3
In this work James unites the secular theory of the absolute
king and the theological theory of his absolute authority as
being by divine right.
In this work James unites the secular theory of the absolute
king and the theological theory of his absolute authority as
being by divine right.
Thomas Carlyle
" 1
It would be difficult to find a more dogmatic and un-
qualified statement of the unlimited authority of the prince,
or words which so directly and emphatically repudiate the
tradition of mediaeval civilisation.
When, however, we turn to Bilson's treatment of the
political conditions in continental countries, we seem to find
ourselves in another world. The Jesuit brings up the
conduct of the Protestants on the continent, and cites Beza's
defence of the French nobles in taking up arms. Bilson
defends them on the ground that the king had been in the
hands of the Guises, and while he would not undertake to
defend all that Protestant writers had said about resistance
to kings, he urged that the constitutional system of different
countries varied. He goes on: "The Eomans, we know,
could never abide the very name of a king. The Common-
wealths of Venice, Milan, Florence, and Genoa are of the
same mind. Many States have governors for life or for years,
as they best liked that first created their policies, and yet a
sovereignty still remains somewhere in the people, some-
where in the senate, somewhere in the prelates and nobles
that elect it: a magistrate, who bath his jurisdiction allotted
and prefixed unto him, thus far and no further, and may be
resisted and recalled from any tyrannous excesses by the
general and publike consent of the whole State whom he
governeth.
In Germany the emperor himself hath his bounds ap-
pointed unto him which he may not passe by the laws of the
empire; and the princes, dukes, and cities that are under
him have power to governe and use the sword as God's
'Id. id. id. , p. 262.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 432
[PABT IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
ministers, in their charge. And though, for the maintenance
of the empire, they be subject to such orders as shall be
decreed in the convent of all their States, and, according to
that direction are to furnish the emperor with men and monies
for his necessary wars and defence: yet, if he touch their
policies, infringe their liberties, or violate the specialties
which he by oathe and order of the empire is bound to keepe,
they may lawfully resist him, and by force reduce him to the
ancient and received form of government, or else repel him
as a tyrant, and set another in his place by the right and
freedom of their country. Therefore the Germans' doings
or writings can help you little in this question. They speak
according to the lawes and rights of the empire, themselves
being a verie free State, and bearing the sword as lawfull
magistrates to defend and protect their liberties, and pro-
hibit injuries against all oppressors, the emperor himself not
excepted. " 1
In another passage Bilson's contention is set out again in
more general terms. The Eomanist, Philander, brings forward
the revolts in Scotland, France, and the Low Countries, as
well as those in Germany. The Protestant, Theophilus, con-
tends that the reformers had been barbarously slaughtered, but
adds: "I must confesse that except the laws of those realms
do permit the people to stand on their right, if the princes
should offer them wrong, I dare not allow their arms. . . .
Philander: Think you their lawes permit them to rebel?
Theophilus: I busie not myself in other men's common-
wealths as you do, neither will I rashly pronounce all that
resist to be rebels; cases may fall out in Christian kingdoms
when the people may plead their right against the prince,
and not be charged with rebellion. Philander: As when, for
example? Theophilus: If a prince should go about to subject
his kingdom to a foraine realme, or change the forme of the
commonwealth from inperie to tirannie; or neglect the lawes
established by common consent of prince and people, to
execute his owne pleasure; in these and other cases which
might be named, if the nobles and commons join together
>> Id. id. id. , pp. 266-270.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, in. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY.
