Mankind being originally equals in the order of creation, any later distinctions among people must arise from subsequent circumstances. The differences between rich and poor may often be explained without resorting to the harsh ideas of oppression or greed. Oppression is more often the consequence of wealth than the cause of it, and avarice may prevent poverty without ever producing greatness.
But there is another distinction, for which no natural or religious reason can be given: the division of people into kings and subjects. Male and female are distinctions of nature; good and bad are distinctions of heaven. But how one group of people came to be raised so far above the rest, as if they were a separate species, is worth examining—especially to determine whether this distinction has brought happiness or misery to mankind.
In the early ages of the world, according to Scripture, there were no kings. The consequence was that there were no wars, for it is the pride of kings that throws mankind into confusion. Countries without kings have enjoyed more peace than many monarchies, and early societies lived more quietly before royal power disrupted them.
Monarchy was first introduced among heathen nations, and the Israelites later copied the custom. It became a powerful tool for encouraging idolatry, as kings were treated with divine reverence. Even in Christian societies, rulers are often honored in ways that approach worship—an idea that is deeply offensive when applied to men who, despite their splendor, are subject to decay like all others.
As the elevation of one man above all others cannot be justified by nature, neither can it be defended by Scripture. The will of God, as expressed through Gideon and the prophet Samuel, disapproved of government by kings. When the Israelites demanded a king so they could be “like other nations,” they were warned of the consequences. A king would take their sons and daughters, seize their lands, demand taxes, and reduce them to servants. Despite these warnings, the people insisted on having a king.
The origin of monarchy matters. It did not arise to protect liberty, but from a desire to imitate other nations and concentrate power. The existence of a few good kings does not justify the system, just as individual virtue does not redeem a flawed form of government.
To monarchy was later added hereditary succession, an even greater injustice. No generation has the right to give away the authority of future generations by placing one family above all others forever. Nature itself mocks hereditary rule by often placing foolish or unfit heirs on the throne. A man may deserve respect, but his descendants may be wholly unworthy of power.
Hereditary succession also exposes society to danger when a child, an elderly ruler, or an unfit person inherits authority. The claim that this system prevents civil war is false. History shows that disputes over succession have repeatedly led to war, rebellion, and instability.
In the end, monarchy and hereditary rule have filled the world with violence and suffering. Government should exist to serve the people, not to elevate one family above all others. One honest person is worth more to society than all the crowned rulers who govern through inherited power rather than the consent of the governed.