In mid-16th century Europe, two intellectual groups, the resistance theorists and counter-revolutionary theorists, reconceptualized the nature of political power. They asked similar questions about the nature of society, government and the right of resistance, but came to very different conclusions. In 1556 the English theorist John Ponet published his Short Treatise on Political Power. Twenty years later, the Frenchman Jean Bodin published his Six Books of the Commonwealth, with On Sovereignty being a selection of this. This paper argues that Ponet and Bodin both acknowledge that power comes from God and His natural law, but while Ponet conceives of a popular sovereign beholden to the people, Bodin’s sovereign is absolute and has no accountability to the people.
Both theorists conceive of God as being the giver of power and the need to follow natural law. Ponet discusses the absolute necessity of government. He outlines the Calvinist idea of how humanity is radically fallen and corrupt, giving the example of the fall of the Greeks, Iberians and Romans to show man’s failure to govern himself through his own reason. Thus God “has taken upon himself the order and government of man, His chief creature, and prescribed a rule to him, how he should behave himself, what he should do, and what he may not do” (Ponet 3-4). Ponet connects the Decalogue and the Golden Rule to show that God has inscribed into man certain unchanging natural properties. Radical Calvinist Protestants called the Decalogue the very first Constitution. To Bodin, power also comes from natural law and God. He says that “every prince on earth is subject to [natural laws], and it is not in their power to contravene them unless they wish to be guilty of treason against God” (Bodin 13). The only authority that the prince is not above is God. Popes such as Innocent IV forced Christian rulers to bow down to them, a key Catholic difference from the Protestant conception of no separation between the temporal and spiritual (Bodin 13). In fact, the prince has certain obligations arising from natural equity and his good faith. He should guarantee the good faith of his subjects among each other and is a model to his people, so if he does not keep the natural law, his subjects won’t either (Bodin 35). Bodin and Ponet bind their authorities by natural law.
Ponet conceives of a popular sovereign beholden to the people. He favors a mixed state with the job of maintaining justice and working “to the wealth and benefit of the whole multitude, and not of the superior and governors alone” (Ponet 7). The king is responsible to the positive laws and is actually held to a higher standard than his constituents. Except for his office, he is equal to them in every way (Ponet 21). Ponet says that “men should have more respect to their country than to their prince […] as kings and princes […] are but members” (Ponet 39). Power comes from God to the people, not to the king as traditionally believed. In the eyes of God there is political and social equality. The political commonwealth has more power than the king (Ponet 32). A tyrant for Ponet is a sovereign who takes away the property and money of the people and never pays it back. The people have no privacy, they are in danger and can get in trouble for anything (Ponet 45-47). To Ponet, “those that have appointed an office upon trust, have […] authority upon just occasion (as the abuse of it) to take away that they gave […] all laws do agree” (Ponet 55). The history of the deposing of kings both in the Old Testament and outside of it provides a justification (Ponet 47). By this same argument, it is lawful to kill a tyrant, and anyone can do it (Ponet 48). Thus, to Ponet, rulers are servants of their constituents bound by the laws and will pay with their office or their life for not keeping their contract.
On the other hand, the power in Bodin’s sovereign is indivisible and does not allow for popular sovereignty, as Bodin makes clear when he says that “he is absolutely sovereign who recognizes nothing, after God, that is greater than himself” (Bodin 4). The person and the office cannot be separated (Bodin 5). Although there are parliaments, like the Estates in France, the sovereign is not at all required to follow their advice, instead they merely make recommendations (Bodin 23). The sovereign is not subject to civil law and is in fact above it. He gives the law to his people and ignores or revokes unfavorable laws and replaces them with others (Bodin 11). Allowing many people to have power or a democracy would expose the kingdom to mischief and factionalism, harming its balance and stability (Bodin 19). To Bodin, “contempt for one’s sovereign prince is contempt towards God, of whom he is the earthly image” (Bodin 46). Thus, to go against the legitimate monarch or even think of doing go is to incur the death penalty, even if he is a tyrant (Bodin 155-56). Bodin argues that the only way to kill or even rebel against a tyrannical prince is through a special allowance from God, like Jehu who was chosen as king by God through Elisha and commanded to exterminate the house of Ahab (Bodin 118). If it is made lawful to kill a tyrant, then that sets a risky precedent as a ruler who does anything people don’t like can be considered one, and good princes would no longer be secure. But unlike subjects, other princes can use force against tyrants (Bodin 120). Bodin’s concern is with centralization and stability rather than liberty like Ponet.
In conclusion, Ponet and Bodin are asking the same questions, and both acknowledge that God and his natural law are the sources of power, but they then branch off as Ponet believes that power comes from God to the people who have a ruler beholden to them, while Bodin believes that the ruler has absolute authority and is divinely ordained. Their different conclusions are testament to the different political trajectory that their respective nations would go on: Ponet’s England would see further development of liberal political philosophies which would culminate in a stronger parliament and constitutional government. Meanwhile, Bodin’s France went on the path of political absolutism with further centralization of power in the monarch and the weakening of the Estates General.
diegodelaparra 
Leave a comment