433
to defend their ancient and ancestral liberty, regiment, and
lawes, they may not well be counted rebels. Philander: You
denied that even now, when I did urge it. Theophilus: I
denied that bishops had authoritie to prescribe conditions to
kings when they crowned them; but I never denied that the
people might preserve the foundation, freedom, and forme of
their commonwealth, which they forprised when they first
consented to have a king. Philander: I remember you were
resolute that subjects might not resist their princes for any
respects, and now I see you slake. Theophilus: As I said, so
I say now, the lawe of God giveth no man leave to resist the
prince; but I never said that kingdoms and commonwealths
might not proportion their States as they thought best by
their public lawes, which afterwards the princes themselves
may not violate. By superior powers ordained of God we
understand not only princes, but all politike States and regi-
ments, somewhere the people, somewhere the nobles, having
the same interest to the sword, that princes have in their
kingdoms; and in kingdoms when princes bear rule, by the
sword we do not mean the prince's private will against his
lawes, but his precept derived from his lawes, and agreeing
with his lawes: which though it be wicked, yet may it not
be resisted by any subject with armed violence. Marry,
when princes offer their subjects not justice but force, and
despise all laws to practise their lusts: not any private man
may take the sword to redresse the prince; but if the lawes
of the land appoint the nobles as next to the king to assist
him in doing right, and withhold him from doing wrong,
then they be licensed by man's law, and so not prohibited
by God's, to interpose themselves for the safeguard of equitie
and innocence, and by all lawfull and needful means to procure
the prince to be reformed, but in no case deprived when the
sceptre is inherited. "1
In these passages Bilson admits that the laws of some
countries might contain provisions for restraining the prince's
actions, and that in extreme cases the community might
defend its ancient liberty and laws against him; and he also
'Id. id. id. , pp. 279, 280.
VOL. VI. 2 E
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 434
THE LA TER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT IV.
makes it clear that, by the "superior power ordained of
God," he did not mean only the prince, but all "politike
States and regiments. " Like Calvin, he did not allow that
any private person might by force resist the prince, but it
was different with the constitutional authorities of the com-
munity. He even admitted that the community might depose
an elected prince, like the emperor, though he emphatically
asserted that this did not apply to the case of an hereditary
prince. He suggested that such a constitutional limitation of
the authority of the prince existed in the empire and possibly
in other continental countries, but he did not suggest that they
existed in England; and he at least seems to suggest that
the monarchy in England was absolute, and that its "divine
right " could not be questioned.
We turn next to a group of Scottish writers whose work
was in some degree related to the deposition of Mary,
Queen of Scots, and to George Buchanan's defence of this.
In a treatise published in 1581 by a Scotsman, Cunerus, who
was Bishop of Louvain, the " divine right," and the principle
of non-resistance, are set out in very explicit terms. He
cites Samuel's description of "the manner of the king"
(1 Sam. viii. 11, &c. ) as being a statement of his rights--
although he admits that it had been variously interpreted--
for though the king, in doing such things as Samuel described,
might be committing grave sins, the people must not resist.
The king is the lord of the land, and the kingdom has been
given him by God, and even his wicked actions must be
endured by his subjects. 1
A more important work was published the same year by
Adam Blackwood, entitled 'Pro Eegibus Apologia,' which
1 Cunerus, 'De Christiani Principis terrae est, et regnum Regi datum a
Officio' (Ed. Moris, 1581), p. 63: Deo est, ut supra diximus. Non
"De quo quidem jure vario hoc loco quod Rex possit, recta conscientia,
loquuntur interpretes. Caeterum tamen bonis omnibus subditorum, et subditu
nemo negat, quin hac ratione jus regis ipsis pro libidine frui: sed quoniam
dici posset, quoniam si Rex haec omnia regiae potestati subdita sunt,
faciat, licet aliquando graviter peccet, ut etiamsi pmeter modum exigat,
populus tamen jure pati debeat, et tolerari tamen deboat. "
non rosistero: quoniam rex dominus
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, ni. ] THEORY OP THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 435
is a formal reply to George Buchanan's ' De Jure Begni apud
Scotos. ' Blackwood was a Scotsman, but had been educated
in France, and was a counsellor or judge at Poictiers. 1
Blackwood was an uncompromising defender of the theory
of the unlimited authority of the king. He admitted indeed
that neither the ancient empire of Eome nor the contem-
porary empire had this character,2 but he maintained that
the position of the Kings of Scotland was wholly different:
