Which figure is said to believe that consenting to government is not necessary for rule and that natural hierarchy justifies political authority?

Which figure is said to believe that consenting to government is not necessary for rule and that natural hierarchy justifies political authority?

• A. Locke
• B. John Winthrop
• C. Thomas Jefferson
• D. Roger Williams

Answer: (B)

The idea being tested is the source of political authority and when obedience is owed. Here, the emphasis is on authority that does not hinge on each individual's explicit consent, and on a belief in a natural or divine order that legitimizes rulers. John Winthrop, a leading figure in the Puritan founding of Massachusetts Bay, is associated with the view that civil authority is ordained by God and supported by the community’s covenant, not by a blanket requirement that every person explicitly consents to rule. In his framework, obedience to magistrates and the church was seen as part of a divinely sanctioned order—the “natural” hierarchy that places certain leaders in authority and obligates subjects to follow them. This stands in contrast to theories that base political legitimacy on the explicit consent of the governed. By comparison, the other figures fit different theories. Locke centers political legitimacy on the consent of the governed and the protection of natural rights; Jefferson emphasizes popular sovereignty and explicit consensus, while Roger Williams argues for liberty of conscience and a separation between church and state, challenging the idea that civil authority rests on a natural hierarchy or divine ordinance.

The idea being tested is the source of political authority and when obedience is owed. Here, the emphasis is on authority that does not hinge on each individual's explicit consent, and on a belief in a natural or divine order that legitimizes rulers.

John Winthrop, a leading figure in the Puritan founding of Massachusetts Bay, is associated with the view that civil authority is ordained by God and supported by the community’s covenant, not by a blanket requirement that every person explicitly consents to rule. In his framework, obedience to magistrates and the church was seen as part of a divinely sanctioned order—the “natural” hierarchy that places certain leaders in authority and obligates subjects to follow them. This stands in contrast to theories that base political legitimacy on the explicit consent of the governed.

By comparison, the other figures fit different theories. Locke centers political legitimacy on the consent of the governed and the protection of natural rights; Jefferson emphasizes popular sovereignty and explicit consensus, while Roger Williams argues for liberty of conscience and a separation between church and state, challenging the idea that civil authority rests on a natural hierarchy or divine ordinance.