The True Law of Free Monarchies
Next to knowing God, nothing is more necessary for the people of any country than rightly understanding the allegiance they owe under their established form of government. This is especially true in a monarchy. As learned and wise people have agreed from the beginning, monarchy most nearly resembles divinity and approaches perfection, since unity is the perfection of all things. Yet ignorance, and worse, the mistaken opinions spread among the multitude by those who think themselves fit to instruct the ignorant, have ruined many flourishing commonwealths and brought heavy calamities, threatening utter destruction, upon others. Unlawful rebellions have sometimes succeeded against princes. Through the misery and injustice of past times, that success has strengthened many people’s error, although nothing is more deceptive than judging the justice of a cause by its outcome, as I will show more fully later.
No commonwealth has ever needed a true understanding of this principle more than our own, so long disordered and divided. Misunderstanding it has been the sole source of endless calamities, miseries, and confusion. Many have felt these effects more keenly than they have understood or considered their cause. My natural devotion to my native country, and my pity at seeing it disturbed for so long through lack of this knowledge, have at last compelled me to break my silence. I address you, my dear countrymen, to discharge my conscience. By knowing the source of your troubles, as well as having tasted their bitter fruits for too long, you may avoid the cause and escape the lamentable effects that necessarily follow it.
In this short treatise I have chosen to set out only the true grounds of the mutual duties and allegiance between a free and absolute monarch and his people. I will not try your patience by answering the contrary propositions that some have not been ashamed to write, poisoning countless unsuspecting souls and earning themselves perpetual infamy. To answer them, I would sometimes have had to attack their persons sharply. That would have bred contention among readers according to whom they liked or disliked, rather than sound instruction in the truth. I protest before him who searches all hearts that truth is my only aim here.
First I will set out the grounds on which I build from Scripture, since monarchy is the true pattern of divinity, as I have said. Next I will turn to the fundamental laws of our own kingdom, which concern us most nearly. Third, I will draw several comparisons from the law of nature. I will conclude by answering the weightiest and most plausible objections.
A prince’s duty to his subjects is clearly set out in many places of Scripture. All good princes openly acknowledge it in their coronation oath, so I can pass through it briefly. The prophetic king David calls kings gods because they sit on God’s throne on earth and must account to him for their rule (Ps 82:6). Their office is to administer justice and judgment to the people, as David says (Ps 101); to advance the good and punish the evil, as he also says (Ps 101); to establish good laws for their people and secure obedience to them, as several good kings of Judah did (2 Kgs 18; 2 Chr 29; 2 Kgs 22-23; 2 Chr 34-35); to secure the people’s peace, as David says (Ps 72); to decide all disputes among them, as Solomon did (1 Kgs 3); and to be God’s minister for the good of those who do well and to take vengeance, as God’s minister, on those who do evil, as Saint Paul says (Rom 13). Finally, like a good shepherd, a king must go out and come in before his people, as the first book of Samuel says (1 Sam 8), so that the people’s peace may come through the prince’s prosperity, as Jeremiah says (Jer 29).
At their coronation, our kings, like every Christian monarch, swear first to maintain the religion then professed in their country under the laws establishing it, and to punish anyone who tries to change or disturb that profession. Next they swear to maintain all the good and commendable laws made by their predecessors, to see that they are enforced, and to punish those who break them according to their terms. Last, they swear to maintain the whole country and every estate within it in their ancient privileges and liberties, both against foreign enemies and among themselves. In short, the king must seek his people’s welfare and flourishing. He must maintain and enforce the old good laws, establish new ones as necessity and bad conduct require, foresee and prevent dangers by every possible means, and sustain concord, prosperity, and civility. Like a loving father and careful watchman, he must care for them more than for himself. He knows that he was appointed for them, not they for him. He must answer to the great God who placed him over them as his lieutenant, at the peril of his soul, for doing all he can for the welfare of the souls and bodies of everyone committed to his charge. The coronation oath is the clearest civil and fundamental law defining the king’s office.