the lives and fortunes of their subjects were in their power
and they recognised no superior. This was also, he says, the
character of the monarchy in the kingdoms of France, England,
Spain, Portugal, and others, in that the people could not
be admitted to any share in the supreme power; for this was
the true nature of monarchy, that its authority could neither
be divided nor shared. 3
This is a thoroughgoing statement, and the treatise is in
the main an expansion of it. In the first place, Blackwood
maintains that the monarchy in Scotland was founded upon
force, the kingdom was created by Kenneth, and the people
had therefore no legal rights; the king, he seems to mean,
granted to certain great men the "dominium" of certain
provinces, but retained in his own hands the "potestas et
imperium. " 4 The royal authority, he again contends, was
founded in many kingdoms not on election but on the force
1 Cf. D. N. B.
'Adam Blackwood, 'Pro Rcgibus
Apologia,' IV. , pp. 5I and 54.
? Id. id. , IV. (p. 55): "Scotorum
Regmn longe diversum jus est, quibus
capita fortunaeque civium sunt ob-
noxiae, cum ii nulla conditione populo
teneantur, nec superiorem ullam prae-
ter solius numinis potestatem agnos-
cant. Eodemque jure suis regibus
adstricti sunt Galli, Angli, Hispani,
Lusitani, aliique permulti quorum res
rationesquo omnes ita regibus addictao
sunt, ut ne volentibus quidem populus
in ullam supremae potestatis et im-
perii societatem admitti queat. Ea
siquidem est monarchiae natura, ut
sine hoe imperio consistere non possit,
quod nec dividatur nec communica-
tione cum alio profanetur. "
4 Id. id. , VI. (p. 65): "Quod si
praesentem Scotici regni conditionem
spectemus, nec ab ouo quod (licitur.
eius initia repetamus, Picticae ditionis
accessione Kennethus rex non protulisse
fines imperii, sed regnum inchoasse
videbitur, ac virtute bellica peperisse,
quod ante nullum era! . . . . Ut
autem intelligas nihil in huic Scotico
populo fuisse juris, sod fisco cecisse
omnia. Rex arbitratu ea suo proceri-
bus quibusdam erogavit, ut penes
cos, eorumque posteris, provinciarum
dominium essei, penes se potestas et
imperium. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 436
[part IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
of arms, or on some other system of law, and by this he means
the law of hereditary succession, which the people cannot
abrogate. 1
Blackwood goes on to maintain that the authority of kings
was analogous to that of the father over his family, or of the
master over his slaves: they impose upon them whatever
laws they please, they do not receive these from them, and they
rule them according to their own judgment. 2 He appeals
to the history of Scotland and cites a passage from Hector
Boece to show that the supreme power and authority of law
had lain with the king. 3 He admits indeed that in Borne
the authority which had at first belonged to the kings was
transferred to the law, but maintains that this was not the
case elsewhere; for, he says, nowhere was such a bridle
(fraenum) imposed upon kings, and their authority subjected
to that of the multitude, nowhere was a law imposed upon
kings which should restrain their supreme authority. The
prince is a living law in the world, and his power and jurisdic-
tion cannot be controlled by any other law than his own will. *
A little further on he asks what can be more absurd than to say
that the king declares the law, while the people makes it. 5
1 Id. id. (p. 71): "Non jam
animadvert is, Buchanane, quam soli-
dum sit hoc disputationis tuae princi-
pium, quam firmo nitare fundamento,
cum tot regna non electione sed vel
armis, vel alio jure quaesita reperia-
mus T Quam quam autem ea vi et
armis initio posita fuere, legibus tamcn
retenta et jure posteria tradita nemo
non intelligit, jure, inquam, non popu-
larium suflragiorum . . . sod agna-
tionia atque sanguinis; quam populus
nec abrogare, nec ex ea derogare quid-
quam potest. Est enim regia dignitas,
legis et naturae donum, quod extra
populi oommercium perpetua regni
consuetudo stabilivit. "
? Id. id. , VII. (p. 80): "Rex
hominum coetui praeest, non secus ac
pater familiae, dominus servis, navi
gubernator, quibus imponunt quas
\uluiii leges, non accipiunt; quibus
imperant non ipsorum judicio sed suo:
quos rogere, quos tueri, non ex ipsorum
nutu ac voluntate, sed a natura
prescripta lege tenentur. "
? Id. id. , Vin. (p. 84): "Nam si
re rum nostrarum annales evolvamus,
