Monarchy was the natural, civil expression of patriarchy, as kings stood as the civil ancestors of Israel’s Patriarchs. Parliamentarians like Parker (and other constitutional thinkers) assumed that God ordained husbands and fathers as heads of their own families, but they never formally connected the family dynamic with civil rule. Neither did they assume that Adam bore supreme authority over his family. They argued that fatherly authority encompassed the sphere of the family only, and any sort of analogous relationship to a community as a national family under a supreme head was hermeneutically illegitimate. Family relationships were distinct from civil ones, and the nature of that distinction also assumed limitations on the part of the husband and a king. Because Royalists connected the origin of civil authority with paternal authority and by analogy regal authority, the ordination of civil authority by way of consent was not only unnecessary, it was relationally unreasonable. If it could be proved that family government led to civil government, then popular consent could no more establish civil government than family government. Royalists did not dispute the need for human interposition in establishing authority. It was the nature of authority itself that man was incapable of ordaining. Authority was divinely derived as to its substance, and only humanly instituted. A king therefore was accountable to God alone, and subject to His sanctioning authority. Subjects are bound to obey, and the 1 Samuel, Romans and 1 Peter texts are all rallied in support. Royalists do not begin their monarchical thinking with these three texts; instead, they operate as textual supports for their Genesis readings. But if there was no relational connection between family government and monarchy as Royalists understood, then consent, it could be argued, might transfer authority to the king. If this is the case, then kings were limited to their obligations, and their tyrannical rule could be resisted by force of arms by a lower magistrate such as Parliament. But what sort of authority could be transferred, and from where did it originate? Royalist arguments for monarchy and kingly prerogative are all tightly linked. Their understanding of the origin of civil government is their key political text as it lays the basis for patriarchy, and by extension monarchy, divine derivation of kingly prerogative, absolute obedience, and non-resistance. But why did Royalists read the origin of civil government as being in Adam, either as original, or granted by way of the fall? This will become more apparent as we contrast their political readings with their Republican constitutional counterparts. 18
THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN EARLY MODERN BRITAIN: Republicans: A Commonwealth of Popular Prerogative in Service of Liberty Oceana, I say, cannot be wounded by piercing the authority of Israel, with which she is armed cap-`a-pie. James Harrington, The prerogative of popular government (London, 1657). 74 If men within themselves would be govern’d by reason, and not generally give up thir understanding to a double tyrannie, of Custom from without, and blind affections within, thy would discerne better, what it is to favour and uphold the Tyrant of a Nation. But being slaves within doors, no wonder that they strive so much to have the public State conformably govern’d to the inward vitious rule, by which they govern themselves. John Milton, The tenure of kings and magistrates (London, 1649). 75 This next section is devoted to investigating the civilmodels of two prominent representative commonwealthsmen, otherwise referred to as republicans by their political opponents: James Harrington (1611-1677) and John Milton (1608-1674). Each was intensely involved in the constitutional developments of the Interregnum and resorted to the Scriptures to model a civil government. Republican proposals radically differed from their Royalist counterparts; Republicans emphasised the abolition of monarchy, pressed for representative and popular assemblies, and stressed limited executive authority subordinate to a sovereign legislature. Though Harrington and Milton did not read the Scriptures politically the same way, they were both political artisans who attempted to construct a civil model by wielding religious discourse within a Protestant theological tradition. The Bible was the frame, fabric, and foundation of their proposals. Harrington’s key republican tract, Oceana (1656), makes for an incredibly complex read, and it spawned a constitutional 74 James Harrington, The prerogative of popular government (London, 1657), 464. Harrington’s works are all found in J.G.A. Pocock, ed., The Political Works of James Harrington (Cambridge University Press, 1977). Harrington’s works will include title, place of publication and date, but page numbers are referenced in Pocock. A full listing of Harrington’s works cited here will be noted in the bibliography. This section is also adapted from chapters 3 and 4 of my 2004 Doctoral Dissertation. 75 John Milton, The tenure of kings and magistrates (London, 1649), 1. controversy, the larger constitutional outlines of which Milton denounced in his key republican model The readie and easie way to establish a free commonwealth (1660). Rationale for Choosing these Republicans Harrington and Milton were chosen in part because they attempted to overhaul England’s ancient Constitution with radical commonwealth models. Their political philosophies are often misinterpreted because sections of their models are bracketed from their protestant theology. More attention is often paid to Milton’s poetry than his political prose, and Harrington is tagged as the stereotypical Machiavellian writer with little regard to his use of the Bible. Their models also evidence anti-Cromwellian views; even Milton, in the final analysis, chafed politically under the Protectorate. Though their proposals rest on contrasting political uses of biblical texts, Harrington and Milton were Christian humanists in their approach to biblical interpretation and use of classical sources. Neither saw any contradiction in synthesising pagan classical works with the Christian text to model a commonwealth. After all, pagan authors bore the image of God and could bear witness to moral truths. Finally, Milton wrote his own theological treatise, and both utilised seventeenthcentury Rabbinic scholarship, though Harrington to a much greater extent. Harrington the ‘Machiavellian’ and Milton the ‘Cromwellian’ Both Harrington and Milton were politically inspired by their travels to the European continent. The civil institutions of Venice, Italy especially enamoured Harrington. Milton too visited Italy, but seems to have been influenced by Geneva. Both returned to England stirred to transition into a defining career of political influence. Harrington claims he was driven to consider the study of government to promote the welfare of mankind. He established himself as a courtier of King Charles I, but his respect for his majesty, displayed even on the scaffold, did not diminish his republicanism. He never held a seat in the Commons, despite his desire to do so early on in the Civil War, and he was largely a historian, political scholar and philosopher. Harrington is consistently interpreted as a Machiavellian, and considered the measure of English classical republican political theory. Unfortunately, 19
Page 1: T h e P o l i t i c a l U s e o f t
Page 4 and 5: Copyright © Jubilee Centre 2013 Th
Page 6 and 7: Editorial Method and Style All cite
Page 8 and 9: scholarly precision with accessibil
Page 10 and 11: THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN E
Page 76 and 77:
THE POLITICAL USE OF THE BIBLE IN E
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
show all

Report Template - Jubilee Centre

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?