By the law of nature, the king becomes a natural father to all his subjects at his coronation. A father must provide for his children’s nourishment, education, and virtuous upbringing; likewise, the king must care for all his subjects. A father thinks every effort and hardship light and well spent if his children benefit, and the prince should think the same of his people. A loving father must foresee dangers to his children and strive to prevent them, even at risk to himself; so must the king. When children offend, a father’s correction should be tempered with pity as long as there is hope they will improve; the king should treat offending subjects in the same way. A father’s chief joy should lie in his children’s welfare. He rejoices in their good fortune, grieves and pities them in adversity, risks himself for their safety, labors for their rest, and wakes so that they may sleep. In a word, he finds his earthly happiness and life more in them than in himself. A good prince should think the same of his people.
The other branch of this mutual and reciprocal bond is the duty and allegiance subjects owe their king. I take its basis from the words of Samuel, dictated by God’s Spirit when God commanded him to hear the people’s request for a king and anoint one for them. Because the passage bears so directly on my purpose when properly understood, I give the words of the text itself:
“‘Now therefore listen to their voice; nevertheless, warn them and show them how the king who will reign over them will act.’ So Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who had asked him for a king. And he said, ‘This is how the king who will reign over you will act: he will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and as his horsemen, and some will run before his chariot. He will also make them his captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and make them plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make instruments of war and the things that serve his chariots. He will also take your daughters and make them perfumers, cooks, and bakers.
“‘And he will take your fields, your vineyards, and your best olive trees and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give it to his eunuchs and to his servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, the finest of your young men, and your donkeys and put them to his work. He will take the tenth of your sheep, and you will be his servants. And you will cry out on that day because of your king, whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord God will not hear you on that day.’
“But the people would not listen to the voice of Samuel, but said, ‘No, there will be a king over us. And we also will be like all other nations, and our king will judge us, go out before us, and fight our battles’” (1 Sam 8:9-20).
That these words and arguments of Samuel were dictated by God’s Spirit needs no proof beyond their place in Scripture. All Scripture is given by that inspiration, as Paul says, and no good Christian will or dare deny it. It follows that Samuel did not speak from ambition, reluctant to give up the reins he had held so long and hoping to make kingship seem hateful so that the people would stop demanding it. The text plainly shows that he had assembled them to grant their request, as God himself commanded: “Listen to the voice of the people” (1 Sam 8). It would be senseless for a wise man, much more a prophet of the Most High God, to try to dissuade them from what he had come to grant. Samuel’s subsequent life also shows that ambition did not prompt his earlier refusal. He prayed, indeed pressed God, for Saul’s welfare. Even after God declared that Saul was rejected, Samuel continued until God himself was angry at his praying and forbade him to plead further on that matter.
Nor were Samuel’s words a prophecy that Saul, their first king, would become a tyrant. Scripture mentions no tyranny or oppression by Saul. Had there been any, it would have portrayed that failing as plainly as his others, since it describes the kings’ conduct as a true mirror. God chose Saul for his virtue and fitness to govern his people. Saul’s later falling away arose from the corruption of his own nature, not from any fault in God’s choice. To say otherwise would make God a stepfather to his people, willfully choosing someone unfit to govern them when the choice of this king lay wholly and immediately in God’s hands.
Samuel’s speech plainly prepared the people to obey the king God would give them. He warned them in advance of intolerable conduct that might be found in some kings, preparing them to endure it rather than resist God’s ordinance. It was as if he said: “God has granted your insistent request for a king. You erred in shaking off God’s yoke and seeking a king too hastily. Beware of a second error: rashly throwing off the yoke God has placed on you at your own urgent request, however hard it may seem. You could not obtain a king without God’s permission and ordinance; once he is set over you, you cannot cast him off without the same warrant. Arm yourselves now with patience and humility. He who alone has power to make a king alone has power to unmake him. Your part is to obey and bear the hardships I foretell as imposed by God’s hand, which it is not yours to remove.”
Consider the words of the text in order, and they plainly show the obedience the people owe their king in every respect. First, God commands Samuel to do two things: grant their request for a king, and warn them what some kings will do. When they later feel the burdens foretold and begin to grumble, they must not say, “We would never have asked God for a king if, when we sought one, he had told us we would be treated as we now find, too late.” This is the meaning of the words, “Now therefore listen to their voice; nevertheless, warn them and show them how the king who will rule over them will act” (1 Sam 8:9).