summam juris ac legum potestatem
penes reges fuisse reperiemus. "
? Id. id. , IX. (p. 96): "Nusquam
enim gentium hoc fraenum regibus
inijectum inveneris, ut multitudinis
imperio submiserint fasces, et legem
acceperint supremae ditionia atque
potestatis suae moderatricem. Prin-
ceps enim animata lex est in terris,
cujus potestas atque jurisdictio non alia
lege quam ipsius voluntate in angus-
tum cogi potest. "
? Id. id. , Xm. (p. 119): "At
quid absurdius dici potest, quam juris
dicendi regem, legum ferendarum
? ? auctorem esse populum. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. III. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 437
Blackwood's statements are curiously inconsistent with the
political conceptions of De Seyssel. His notion of an abso-
lutely unrestrained monarchy goes indeed much further than
even Bodin; for in another place he maintains dogmatically
that not only the persons but the property of all the people
are in the power of the king. It is only the use of this which
belongs to private persons. 1
It is no wonder that Blackwood, in another place, should
seem to be indignant that Aristotle should have described
the Persians and other Asiatic monarchies as being really
barbarous. 2
The treatise of Blackwood is somewhat crude, and shows
little acquaintance with contemporary conditions and theories,
but it may be one source of the opinions of a work which was
important by reason of its authorship, that is, 'The True
Law of Free Monarchies,' written by James VI. of Scotland
and published first in 1598 before he became King of England,
and republished in London in 1603.
3
In this work James unites the secular theory of the absolute
king and the theological theory of his absolute authority as
being by divine right. He opens the work with a general
statement of the proper functions of a monarchy. The office
of a king is to maintain justice and judgment, to establish
good laws for the people, and to procure peace for them.
In his coronation oath he swears, first, to maintain the religion
"presently professed " in the country; secondly, to maintain
all the good laws made by his predecessors; and thirdly, to
maintain the whole country and every estate therein in all
their ancient privileges and liberties. *
This has a very constitutional sound, and seems to restrain
the authority of the king. James was describing, so far, the
1 Id. id. , VI. (p. 68): "Neque
enim ita rerum ignarus es, ut noscias
non modo pcrsonas omnium regibus
obnoxias ac veluti mancipio nexuque
teneri, verum etiam res omnes popu-
larium, ut quo fort tmas ita re gum ease
proprias, ut usu dnmtaxat, ac fruotu,
singulorum esse videntur. "
> Id. id. , VI. (p. 68).
* Our citations are from the edition
of 1603.
4 James I. , 'The True Law of Free
Monarchies,' B. 3.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 438
[PABT IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTCRY.
office or duty of the king, but when he turns to the duty of
the subjects we find quite another mode of thought. He
cites the speech of Samuel (1 Sam. viii. ) on the nature of
kingship, and explains what this implied. "First, he (Samuel)
declares unto them, what points of justice and equitde their
king will break in his behaviour unto them. And next, he
putteth them out of hope that wearie as they will, they shall
not have leave to shake off that yoke, which God, through
their importunities, hath laid upon them. "1
Again, James cites the example of David's conduct to
Saul, as Gregory the Great had done, and concludes: "Shortly,
then, to take up in two or three sentences, grounded upon all
these arguments out of the lawe of God, the dutie and allea-
geance of the people to their lawfull king, that obedience, I
say, ought to be to him, as to God's lieutenant in earth, obey-
ing his commands in all things, except directly against God,
as the commands of God's minister, acknowledging him a
Judge, set by God over them, having power to judge them,
but to be judged onely by God, whom to onely he must give
count of his judgement . . . following and obeying his lawful
commands, eschewing and flying his furie in his unlawfull,
without resistance, but by sobs and teares, to God. " 2
This is indeed the theory of the divine right of the king
and of passive obedience in a most extreme form. James
does not cite directly any authority for this doctrine except
the Scriptures, but we may conjecture that he derived it
from writers like Tyndale.
