The True Law of Free Monarchies:
or the reciprocal and mutual duty between a free king and his natural subjects

An advertisement to the reader

Accept, I pray you my dear countrymen as thankfully this pamphlet that I offer to you, as lovingly it is written for your weale. I would be loathe both to be facetious and fectless: and therefore if it be not sententious at least it is short. It may be you miss many things that you look for in it: but for excuse thereof, consider rightly that I only lay down herein the true grounds to teach you the right way, without wasting time upon refuting the adversaries. And yet I trust if you will take narrow tent, you will find most of their great guns paid home again, either with contrary conclusions or tacite objections, suppose in a dairned form and indirectly: for my intention is to instruct and not irritate if I may eschew it.

The profit I would wish you to make of it is as well so to frame all your actions according to these grounds, as may confirm you in the course of honest and obedient subjects to your king in all times coming, as also when you will fall in purpose with any that will praise or exuse the bypast rebellions that break forth either in this country, or in any other. You will hereby be armed against their siren songs, laying their particular examples to the square of these grounds. Whereby you will soundly keep the course of righteous judgement, discerning wisely of every action only according to the quality thereof, and not according to your prejudged conceits of the comitters. So will you, by reaping profit to yourselves turn my pain into pleasure. But least the whole pamphlet run out at the gaping mouth of this preface, if it were any more enlarged I end with comitting you to God and me, your charitable censures.

As there is not a thing so necessary to be known by the people of any land next to the knowledge of their God, as the right knowledge of their allegance, according to the form of government established among them, especially in a monarchy (which form of government, as resembling the divinity approaches nearest to perfection, as all the learned and wise men from the beginning have agreed upon: unity being the perfection of all things), so has the ignorance and (which is worse) the seduced opinion of the multitude blinded by them, who think themselves able to teach and instruct the ignorants, procured the wrack and overthrow of various flourishing commonwealths; and heaped heavy calamities threatening utter destruction upon others. And the smiling successs that unlawful rebellions have oftentimes had against princes in ages past (such have been the misery and iniquity of the time) have by way of practise strengthed many in their error: albeit there cannot be a more deceivable argument than to judge **ay** the justness of the cause by the event thereof; as hereafter shall be proved more at length.

And among others, no commonwealth that ever have been since the beginning have had greater need of the true knowledge of this ground than this our so long disordered and distracted commonwealth has: the misknowledge hereof being the only spring from whence have flowed so many endless calamities, miseries, and confusions, as is better felt by many than the cause thereof well known and deeply considered. The natural zeal therefore that I bear to this is my native country with the great pity I have to see the so long disturabnce thereof for lack of the true knowledge of this ground (as I have said before) has compelled me at last to break silence, to discharge my conscience to you my dear countrymen herein, that knowing the ground from whence these your many endless troubles have proceeded as well as you have already too long tasted the bitter fruits thereof, you may by knowledge and eschewing of the cause escape and divert the lamentable effects that ever necessarily follow thereupon.

I have chosen then only to set down this short treatise, the true grounds of the mutual durty and allegance between a free and absolute monarchy, and his people; not to trouble your patience with answering the contrary propositions which some have not been ashamed to set down in writ, to the poisoning of infinite number of simple souls and their own perpetual and well deserved infamy: for by answering them I could not have eschewed wiles to pick and bite well saltly their persons; which would rather have bred contientiousness among the readers (as they had liked or misliked) then sound instruction of the truth: which I protest to him that is the searcher of all hearts, is the only mark that I shoot at herein.

First then, I will set down the true grounds whereupon I am to build out of the scriptures, since monarchy is the true pattern of divinity as I have already said. Next, from the funamental laws of our own kingdom which nearest must concern us. Thirdly, from the law of nature by diverse similitudes drawn out by the same and will conclude since by answering the most weighty and appearing incommodities that can be objected.

The prince's duty to his subjects is so clearly set down in many palces of the scriptues and so openly confessed by all the good princes, according to their oath in their coronation, as not needing to be long therein, I shall shortly as I can run through it.

Kings are called gods by the prophetical King David, because they sit upon God his throne in the earth, and have the count of their administration to give unto Him. Their office is "to minister justice and jusgment to the people", as the same David says: "to advance the good and punish the evil". As he likewise says: "to establish good laws to his people, and procure obedience to the same" as dvierse good kings of Judah did: "to procure the peace of the people" as the same David says: "to decide all controveries that can arise among them, as Solomon did": "To be the minister of God for the wealeof them that do well and as the minister of God to take vengeance upon them that do evil" as saint Paul says. And finally, "as a good pastor to go out and in before his people" as is said in the first of Samuel: "that through the prince's propersity, the peoples' peace may be procured" as Jeremiah says.