Next, in carrying out God’s command, Samuel also does two things. He declares which points of equity and justice their king may violate in his treatment of them. Then he removes their hope that, however weary they become, they may throw off the yoke God has placed on them at their insistence. The violations of equity appear in these words: “He will take your sons and appoint them to his chariots and as his horsemen, and some will run before his chariot. He will also make them his captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and make them plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make instruments of war and the things that serve his chariots. He will also take your daughters and make them perfumers, cooks, and bakers” (1 Sam 8:11-13). The violations of justice appear in these words: “And he will take your fields, your vineyards, and your best olive trees and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed and of your vineyards and give it to his eunuchs and to his servants, and also the tenth of your sheep” (1 Sam 8:14-15, 17).
In other words, the best and noblest of their children will be compelled to serve him in servile offices. Not content with his own estate, he will draw income for himself from their best lands, vineyards, orchards, and livestock. Reversing the law of nature and the office of a king, he will make their persons, their descendants, their lands, and everything they possess serve his private use and uncontrolled appetite.
Samuel’s warning that, however weary they grow, they may not cast off the yoke God has laid on them through their insistence appears in these words: “And you will cry out on that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the Lord will not hear you on that day” (1 Sam 8:18). It is as if he said: “When you experience what I now warn you of, you may complain and grumble, but you may not lawfully throw off your king. Kingship is God’s ordinance, and you yourselves have chosen a king. By your willing consent you have forever given up any privilege by which you might later claim back that power. God will not permit you to do so.”
To remove every further excuse for withdrawing from their agreement, after warning them of its burdens Samuel seeks their answer and consent. Their answer is: “No, there will be a king over us. And we also will be like all other nations, and our king will judge us, go out before us, and fight our battles” (1 Sam 8:19-20). It is as if they said: “Your warnings and hard conditions will not frighten us. We accept both the good and the evil and will bear whatever burden our king chooses to lay on us, as other nations do. Because he will fight our battles, we will bear those burdens more patiently.”
The establishment and law of the Jewish monarchy can and should serve as a pattern for all Christian and soundly founded monarchies, since God himself founded it and declared its law by his own oracle. What liberty, then, can turbulent spirits and rebellious minds justly claim against a Christian monarchy? They can claim no greater liberty than God’s people had. Nor can they allege a tyranny worse than what those people were warned might happen, although rebellion was still forbidden them. Surely tyranny includes seizing people’s sons, daughters, and servants; reducing noble households and people of noble blood to servile work; and extorting their lands and goods for the prince’s private benefit and that of his courtiers and servants.
Scripture’s account of what followed makes this proposition clearer. We never read that the prophets persuaded the people to rebel against a prince, however wicked he was. When Samuel, at God’s command, pronounced that Saul’s kingdom was torn from him and given to another, effectively deposing him, Samuel’s next action was to go home peacefully and pray for him with floods of tears (1 Sam 15).
David was anointed to take that rejected king’s place. Though Saul cruelly persecuted him for good service rather than any offense, even when Saul was in his power, David would scarcely presume to touch the garment of the Lord’s anointed, and then only with great reverence; he also blessed Saul in his words. Later a man came boasting, falsely, that he had killed Saul. David put him to sudden death, without a trial of whether he had done it, for the guilt expressed by his own tongue (1 Sam 24; 2 Sam 1).
There was scarcely a more monstrous persecutor or tyrant than Ahab. Yet the only rebellion Elijah ever raised against him was to flee into the wilderness, where ravens fed him because he had no other sustenance. No one will doubt that Samuel, David, and Elijah could have persuaded people to rise against these wicked kings if they had chosen to use their standing for uprisings and rebellion. They had at least as much influence as any seditious preacher of our own day, in this country or in France, who has stirred up rebellion under cover of religion. Love of the truth alone, I protest, and no hatred of their persons, has moved me to speak somewhat satirically here.
Some may point to extraordinary instances in Scripture in which kings were deposed or killed, such as Jehu’s deed, to excuse popular rebellion. I answer first that they lack the warrant those people had. Moreover, if extraordinary scriptural examples are made rules for daily conduct, then killing someone who trusts you, as Ehud and Jael did; taking others’ goods, as the Israelites did when they left Egypt; and lying to one’s parents to harm a brother, as Jacob did, must all be counted lawful virtues just as rebellion against princes would be. The practice recorded throughout Scripture confirms the people’s obedience to this sentence in God’s law: “You must not speak abusively against the judges or speak evil of the ruler of your people” (Exod 22:28).