He goes on to show that this absolute power of the king
was also founded upon the "Fundamental and Civile Lawe,
especially of this country. " He admits that in the first ages
it may be true that various commonwealths chose a ruler
for themselves, but this, he says, has nothing to do with
Scotland, for Scotland was conquered by King Fergus, who
came from Ireland, and he and his successors imposed their
laws upon the country, "and, so it follows, of necessity, that
the kings were the Authors and Makers of the lawes, and
not the lawes of the kings. " He does not ignore the existence
>> Id. id. , B. 1 Id. id. , C.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, ni. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 439
of the Parliament, but in it " the lawes are but craved by his
subjects and onely made by him at their rogation and with
their advice. For albeit the king make daily statutes and
ordinances, mjoyning such paines thereto, as he thinks meet,
without any advice of Parliament or Estates, yet it lyes in
the power of no Parliament to make any kinde of lawes or
statute, without his sceptre be put to it, for giving it the
force of a Law. "1
So much for Scotland, but James also maintains that " the
same ground of the king's right over all the lande, and subjects
thereof, remaineth alike in all other free monarchies, as well
as in this "; and, with special reference to England, he con-
tends that William the Conqueror made himself King of
England by force, and made his own laws. 1
The king then is the source of all law, and he is over all
law; he is "maister over every person that inhabiteth 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 one of his subjects without a cleare law: yet the same
lawes, whereby he taketh this, are made by himself, or his pre-
decessors. And so the power flowes alwayes from himselfe. " 2
The king should, indeed, govern according to his law, "For
albeit it be true that I have at length prooved, that the king
is above law, as both the author and giver of strength thereto;
yet a good king will not onely delight to rule his subjectes by
the law, but even will conforme himself, in his own actions
thereunto, always keeping that ground, that the health of
the commonwealth be his chiefe law. " 2
The king may mitigate or suspend a general law, but "a
good king although he be above the Law, will subject and
frame his actions thereto, for example's sake to his subjectes,"
but he does this "of his own free will, but not as subject
thereto. " 3
Having thus set out his conception of the absolute authority
of the king as founded upon divine law, and the principle
that the king is the source of law and above law, he con-
siders some arguments against this. James had evidently
>> Id. id. , C. ? Id. id. , D. I. ? Id. id. , D. 2.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 440
[PART IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
heard of the theory of a contract between king and people,
and he is at pains to show that this conception had no value,
"For, say they, there is a mutuall paction, and contract
bound up, and sworne betwixt the king and the people,
whereupon it followeth, that if the one part of the Contract
or the Indent bee 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 betwixt two
parties of all lawe frees the one partie if the other breake
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 confesse that a King at his coronation, or at the entry
to his kingdome, willingly promiseth to his people, to discharge
honourably and truly the office given him by God over them.
But presuming that thereafter he breake his promise unto
them, never so inexcusable, the question is, who should be
judge of this breake, giving unto them this contract were made
to them never so sicker, according to their alleageance. " 1
We return to France and may observe the contentions of
Pierre de Belloy in a short treatise entitled 'Apologie Catho-
lique,' published in 1585 and directed against the Catholic
League and its refusal to admit that Henry of Navarre could
be recognised as the legitimate heir to the French crown. He
admitted that there were laws of the emperor (i. e. , of the
Eoman law) which declared a heretic to be incapable of
inheritance, but these, he maintained, applied only to private
persons and not to kingdoms or empires, for these could not
be taken from their true lords for heresy or for any other
cause, for they are held immediately from God Himself, and
not from men; subjects are bound to obey and serve their
princes, and cannot question their justice. 2
1 Id. id. , II. main de ceux qui en sont les vrais
* Pierre de Belloy,' Apologie Catho- Seigneurs, soit pour heresie, ou autre
lique,' ed. 1585 (fol. 30): "Or, autre raison quelconque, pource qu'ils sont
chose est des Empires et Royaumes, tenus immediatement de la main do
qui no peuvent estre, arracher de la Dieu Eternel, nou des hommes. . . . De
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 441
And again, the people have no right to control the actions
of the king, but may only lift their eyes to heaven and
remember that it is by the divine will that the sceptre has
passed into the hands of him who bears the crown, whether
he is good or bad. This is specially the case where the king
comes to the throne, as in France, by legitimate succession,
and where, by the law of the monarchy, the people have not
only placed all their power in the hands of the king, but have
tied themselves to the succession of the Blood Eoyal. 1
A more important work, which also sets out the theory of
the absolute monarchy, was published in 1596; this was the
'De Eepublica ' of Peter Gregory of Toulouse.