[1 Samuel 8:2~6] [Psalm 101] [2 Kings 18] [2 Chronicles 29] [2 Kings 22~23] [Chronicles 34~35] [Psalm 72] [1 Kings 3] [Romans 13] [1 Samuel 8] [Jeremiah 19]

And therefore in the coronation of our own kings, as well as of every Christian monarch they give their oath, first to maintain the religion presently professed within their country according to their laws, whereby it is established and to punish all those that should prefer to alert or disturb the profession thereof. And next to maintain all the lovable and good laws made by their predecessors: to see them put in execution and the breakers and violators thereof to be punished according to the tenour of the same. And lastly, to maintain the whole country and every state therein, in all their ancient privledges and liberties as well against all foreign enemies as among themselves. And shortly to procure the weale and flourishing of his people not only in maintaining and putting to execution the old lovable laws of the country and by establishing of new (as necessitiy and evil maners will require) but by all other means possible to foresee and prevent all dangers that are likely to fall upon them, and to maintain concord, wealth, and civility among them as a loving father and careful watchman, caring for them more than for himself knowing himself to be ordained for them and they not for him; and therefore countable to that great God who placed him as his lieutenant over them upon the peril of his soul to procure the weale of both souls and bodies, as far as in him lies, of all them that are commited to his charge. And this oath in the coronations is the clearest, civil, and fundamental law whereby the king's office is properly defined.

By the law of nature the king becomes a natural father to all his lieges at his coronation: and as the father of his fatherly duty is bound to care for the nourishing, education, and virtuous government of his children; even so is the king bound to care for all his subjects. As all the toil and pain that the father can take for his children, will be thought light and well bestowed by him, so that the effect thereof overflows to their profit and weale; so ought the prince to do towards his people. As the kindly father ought to forsee all inconvenients and dangers that may arise towards his children and though with the hazard of his own person press to prevent the same; so ought the king towards his people. As the father's wrath and correction upon any of his children that offends, ought to be by a fatherly chastisement seasoned with pity, as long as there is any hope of ammendment in them, so ought the king towards any of his lieges that offend in that measure. And shortly, as the father's chief joy ought to be in procuring his children's welfare, rejoicing at their weale, sorrowing and pitying at their evil to hazard for their safety, travel for their rest, wake for their sleep, and in a word, to think that his earthly felicity and life stands and lives more in them nor in himself; so ought a good prince think of his people.

As to the other branch of this mutual and reciprocal band, is the duty and allegeance that the lieges owe to their king: the ground whereof I take out the words of Samuel, written by God's spirit when God had given him commandment to hear the peoples' voice in choosing and anointing them a king. And because that place of scripture being well understood, is so pertinent for our purpose; I have insert herein the very words of the text.

That these words and discourses of Samuel were written by God's spirit, it needs no further probation but that is a place of scripture; since the whole scripture is written by that inspiration as Paul says; which ground no good Christian will or dare deny. Whereupon it must necessarily follow that these speeches proceeded not from any ambition in Samuel, as one loathe to quite the reigns that he so long had ruled, and therefore desirious by making odious the government of a king, to dissuade the people from their farther troublesome craving of one: for as the text proves it plainly, he then conveened them to give them a resolute grant of their demand, as God by His own mouth comannded him saying: "Hearken to the voice of the people."

And to press to dissuade them from that which he then came to grant unto them, were a thing very impertinent in a wiseman; much more in the prophet of the Most High God. And likewise, it well appeared in all the course of his life after, that his so long refusing of their suit before came not of any ambition in him: which he well provied in praying & as it were importuning God for the weale of Saul. Yes, after God had declared His reprobation unto him, yet he desisted not, while God Himself was wrath at his praying and discharged his father's suit in that errand. And that these words of Samuel were not uttered as a prophecy of Saul their first king's defection, it well appears, as well because we hear no mention made in the scripture of any his tyranny and oppression (which if it had been, would not have been left unpainted out therein, as well as his other faults were, as in a true mirror of all the king's behaviours, whom it describes), as likewise in respect that Saul was chosen by God for His virtue and meet qualities to govern his people. Whereas, his defection sprung afterhand from the corruption of his own nature & not through any default in God, whom they that think so, would make as a stepfather to his people, in making wilfully a choice of the unmeetest for governing them, since the election of that king lay absolutely and immediately in God's hand. But by the contrary it is plain and evident that this speech of Samuel to the people, was to prepare their hearts before the hand to the due obedience of that king, which God was to give unto them; and therefore opened up unto them, what might be the intolerable qualities that might fall in some of their kings, thereby preparing them to patience not to resist to God's ordinance: but as he would have said, since God has granted your importunate suit in giving you a king, as you have else committed an error in shaking off God's yoke and over-hasty seeking of a king so beware you fall not into the next, in casting off also rashly that yoke which God at your earnest suit has laid upon you how hard that ever it seem to be: for as you could not have obtained one without the permission and ordinance of God, so may you no more, fro He be once set over you, shake Him off without the same warrant. And therefore in a time arm yourselves with patience and humility, since He that has the only power to make him, has the only power to unmake him, and yo only to obey bearing with these straits that I now foreshew you, as with the finger of God, which lies not in you to take off.