Two notable examples, one under the law and the other under the gospel, will conclude my scriptural argument for allegiance. Under the law, Jeremiah threatens God’s people with utter destruction for rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Jer 27). Nebuchadnezzar was an idolatrous persecutor, a foreign king, a tyrant, and a usurper of their liberties. Yet because they had once received and acknowledged him as king, Jeremiah commanded them to obey him and even to pray for his prosperity, since their peace depended on his prosperity (Jer 29).
Under the gospel, the king whom Paul tells the Romans to obey and serve for conscience’s sake was Nero, a bloody tyrant, infamous in his age and monstrous to the world (Rom 13). Like the king of Babylon, he was an idolatrous persecutor. Yet idolatry and defection from God, tyranny over the people, and persecution of the saints for their faith did not prevent the Spirit of God from commanding the people, under the gravest obligation, to give these rulers due and heartfelt obedience for conscience’s sake. They were to render to Caesar what was Caesar’s and to God what was God’s, as Christ says. This practice throughout God’s book agrees with the law he made when he established that monarchy, as I have explained. What shameless presumption, then, for Christian people today to claim an unlawful liberty God denied his own chosen people?
To state briefly the duty and allegiance these scriptural arguments establish: people must obey their lawful king as God’s lieutenant on earth. They must obey his commands in all things except those directly contrary to God, as commands of God’s minister. They must acknowledge him as a judge set over them by God, with power to judge them but answerable for his judgments only to God. They must fear him as their judge, love him as their father, and pray for him as their protector: for his continued reign if he is good, and for his amendment if he is wicked. They must follow his lawful commands. When his fury drives him to unlawful acts, they must avoid and flee it without resistance, turning instead with sobs and tears to God. As the saying used by the early Church during persecution has it, “The Church’s weapons are prayers and tears.”
I turn now, as promised, to the allegiance subjects owe their native king under the fundamental and civil laws of this country. First I must establish how our laws and form of government began, so that the argument built upon them stands on the right foundation. Those who pride themselves on being the scourges of tyrants say, with some truth, that when kings first arose among the nations, various communities chose one man from among themselves whose virtue and courage stood above the rest. They set him over them to uphold the rights of the weak, bring down oppressors, and preserve society. Only the unity his rule supplied could do this well. But those examples do not apply to us. Our kingdom and several other monarchies began in a very different way.
Our chronicles say that this island, especially our part of it, was sparsely inhabited by people as lacking in civility as they were few in number. Our first king, Fergus, came from Ireland, which had long been inhabited, bringing many people with him. Through his alliances and the force of the Irish who accompanied him and the local people who willingly joined him, he took possession of the country. He made himself king and lord of all its lands and inhabitants. He and his successors made and established laws from time to time afterward, as occasions required. Our history is thus directly contrary to the false claim of seditious writers that the laws and government of our country were established before a king was admitted. A wise king came among people they describe as uncivilized, first established the state and form of government, and then, with his successors, made laws to suit it.
The kings of Scotland therefore preceded its estates and ranks of people, its parliaments, and its laws. They distributed the land, which had at first been wholly theirs; established and distinguished estates; and devised the forms of government. It necessarily follows that the kings made the laws, rather than the laws making the kings. The rolls of our Chancery, containing our oldest and fundamental laws, make this still clearer. They call the king both lord of all goods and direct lord of the entire domain. All subjects are his vassals and hold their lands from him as their overlord. In return for good service he changes their holdings from a tack, a lease, to a feu, a tenure held for rent in money or produce; or from military ward tenure to blench tenure, held for a nominal payment. He creates new baronies and joins old ones without the advice or authority of Parliament or any lower court.
If wrongdoing were allowed in this argument, although I grant that wrong remains wrong whoever does it, the king, as overlord of the whole country from whom everyone holds land, would have a better pretext for taking a subject’s land at his pleasure and doing as he wished with it than the people would have for deposing a king and putting another in his place, as foolish writers propose. Both acts are unlawful and contrary to God’s ordinance; both ought to be hateful even to contemplate, much less to carry out.