He cites the Aristotelian classification of the three good
forms of government--good because they are directed to the
wellbeing of the whole community. 2 He refuses to admit
that there are strictly any mixed governments: the supreme
power must lie either with the king, or the "Optimates," or
the people. 3 He indeed admits the three forms, but pays
no further attention to the aristocracy and the popular
government, and assumes that the people had transferred all
their authority to the prince. *
It is, however, with the nature of the French monarchy
that he is really concerned. The king holds supreme authority,
he does indeed protect the people from oppression by the
nobles, he admits plebeians to the magistracy and the public
sorte que les sujets n'ont que voir sur
les Rois, et ne sont nez que pour les
obeir et servir, quels que leurs Princes
soient, sans s'informer plus avaut de la
justice d'iceux. "
1 Id. id. (fol. 31): "D dy dono que
ce n'est pas au pouple de controoler,
qu'avec humilite, et obeyssance, les
actions et qualite? s de son Roi, mais il
doit seulement lever les yeux au ciel,
et considerer en soy-mesme que par la
volonte? Divino le sceptre est tombe? e? s
main et pouvoir de celuy qui porte
la Couronne, soit-il bon ou mauvais;
singulierement quand il y est appelle?
par legitime succession telle qu'est on
nostre France, en laquelle par Loy
Monarchique le peuple n'a pas seule-
ment remise toute sa puissance en la
main et pouvoir du Roy, ains qui
plus est, s'est lie? les mains et n'y peut
pourveoir tant que restera quoique
masse de sang royal, selon la Loy du
Royaume, par laquelle le Roi ne meurt
jamais, pour qu'incontinent le mort
saisit le vif plus proche masle du
defunct par agnation. "
! Peter Gregory of Toulouse, 'De
Republica,' I. 19; V. 1, 2.
>> Id. id. , V. 1-3.
? Id. id. , in. 4, 6.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 442 THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT IV.
offices, he governs the country through various councils or
courts, he gives the cities municipal laws and officers; but
all this is under the royal authority and can be changed by
him at his discretion. All, however, is to be done justly and
for the welfare of the people, or the monarchy would degenerate
into tyranny. 1
He maintains indeed that the famous passage in 1 Samuel
viii. describes the abuse of the royal authority, not its legiti-
mate use, unless indeed such actions should be required for
the public good2; but the absolute power of the prince has
been given him by God, he is God's vicar, and we must
recognise in him the majesty and image of god. 3
Gregory repudiated emphatically the opinion, which he
attributes to Aristotle, that the man who rules over an un-
willing people is a tyrant, for, as he maintains, if this were
true, there neither has been, nor could be, a State which
deserves the name of a monarchy; for a State which depends
upon the will of the people cannot be called a monarchy, but
a democracy; the supreme power in such a State resides in
the people and not in the prince. The king who violates the
1 Id. id. , V. 18: "In Galliae Monar-
chia Status nunc talis est qui omnes
rerum publicarum salubres leges con-
tineat. Nam penes unum regem
omnium rerum summa, verum non ut
tyrannus moderatur rempublicam aut
regnum, sed habet concilia virorum
electorum, et ita optimatum habet
diversos senatus, qui quotidiana negotia
justitiaeque merita, populo distri-
buant, citra appellationem nomine
tamen principis, suo tamen privilegio
et sibi conoessa potestate. Habet et
democraticas bonas illas leges prin-
ceps in regno, ut libertas populi
conservetur, a nullo optimatum op-
primetur, legibus regatur diligenter,
ad aoquum et bonum redactis: non
excludit princeps plebeios a mngis-
tratibus, ab administratione reipub-
licae, sed eos idoneos admit tit; con-
cedit civitatibus suis decuriones, con-
fules, legesque municipales; quao
omnia habent rerum publicarum mix-
tionem; at sub monarchia tamen, quia
in potestate principis est, seu regis,
haec omnia mutare, si sibi videatur.