And will you consider the very words of the text in order, as they are set down, it shall plainly declre the obedience that the people owe their king in all respects.

First, God commands Samuel to do two things: [1] the one to grant the people their suit in giving them a king; [2] the other to forewarn them what some kings will do unto them that they may not thereafter in their grudging and murmuring say, when they shall feel the snares here forespoken; we would never have had a king of God incase when we craved him, He had let us know how we would have been used by him, as now we find but overlate. And this is meant by these words: "Now therefore hearken unto their voice: howbeit yet testify unto them, and show them the manner of the king that shall rule over them."

And next Samuel in execution of this commandment of God, he likewise does two things. [1] First he declares unto them, what points of justice and equity their king will break in his behaviour unto them, [2] and next he puts them out of hope, that weary as they will, they shall not have to leave to shake off that y oke, which God through their importunity had laid upon them.

The points of equity that the king shall break unto them are expressed in these words:

The points of justice that he will break unto them are expressed in these words:

As if he would say; the best and noblest of your blood shall be compelled in slavish and servile offices to serve him. And not content of his own partimony, will make up a rent to his own use out of your best lands, vineyards, orchards and store of cattle. So as inverting the law of nature and office of a king, your persons and the persons of your posterity together with your lands, and that you possess shall serve his private use and inordinate appetite.

And as unto the next point (which is his forewarning them, that weary as they will, they shall not have leave to shake off the yoke, which God through their importunity have laid upon them) it is expressed in these words:

As he would say; when you will find these things in proof that now I forewarn you of, although you will grudge and murmr, yet it will not be lawful to you to cast it off in respect it is not only the ordinance of God, but also yourselves have chosen him unto you, thereby renouncing forever all privilieges by your willing consent out of your hands, whereby in any time hereafter you would claim and call back unto yourselves again that power, which God will not permit you to do. And for further taking away of all excuses and retraction of this their contract, after their consent to underlie this yoke with all the burdens that he has declared to them, he craves their answer and consent to his proposition: which appears by their answer as it is expressed in these words:

As if they would have said: "all your speeches and hard conditions shall not scar us, but we will take the good and evil of it upon us and we will be content to bear whatsoever burden it will please our king to lay upon us as well as other nations do. And for the good we will get him in fighting our battles, we will more patiently bear any burden that will please him to lay on us"

Now then, since the erection of this kingdom and monarchy among the Jews, and the law thereof may and ought to be a pattern to all Chrsitian and well-founded monarchies as being founded by God himself, who by His oracle and out of His own mouth gave the law thereof: what liberty can broiling spirits and rebellious minds, claim justly to against any Christian Monarchy since they can claim to no greather liberty on their part, nor the people of God might have done and no greater tyranny was ever executed by any prince or tyrant, who they can object, nor was here forewarned to the people of God (and yet all rebellion countermanded unto them), if tyrannizing over men's persons, sons, daughters and servants, redacting noble houses, and men, and women of noble blood, to slavish and servile offices, and extortion and spoil of their lands and goods to princes' own private use and commodity, and of his courtiers and servants, may be called a tyranny?

And that this proposition grounded upon the scripture may the more clearly appear to be true by the practise oft proved in the same book, we never read that ever the prophets persuaded the people to rebel against the prince, how wicked soever he was.

When Samuel by God's command pronounced to the same king Saul, that his kingdom was wrent from him and given to another (which in effect was a degrading of him) yet his next action following that was peaceably to turn home and with floods of tears to pray to God to have some compassion upon him.

And David, notwithstanding he was inaugurate in that same degraded king's room, not only (when he was cruelly persecuted for no offense but good service done unto him) would not presume, having him in his power, scantly but with great reverence, to touch the garment of the annointed of the Lord, and in his words blessed him: but likewise when one came to him vaunting himself untruly to have slain Saul, he, without form of process or trial of his guilt, caused only for guiltiness of his tongue, put him to sudden death.

And although there was never a more monstrous persecutor and tyrant nor Achab was: yet all the rebellion that Elias ever raised against him was to flee to the wilderness where for fault of sustentation he was fed with the ravens. And I think no man will doubt but Samuel, David, and Elias, had as great power persuade the people, if they had liked to have employed their credit to uproars & rebellions against these wicked kings, as any of our seditious preachers in these days of whatsoever religion, either in this country or in France, had, that busied themselves most to strip up rebellion under cloak of religion. This far the only love of verity, I protest without hatred at their persons, have moved me to be somewhat satiric.