In keeping with these fundamental laws, we see daily that Parliament is the chief court of the king and his vassals. His subjects request laws; only he makes them, at their request and with their advice. The king makes statutes and ordinances every day, with whatever penalties he thinks fit, without consulting Parliament or the estates. But no Parliament can give any statute the force of law without his scepter signifying assent. Elsewhere royal bloodlines have changed as kingdoms were taken by conquest, though this has not happened in ours. England, our neighboring country, provides an example. Yet the basis of the king’s right over all land and its subjects remains the same in other free monarchies as in ours.
When William the Conqueror, the Bastard of Normandy, came to England and made himself king, he came by force with a mighty army. He gave the law rather than receiving it. He changed the laws and overturned the order of government, putting his foreign followers in the places of many former landholders. This is still apparent in the Norman descent of a great part of England’s gentry and in the old laws by which they are governed, written in his language rather than theirs. His successors have nevertheless enjoyed the crown with great success to this day. Earlier conquerors of England did much the same.
That the king is overlord of all the land is also shown daily by our laws concerning buried treasure, estates without heirs, and the property of people born outside marriage. A hoard found underground belongs by law to the king because it is no longer in anyone’s possession or use. When an inheritor of land or goods dies with no heirs of any kind, the land and goods return to the king. When a person born outside marriage dies without being legally recognized as legitimate and without descendants, everything that person has likewise returns to the king. Only the king can grant that recognition.
As the king is plainly overlord of the whole land, so he is master over everyone living in it, with power over each person’s life and death. A just prince will not take a subject’s life without a clear law. Yet the laws by which he does so were made by him or his predecessors, and the power always flows from the king. We see good and just princes make new laws and attach penalties to acts which subjects could commit without committing a crime before those laws were made.
I do not deny the old definition that calls a king a speaking law and the law a silent king. A king who does not govern by law can neither answer to God for his rule nor enjoy a happy and secure reign. Although I have shown at length that the king stands above the law as its author and the source of its force, a good king will delight to govern his subjects by law and will also conform his own actions to it. He will always hold the welfare of the commonwealth to be his chief law. Where he finds a law doubtful or harsh, he may interpret or soften it, lest the strictest application of law produce the greatest injustice. For reasons known to him, he may therefore use his authority to soften or suspend general laws made publicly in Parliament.
A good king will frame his conduct according to law, as I have said, but he does this willingly and to set an example to his subjects, not because he is bound by it. Consider the law against eating meat in Lent. The king may have his household observe it as an example, yet no one thinks he must obtain a license to eat meat himself. Our laws also forbid carrying and using certain guns and pistols. Still, no one could fault the king for having his attendants use them on a raid against Borderers, other criminals, or rebellious subjects. Thus a good king, though above the law, voluntarily conforms his conduct to it as an example, not as someone subject to it.
Having established from this country’s fundamental laws and practice the king’s rights and powers over his land and subjects, we can readily understand the allegiance his subjects owe him. I mean a free monarchy such as ours, not an elective kingship, and still less the government of the dukes of Venice. Their limited aristocratic government bears no likeness to a free monarchy, although some hostile writers have refused to acknowledge the difference.
No tenant or vassal of a particular lord may control or depose that lord and overlord on any pretext, as all the world’s laws make clearer than the sun. How much less may the subjects and vassals of the great overlord, the king, control or depose him? In lesser offices, the people likewise cannot displace their magistrates on any grounds. The people of a borough cannot remove their provost before the end of his elected term. A congregation cannot depose or judge its pastor on any pretext. Even pupils cannot dismiss their schoolmaster. Some of these officers are subordinate and temporary, and none equals a king in dignity. If those they govern cannot remove them for any reason or on any pretext, how much less may anyone control or remove the great provost and schoolmaster of the whole land? To say otherwise reverses law and reason: those commanded would command their commander, those judged would judge their judge, and the governed would take turns governing their lord and governor.