Attamen presumitur, non nisi juste,
et ad salutem populi et ejus utilitatem,
mutare aut tollore; alioquin et ipsins
monarchia degeneraret in tyrannidem. "
Cf. id. id. , IX. 12.
>> Id. id. , IX. 1, 5, and 8; in.
2, 10.
? Id. id. , VI. 2, 9: "Neque in
principibus tam inspicere vol con-
siderare debemus quid ipsi per se et
tanquam homines sunt, sed quantum
ill is concessum et permissum a Deo sit.
Neque in principibus tam personam
singularem reveremur, quantum majes-
tatem Dei et imaginem potestatemque
consideremus et reveremus ex parte
illius cujus delegati sunt, et vicarias
in terra partes gerunt. "
? ? Cf. id. id. , m. 1, 10: "Postquam
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, in. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY.
It would be difficult to find a more dogmatic and un-
qualified statement of the unlimited authority of the prince,
or words which so directly and emphatically repudiate the
tradition of mediaeval civilisation.
When, however, we turn to Bilson's treatment of the
political conditions in continental countries, we seem to find
ourselves in another world. The Jesuit brings up the
conduct of the Protestants on the continent, and cites Beza's
defence of the French nobles in taking up arms. Bilson
defends them on the ground that the king had been in the
hands of the Guises, and while he would not undertake to
defend all that Protestant writers had said about resistance
to kings, he urged that the constitutional system of different
countries varied. He goes on: "The Eomans, we know,
could never abide the very name of a king. The Common-
wealths of Venice, Milan, Florence, and Genoa are of the
same mind. Many States have governors for life or for years,
as they best liked that first created their policies, and yet a
sovereignty still remains somewhere in the people, some-
where in the senate, somewhere in the prelates and nobles
that elect it: a magistrate, who bath his jurisdiction allotted
and prefixed unto him, thus far and no further, and may be
resisted and recalled from any tyrannous excesses by the
general and publike consent of the whole State whom he
governeth.
In Germany the emperor himself hath his bounds ap-
pointed unto him which he may not passe by the laws of the
empire; and the princes, dukes, and cities that are under
him have power to governe and use the sword as God's
'Id. id. id. , p. 262.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 432
[PABT IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
ministers, in their charge. And though, for the maintenance
of the empire, they be subject to such orders as shall be
decreed in the convent of all their States, and, according to
that direction are to furnish the emperor with men and monies
for his necessary wars and defence: yet, if he touch their
policies, infringe their liberties, or violate the specialties
which he by oathe and order of the empire is bound to keepe,
they may lawfully resist him, and by force reduce him to the
ancient and received form of government, or else repel him
as a tyrant, and set another in his place by the right and
freedom of their country. Therefore the Germans' doings
or writings can help you little in this question. They speak
according to the lawes and rights of the empire, themselves
being a verie free State, and bearing the sword as lawfull
magistrates to defend and protect their liberties, and pro-
hibit injuries against all oppressors, the emperor himself not
excepted. " 1
In another passage Bilson's contention is set out again in
more general terms. The Eomanist, Philander, brings forward
the revolts in Scotland, France, and the Low Countries, as
well as those in Germany. The Protestant, Theophilus, con-
tends that the reformers had been barbarously slaughtered, but
adds: "I must confesse that except the laws of those realms
do permit the people to stand on their right, if the princes
should offer them wrong, I dare not allow their arms. . . .