And if any will lean to the extraordinary examples of degrading or killing of kings in the scriptures, thereby to cloak the peoples' rebellion, as by the deed of Jehu and such like extraordinaries: I answer besides that they want the like warrant that they had, if extraordinary examples of the scripture will be drawn in daily practice, murder under trust as in the persons of Ahud and Jael. Theft, as in the persons of the Israelites coming out of Egypt. Lying to their parents to hurt of their brother, as in the person of Jacob, shall all be counted as lawful and allowable virtues as rebellion against princes. And to conclude, the practice through the whole scripture proves the peoples' obedience given to that sentence in the Law of God:

"You will not rail upon the judges, neither speak evil of the ruler of your people."

To end then, the ground of my proposition taken out of the scripture let two special and notable examples: one under the law, and another under the evangel, conclude this part of my allegance. Under the law, Jeremy threatens the people of God with utter destruction for rebellion to Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babel: who although he was an idolatrous persecutor, a foreign king, a tyrant, and usurper of their liberties, yet in respect they had once received and ackknowledged him for their king, he not only commands them to obey him but even to pray for his prosperity adjoining the reason to it: because in his prosperity stood their peace.

And under the evangel, that king whom Paul bids the Romans obey and serve for conscience sake, was Nero, that bloody tyrant; an infamy to his age and a monster to the world, being also an idolatrous persecuter as the king of Babel was. If then idolatry and defection from God, tyrannt over their people and persecution of the saints, for their profession sake, hindered not the Spirit of God to command His people under all highest pain to give them all due and hearty obedience for conscience sake, giving to Caesar that which was Caesar's, and to God that which was God's, as Christ says, and that this practice throughout the book of God agrees with this law, which he made in the erection of that monarchy (as is at length before deduced) what shamless presumption is it to any Christian people nowadays to claim to that unlawful liberty, which God refused to His own peculiar and chosen people? Shortly then to take up in two or three sentences, grounded upon all these arguments, out of the law of God the duty and allegance of the people to their lawful king, their obedience, I say, ought to be to him, as to God's lieutenant in earth, obeying his commands in all things except directly against God, as commands of God's minister acknowledging him a judge set by God over them, having power to judge them, but to be judged only by God, whom to only he must give count of his judgment; fearing him as their judge, loving him as their father, praying for him as their protector for his continuance, if he be good; for his amendment, if he wicked; following and obeying his lawful commands, eschewing and flying his fury in his unlawful, without resistance but by sobs and tears to God, according to that sentence used in the primitive Church in the time of persecution.

[Preces, & Lacbrymae sunt arma Ecclesiae.]

Now, as for describing the allegiance that lieges owe to their native king, out of the fundamental and civil law, especially of this country, as I promised the ground must first be set down of the first manner of establishing the laws and form of government among us; that the ground being first right laid we may thereafter build rightly thereupon. Although it be true (according to the affirmation of those that prude themselves to be the scourges of tyrants) that in the first beginning of kings rising among gentiles in the time of the first age, diverse commonwealths and societies of men choosed out one among themselves, who for his virtues and valour being more eminent than the rest, was chosen out by them and set up in that room to maintain the weakest in their right to throw down oppresors, and to foster and continue the society among men: which could not otherwise but by virtue of that unity be well done. Yet these examples are nothing pertinent to us because our kingdom and diverse other monarchies are not in that case, but had their beginning in a far contrary fashion.

For as our chronicles bear witness, this isle and especially our part of it, being scantly inhabited but by very few and they as barbarous and scant of civility, as number there comes our first king Fergus, with a great number with him out of Ireland, which was long inhabited before us and making himself master of the country by his own friendship and force, as well of the Irish that came with him as of the countrymen that willingly fell to him, he made himself king and lord, as well of the whole lands as of the whole inhabitants within the same. Thereafter he and his successors a long while after their being kings, made and established their laws from time to time, and as the occassion required. So the truth is directly contrary in our state to the false affmiration of such seditious writers as would persuade us, that the laws and state of our country were established before the admitting of a king: where by the contrary you see it plainly proved that a wise king coming in among barbarians first established the estate and form of government and thereafter made laws by himself and his successors according thereto.

The kings therefore in Scotland were before any estates or ranks of men within the same, before any parliaments were holden or laws made; and by them was the land distributed (which at the first was whole theirs) states erected and discerned, and forms of government devised and established. And so it follows of necessity that the kings were the authors and makers of the laws, and not the laws of kings. And to prove this my assertion more clearly, it is evident by the roles of our chancellery (which contain our eldest and fundamental laws) that the king is Dominus omnium bonorum and Dominus directus totius Dominij, the whole subjects being but his vassals and from him holding all their lands as their overlord, who according to good services done unto him changes their holdings from tack to few, from ward to blanch, erects new baronies and unites old, without advice or authority of either parliament or any other subaltern judicial feat. So as if wrong might be admitted in play (albeit I grant wrong should be wrong in all persons) the kign might have a better colour for his pleasure, without further reason to take the land from his lieges as overlord of the whole, and do with it as pleases him since all that they hold is of him. Then, as foolish writers say, the people might unmake the king and put another in his room, but either of them as unlawful and against the ordinance of God ought to be alike odious to be thought much less put in practice.