Two comparisons show how the law of nature agrees with the divine and human laws I have cited. The king stands toward his people as a father toward his children and as the head toward the members of a body. Good princes and magistrates among God’s people acknowledged themselves to be fathers to their subjects. Other well-governed commonwealths have commonly called kings “father of the country.” The king’s office also closely resembles the head’s office in relation to the body and all its members. From the head, the seat of judgment, come care, guidance, and foresight to prevent harm to the body or any part of it. The head cares for the body as the king cares for his people. Thought and direction come from the head; the other members carry out that direction, each according to its office. So it is with a wise prince and his people.
The head directs the members while they can perform their tasks. When one is diseased, it provides a remedy if the condition can be cured and has the member cut off if it cannot, for fear that the rest will be infected. So it is with the prince and his people. While the head is sound, there is hope that its direction can cure a diseased member. When the head itself suffers, every member shares its pain. So it is with the prince and his people.
I described a father’s natural love for his children when discussing a king’s duty to his subjects. Consider now what children owe their father. Would it not be monstrous and unnatural for sons, on any pretext, to rise against him, control him whenever they pleased, kill him when they thought fit, and adopt someone else in his place? Can any claim of wickedness or severity on his part excuse their laying hands on him? Love naturally descends from parent to child more strongly than it ascends. Even if a father hated and wronged his children greatly, would anyone with the least spark of reason think it lawful for them to repay him in kind? Suppose he furiously pursued his sons with a drawn sword. Would they be allowed to turn and strike him or to resist otherwise than by flight?
Even animals without reason can support this argument. We often read of storks caring for their old and failing parents. We also know that many animals and birds beat and drive away their young with force and bloody blows as soon as the young can fend for themselves. Yet we never hear of their young resisting, except among vipers. People who ought to be reasonable creatures but follow that unnatural example show themselves to have a viper’s nature.
The head may need to have a rotten member cut off to keep the rest of the body healthy, as I have said. I leave readers to judge what state the body would be in if its head were cut off because of some infirmity. If children may lawfully rise against their father on any conceivable pretext, kill him, and choose another in his place, and if a body may preserve itself by striking off a diseased head, then I cannot deny that people may rebel against, control, depose, or kill their king whenever their reasons move them to do so. I also leave readers to decide whether these comparisons better represent a king’s office than the offices of craft masters, heads of craft guilds, or physicians, the comparisons favored by writers who maintain the contrary position.
As promised, I will conclude by resolving four principal and weighty objections that might be raised against any part of this treatise. First, several writers of apologies for rebellion and treason argue that everyone is born with a natural devotion and duty to the commonwealth as to a mother. When wicked and tyrannical kings tear and mortally wound it, good citizens, they say, must act out of duty to their native country to free it from such a plague.
I give two answers. First, it is a sure principle of theology that one must not do evil so that good may result. The king’s wickedness cannot make those appointed to be judged by him his judges. A private person may not avenge a private injury against a private enemy, since God has given the sword only to the magistrate. How much less may the people, or any part of them, take up the sword against the public magistrate? They are all private persons in this respect, since authority remains with the magistrate, as I have shown, and the sword belongs to him alone.
Second, instead of relieving the commonwealth’s distress, which is their stated purpose and excuse, they will double its distress and desolation. Their rebellion will produce the opposite of what they claim to seek. However unruly and tyrannical a king may be, the commonwealth will be better ordered under him than after his removal. Sudden changes in a commonwealth are dangerous. They encourage people with nothing to set themselves up by taking credit and standing that belong to others. With the reins loosened and order disrupted, unruly people commit every kind of insolence in hope of escaping punishment.
Even a monstrously vicious king will generally favor justice and maintain some order, except where his disordered desires and passions carry him away in particular cases. Where there is no king, by contrast, no one finds anything unlawful. Thus the philosophers’ old judgment proves true: it is better to live in a commonwealth where nothing is permitted than where everything is permitted to everyone. At such a time the commonwealth resembles an untamed young horse that has thrown its rider. As the divine poet Du Bartas says, “Better it would be to suffer some disorder in the state, and some blemishes in the commonwealth, than, in seeking to reform it, utterly to overthrow the republic.”
Their second objection rests on the curse that falls on a commonwealth ruled by a wicked king. They say no act could be more acceptable to God or more dutiful to their commonwealth than freeing the country from that curse and recovering the liberty all creatures naturally desire.
