Christina Byrd

Cultural Heritage II
Reading Response #4

On Imperial catechism

Imperial Catechism reflected pre-enlightenment thinking about the monarchy in

terms of suitable government. This document, in summary, more or less rehearses the

arguments of thinkers like Bossuet, Hobbes, and Domat. Some quotes even seem to echo

each other. For example, in The Ideal Absolute State, Domat declares that “…God

himself established it [government]; it follows that those who are its subjects must be

submissive and obedient. For otherwise they would resist God….” (Rogers 2010) In The

Imperial Catechism it is stated that, “...God, who has created empires and distributes

them according to his will…established him as our sovereign…to honor and serve our

emperor is to honor and serve God himself.” (Rogers 2010) It is important to note how

both of these text imply some moral obligation to be submissive to government and God

had intended for and established the government to be the way it was.

Furthermore, the text of The Imperial Catechism goes on to pronounce anything

that resists the power of the emperor as “resisting the order of God himself, and render

themselves worthy of damnation.” (Rogers 2010) Especially crucial was the comparison

to Jesus Christ (the ultimate model of righteousness) Within the text it is stated that “Lord

Jesus Christ himself, both by his teachings and example, has taught us what we owe to

our sovereign…he obeyed the edict of Caesar Augustus; he paid the established tax…”

and so it continues. (Rogers 2010)

It is evident that while some political thinkers had, in this time, beliefs that

supported the institution of nationalism, there were still tinkers that firmly believed in
absolute government. The most interesting aspect is how heavily scripture and morality

were relied upon to support these theories about government.