And according to these fundamental laws already alleged, we daily see that in parliament (which is nothing else but the head court of the king and his vassals) the laws are but craved by his subjects and only made by him at their rogation and with their advice. For albeit the king make daily statues and ordinances, enjoying such pains thereto as he thinks proper, without any advice of parliament or estates, yet it lies in the power of no parliament to make any kind of law or statute, without his scepter be to it for giving it the force of a law. And although diverse changes have been in other countries of the blood royal, and kingly house, the kingdom being raided by conquest from one to another as in our neighbour country in Egnland (which was never in ours), yet the same ground of the kings' right over all the land and subjects thereof remains alike in all other free monarchies, as well as in this. For when the bastard of Normandy came into England and made himself king, was it not by force and with a mighty army? Where he gave the law and took none, changed the laws, inverted the order of government, set down the stangers his followers in many of the old possessors' rooms, as at this day well appears a great part of the gentlemen in England, being come of the Norman blood and their old laws which to this day they are ruled by, are written in his language and not in theirs. And yet his successors have with great happiness enjoyed th crown to this day whereof the like was also done by all them that conquested them before.

And for conclusion of this point, that the king is overlord over the whole lands, it is likewise daily proved by the law of our hords of want of heirs and of bastardies; for if a hord be found under the earth because it is no more in the keeping or use of any person, it of the law pertains to the king. If a person, inheritor of any lands or goods, die without any sort of heirs, all his lands and goods return to the king. And if a bastard die un-rehabilitated without heirs of his body (which rehabilitation only lies in the king's hands) all that he has likewise returns to the king.

And as you see it manifest that the king is overlord of the whole land, so is he master over every person that inhabits the same having power over the life and death of every one of them. For although a just prince will not take the life of any of his subjects without a clear law, yet the same laws whereby he takes them are made by himself or his precedessors, and so the power flows always from himself as by daily experience we see good and just princes will from time to time make new laws and statues, adjoining the penalties to the breakers thereof which before the law was made, had been no crime to the subject to have committed. Not that I deny the old definition of a king and of law which makes the king to be a speaking law and the law a dumb king: for certainly a king that governs not by his law can neither be countable to God for his administration, nor have a happy and established reign. For albeit it be true that I have at length proved that the king is above the law, as both the author and giver of strength thereto, yet a good king will not only delight to rule his subjects by the law but even will conform himself in his own actions thereunto: always keeping that ground that the health of the commonwealth be his chief law. And where he sees the law doubtsome or rogorous, he may interpret or mitigate the same left otherwise summum ius be summa iniuria; and therefore general laws made publicly in parliament may upon known respects to the king by his authority be mitigated, and suspended upon causes only known to him.

As likewise although I have said, a good king will fram all his actions to be according to the law; yet is he not bound thereto but of his good will and for good example giving to his subjects. For as in the law of abstaining from eating of flesh in Lenton, the king will for example's sake, make his own house to observe the law yet no man will think he needs to take a lciense to eat flesh. And although by our laws the bearing and wearing of firearms and pistols be forbidden, yet no man can find any fault in the king for causing his train use them in any raid upon the borderers or other malefactors or rebellious subjects. So as I have already said, a good king although he be above the law, will subject and frame his actions therefore; for example's sake to his subjects, and of his own free will but not as subject or bound thereto.

Since I have so clearly proved then out of the fundamental laws and practice of this country, what right & power a king have over his land and subjects, it is easy to be understood what allegiance & obedience his lieges owe unto him; I mean always of such free monarchies as our king is and not of elective kings and much less of such sort of governors as the dukes of Venice are, whose aristocratic and limited government is nothing like to free monarchies. Although the malice of some writers have not been ashasmed to misknow any difference between them. And if it be not lawful to any particular lord's tenants or vassals upon whatsoever pretext, to control and displace their master and overlord (as is clearer nor the sun by all laws of the world) how much less may the subjects and vassals of the great overlord the king, control or displace him? And since in all inferior judgments in the land the people may not upon any respects displace their magistrates, although but subaltern. For the people of a borough cannot displace their provost before the time of their election, nor in the ecclesiastical policy the flock can upon any pretense displace the pastor nor judge of him: yes even the poor schoolmaster can not be displaced by his scholars. If these, I say (whereof some are but inferior, subaltern and temporal magistrates, and none of them equal in any sort to the dignity of a king) cannot be displaced for any occasion or pretext by them that are ruled by them, how much less is it lawful upon any prtext to control or displace the great provost and great schoolmaster of the whole land expect by inverting the order of all law and reason. The commanded may be made to command their commander, the judged to judge their judge, and that they are governed to govern their time about their lord and governor.

And the agreement of the law of nature in this our ground with the laws and constitutions of God, and man already alleged, will by two similitudes easily appear. The king towards his people is rightly compared to a father of children and to a head of a body composed of diverse members. For as fathers, the good princes, and magistrates of the people of God acknowledged themselves to their subjects. And for all other well ruled commonwealths the style of pater patriae was ever and is commonly used to kings. And the proper office of a king towards his subjects agrees very well with the office of the head towards the body and all members thereof. For from the head, being the seat of judgment, proceeds the care and foresight of guiding and preventing all evil that may come to the body or any part thereof. The head cares for the body so does the king for his people. As the discourse and direction flows from the head and the execution according thereunto belongs to the rest of the members, everyone according to their office, so is it between the wise prince and his people. As the judgment coming from the head may not only employ the members, everyone in their own office, as long as they are able to fir, but likewise in case any of them be affected with any infirmity must care and provide for their remedy, in case it be curable and if otherwise garre cut them off for fear of infecting of the rest. Even so it is between the prince and his people. And as there is ever hope of curing any diseased member by the direction of the head as long as it is whole, but by the contrary, if it be troubled all the members are partakers of that pain, so it is between the prince and his people.

And now first for the father's part (whose natural love to his children I described in the first part of this my discourse, speaking of the duty that kings owe to the subjects) consider, I pray you, what duty his children owe to him & whether upon any pretext whatsoever it will not be thought monstrous and unnatural to his sons, to rise up against him, to control him at their appetite, and when they think good to slay him or to cut him off, and adopt to themselves any other they please in his room: or can any pretence of wickendess or rigor on his part be a just excuse for his children to put hand into him? And although we see by the course of nature that love uses to descend more than to ascend, in case it were true that the father hated and wronged the children never so much will any man, endued with the least sponke of reason think it lawful for them to meet him with the line? Yes, suppose the father were furiously following his sons with a drawn sword, is it lawful for them to turn and strike again or make any resistance but by flight? I think surely if there were no more but the example of bruit beasts & unreasonable creatures it may serve well enough to qualify and prove this my argument. We read often the piety that the storks have to their old and decayed parents, and generally we know that there are many sorts of beasts and fowls that with violence and many bloody strokes will beat and banish their young ones from them. How soon they perceive them to be able to fend themselves, but we never read or heard any resistance on their part except among the vipers, which proves such persons as ought to be reasonable creatures, and yet unnaturally follow this example to be endued with their viperous nature.

And for the similitude of the head and the body, it may well fall out that the head will be forced to garre cut off some rotten member (as I have already said) to keep the rest of the body in integrity. But what state the body can be in if the head, for any infirmity that can fall to it, be cut off, I leave it to the reader's judgment.

So as (to conclude this part) if the children may upon any pretext that can be imagined lawfully rise up against their father, cut him off & choose any other whome they please in his room, and if the body for the weale of it may for any infmirty that can be in the head, strike it off, then I cannot deny that the people may rebel, control, and displace or cut off their king at their own pleasure and upon respects moving them. And whether these similitudes represent better the office of a king or the offices of masters or deacons of crafts, or physicians (which jolly comparisons are used by such writers as maintain the contrary proposition) I leave it also to the reader's discretion.

And in case any doubts might arise in any part of this treatise, I will (according to my promise) with the solution of four prinicpal and most weighty doubts, that the adversaries may object, conclude this discourse. And first it is cast up by divrse, that employ their pens upon apoolgies for rebellions and reasons, that every man is born to carry such a natural zeal and duty to his commonwealth, as to his mother. That feeling it so rent and deadly wounded, as whiles it will be by wicked and tyranous kings, good citizens will be forced for the natural zeal and duty they owe to their own native country, to put their hand to work for freeing their commonwealth from such a pest.

Whereunto I give to answers: [1] first it is sure axiom in theology that evil should not be done that good may come of it: the wickedness therefore of the king can never make them that are ordained to be judged by him, to become his judges. And if it be not lawful to a private man to revenge his private injury upon his private adversary (since God has only given the sword to the magistrate) how much less is it lawful to the people, or any part of them (who are all but private men; the authority being always with the magistrate as I have already proved) to take upon them the use of the sword, whom it belongs not, against the public magistrate, whom to only it belongs.

[2] Next, in place of relieving the commonwealth out of distress (which is their only excuse and colour) they shall heap double distress and desolation upon it; and so their rebellion will procure the contrary effects that they pretend it for. For a king cannot be imagined to be so unruly and tyrannous, but the commonwealth will be kept in better order notwithstanding thereof, by him, then it can be by his removal. For first, all sudden mutations are perilous in commonwealths, hope being thereby given to all bare men to set up themselves and fly with other men's feathers: the reigns being loosed to all the insolencies that disordered people can commit by hope of impunity because of the looseness of all things.

And next, it is certain that a king can never be so monstrously viscous but he will generally favour justice and maintain some order except in the particulars wherein his inordinate lusts and passions carry him away; where by the contrary no king being, nothing is unlawful to none. And so, the old opinion of the philosphers proves true: that it is better to live in a commonwealth where nothing is lawful than where all things are lawful to all men. The commonwealth at that time resembling an undaunted young horse that has casten his rider: for as the divine poet Du Bartas says: "better it were to suffer some disorder in the estate and some spots in the commonwealth, than in pretending to reform utterly to overthrow the republic".

The second objection they ground upon the curse that hangs over the commonwealth, where a wicked king reigns and say they, there can not be a more acceptable deed in the sight of God, nor more dutiful to their common weale, than to free the country of such a curse and vindicate to them their liberty, which is natural to all creatures to crave.

Whereunto for answer, I grant indeed, that a wicked king is sent by God for a curse to his people and a plague for their sins: but that is lawful to them to shake off that curse at theri own hand which God has laid on them, that I deny, and may so do justly. Will any deny that the king of Babel was a cruse to the people of God as was plainly forespoken and threatened unto them in the prophesy of their captivity? And what was Nero to the Christian Church in his time? And yet Jeremy and Paul (as you have else heard) commanded them not only to obey them but heartily to pray for their welfare.

It is certain then (as I have already by the law of God sufficiently proved) that patience, earnest prayers to God, and amendment of their lives are the only lawful means to move God to relieve them of that heavy curse. As for vindicating to themselves their own liberty, what lawful power have they to revoke to themselves against those privlidges which by their own consent before were so fully put out of their hands? For if a prince cannot justly bring back again to himself the privilidges once bestowed by him or his predecessors upon any state or rank of his subjects; how much less may the subjects steal out of the prince's hand that superiority, which he and his precedessors have so long brooked over them?

But the unhappy iniquity of the time which has oft times given over good success to their treasonable attempts, furnishes them the ground of their third objection: for, say they, the fortunate success that God has so oft given to such enterprises, proves plainly by the practise that God favoured the justness of their quarrel.

To the which I answer, that it is true indeed that all the success of battles, as well as other worldly things, lies only in God's hand. And therefore it is that in the scripture he takes to himself the style of God of Hosts. But upon that general to conclude that he ever gives victory to the just quarrel, would prove the Philistines and diverse other neighbour enemies of the people of God, to have oft times had the just quarrel against the people of God in respect of the many victories they obtained against them. And by that same argument they had also just quarrel against the Ark of God: for they wan it in the field and kept it long prisoner in their country. As likewise by all good writers as well as theologues, as other the duels and singular combats are disallowed: which are only made upon the pretence that God will kith thereby the justice of the quarrel: for we must consider that the innocent party is not innocent before God. And therefore, God will make oft times them that have the wrong side revenge justly his quarrel, and when he has done, cast his scourge in the fire as he oft times did to his own people; stirring up and strengthening their enemies while they were humbled in his sight, and then delivered them in their hands. So God as the great judge may justly punish his deputy and for his rebellion against him, stir up his rebels to meet him with the like. And when it is done, the part of the instruments is no better than the devil's part is in tempting and tourting such as God commits to him as his hangman to do. Therefore, as I said in the beginning, it is oft times a very deceiveable argument to judge of the cause by the event.

And the last objection is grounded upon the mutual agreement and adstipulation (as they call it) between the king and his people at the time of his coronation. For there, say they, there is a mutual agreement and contract bound up and sworn between the king and the people: whereupon it follows that if the one part of the contract or the indent be broken upon the king's side, the people are no longer bound to keep their part of it, but are thereby freed of their oath: for (say they) a contract between two parties of all law frees the one party if the other break unto him.

As to this contract alledged made at the coronation of a king, although I deny any such contract to be made then, especially containing such a clause irritant as they alledge. Yet I confess that as a king at his coronation or at the entry to his kingdom willingly promises to his people to charge honourably and truly the office given to him by God over them. But presuming that thereafter he break his promise unto them never so inexcusable, the question is: who should be judge of the break giving unto them, this contract were made unto them never so sicker according to their allegeance. I think no man that has but the smallest entrance into the civil law, will doubt that of all law, either civil or municipal of any nation, a contract cannot be thought broken by the one party and so the other likewise to be freed therefro, except that first a lawful trial and cognition be had by the ordinary judge of the breakers thereof; or else every man may be both party and judge in his own cause, which is absurd once to be thought. Now in this contract (I say) between the king and his people, God is doubtless the only judge: both because to Him only the king must make count of his administration (as is oft said before) as likewise by the oath in the coronation, God is made judge and revenger of the breakers. For in His preference as only judge of oaths, all oaths ought to be made. Then since God is the only judge between the two party's contractors, the cognition and revenge must only appertain to him. It follows therefore of necessity that God must first give sentence upon the king that breaks, before the people can think themselves freed of their oath. What injustice then is it that the party will be both judge and party; usurping upon himself the office of God, may by this argument easily appear. And will it lie in the hands of the leadless multitude when they please to weary off subjection, to cast off the yoak of government that God has laid upon them, to judge and punish him, whom by they should be judged and punished. And in that case, wherein by their violence they become themselves to be most passionate parties, to use the office of an ungracious judge or arbiter? No, to speak truly of that case as it stands between the king and his people, none of them ought to judge of the other's break: for considering rightly the two parties at the time of their mutual promise, the king is the one party and the whole people in one body are the other party. And therefore since it is certain that a king in case so ti should fall out, that his people in one body had rebelled against him, he should not in that case as thinking himself free of his promise and oath; become an utter enemy and practice the wreak of his whole people and native country. Although he ought justly to punish the principal authors and bellows of that universal rebellion; how much less then ought the people (that are always subject unto him and naked of all authority on their part) press to judge and overthrow him? Otherwise the people, as the one party contractors, will no sooner challenge the king as breaker, but he as soon shall judge them as breakers; so as the victors making the tyners the traitors (as our proverb is) the party will aye become both judge and party in his own particular, as I have already said.

And it is here liksewise to be noted that the duty and allegeance, which the people swear to their prince, is not only bound to themselves but likewise to their lawful heirs and posterity. The lineal succession of crowns being begun among the people of God, and happily continued in diverse Christian commonwealths. So as no objection either of heresy or whatsoever private statute or law may free the people from their oath giving to their king, and his succession established by the old fundamental laws of the kingdom. For as he is their heritable overlord and so by birth, not by any right in the coronation, comes to his crown; it is a like unlawful (the crown ever standing full) to displace him t hat succeeds thereto as to eject the former. For at the very moment of the expiring of the king reigning, the nearest and lawful heir enters in his place. And so to refuse him or intrude another is not to hold out uncomming inm but to expel and put out their righteous king. And I trust at this time whole France ackknowledges the superstitious rebellion of the Liguers who upon pretense of heresy by force of arms held so long out, to the great desolation of their whole country, their native and righteous king from possessing of his own crown and natural kingdom.

Not that by all this former discourse of mine and Apology for Kings, I mean that whatsoever errors and intolerable abominations a soverign prince commit, he ought to escape all punishment as if thereby the world were only ordained for kings, & they without controlment to turn it upsidedown at their pleasure. But by the contrary, by remitting them to God (who is their only ordinary judge) I remit them to the sorest and sharpest schoolmaster that can be devised for them: for the further a king is preferred by God above all other ranks & degrees of men, and the higher that his seat is above theirs, the greater in his obligation to his maker. And therefore in case he forget himself (his unthankfulness being in the same measuer of height) the sadder and sharper will his correction be; and according to the greatness of the height he is in, the weight of his fall will recompense the same: for the further that any person is obliged to God, his offense becomes and grows so much greater than it would be in any other. Jupiter's thunderclaps light more often and sorer upon the high & stately oaks than on the low and supple willow trees: and the highest bench is slickest to sit upon. Neither is it ever heard that any king forgets himself towards God, or in his vocation, but God with the greatness of the plague revenges the greatness of his ingratitude. Neither think I, by the force and argument of this my discourse so to persuade the people that none will hereafter be raised up and rebel against wicked princes. But remitting to the justice and providence of God to stir up such scourges as pleases him, for punishment of wicked kings (who made the very vermin and filthy dust of the earth to bridle the insolency of proud Pharaoh) my only purpose and intention in this treatise is to persuade, as far as lies in me, by these sure and infallible grounds all such good Christian readers as bear not only the naked name of a Christian but kith the fruits thereof in their daily form of life, to keep their hearts and hands free from such monstrous and unnatural rebellions whensoever the wickedness of a prince shall procure the same at God's hands; that, when it shall please God to cast such scourages of princes and instruments of His fury in the fire, you may stand up with clean hands and unspotted consciences having proved yourselves in all your actions true Christians toward God and dutiful subjects toward your king, having remitted the judgment and punishment of all his wrongs to Him, whom to only of right it appertains.

But craving at God and hoping that God will continue his blessings with us, in not sending such fearful desolation, I heatily wish our king's behaviour so to be and continue among us, as our God in earth and loving Father, endued with such properties as I describe a king in the first part of this treatise. And that you (my dear countrymen and charitable readers) may press by all means to procure the propserity and welfare of your king, that as he must on the one part think all his earthly felicty and happiness grounded upon your weale, caring more for himself for your sake than for his own, thinking himself only ordaine for your weale; such holy and happy emulation may arise between him and you as his care for your quietness and your care for his honour and preservation, may in all your actions daily strive together, that the land may think themselves blessed with such a king, and the king may think himself most happy in ruling over so loving and obedient subjects.

Finis.

Copyright © Under the Bible | All Rights Reserved