Philander: Think you their lawes permit them to rebel?
Theophilus: I busie not myself in other men's common-
wealths as you do, neither will I rashly pronounce all that
resist to be rebels; cases may fall out in Christian kingdoms
when the people may plead their right against the prince,
and not be charged with rebellion. Philander: As when, for
example? Theophilus: If a prince should go about to subject
his kingdom to a foraine realme, or change the forme of the
commonwealth from inperie to tirannie; or neglect the lawes
established by common consent of prince and people, to
execute his owne pleasure; in these and other cases which
might be named, if the nobles and commons join together
>> Id. id. id. , pp. 266-270.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, in. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY.
433
to defend their ancient and ancestral liberty, regiment, and
lawes, they may not well be counted rebels. Philander: You
denied that even now, when I did urge it. Theophilus: I
denied that bishops had authoritie to prescribe conditions to
kings when they crowned them; but I never denied that the
people might preserve the foundation, freedom, and forme of
their commonwealth, which they forprised when they first
consented to have a king. Philander: I remember you were
resolute that subjects might not resist their princes for any
respects, and now I see you slake. Theophilus: As I said, so
I say now, the lawe of God giveth no man leave to resist the
prince; but I never said that kingdoms and commonwealths
might not proportion their States as they thought best by
their public lawes, which afterwards the princes themselves
may not violate. By superior powers ordained of God we
understand not only princes, but all politike States and regi-
ments, somewhere the people, somewhere the nobles, having
the same interest to the sword, that princes have in their
kingdoms; and in kingdoms when princes bear rule, by the
sword we do not mean the prince's private will against his
lawes, but his precept derived from his lawes, and agreeing
with his lawes: which though it be wicked, yet may it not
be resisted by any subject with armed violence. Marry,
when princes offer their subjects not justice but force, and
despise all laws to practise their lusts: not any private man
may take the sword to redresse the prince; but if the lawes
of the land appoint the nobles as next to the king to assist
him in doing right, and withhold him from doing wrong,
then they be licensed by man's law, and so not prohibited
by God's, to interpose themselves for the safeguard of equitie
and innocence, and by all lawfull and needful means to procure
the prince to be reformed, but in no case deprived when the
sceptre is inherited. "1
In these passages Bilson admits that the laws of some
countries might contain provisions for restraining the prince's
actions, and that in extreme cases the community might
defend its ancient liberty and laws against him; and he also
'Id. id. id. , pp. 279, 280.
VOL. VI. 2 E
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 434
THE LA TER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT IV.
makes it clear that, by the "superior power ordained of
God," he did not mean only the prince, but all "politike
States and regiments. " Like Calvin, he did not allow that
any private person might by force resist the prince, but it
was different with the constitutional authorities of the com-
munity. He even admitted that the community might depose
an elected prince, like the emperor, though he emphatically
asserted that this did not apply to the case of an hereditary
prince. He suggested that such a constitutional limitation of
the authority of the prince existed in the empire and possibly
in other continental countries, but he did not suggest that they
existed in England; and he at least seems to suggest that
the monarchy in England was absolute, and that its "divine
right " could not be questioned.
We turn next to a group of Scottish writers whose work
was in some degree related to the deposition of Mary,
Queen of Scots, and to George Buchanan's defence of this.
In a treatise published in 1581 by a Scotsman, Cunerus, who
was Bishop of Louvain, the " divine right," and the principle
of non-resistance, are set out in very explicit terms. He
cites Samuel's description of "the manner of the king"
(1 Sam. viii. 11, &c. ) as being a statement of his rights--
although he admits that it had been variously interpreted--
for though the king, in doing such things as Samuel described,
might be committing grave sins, the people must not resist.
The king is the lord of the land, and the kingdom has been
given him by God, and even his wicked actions must be
endured by his subjects. 1
A more important work was published the same year by
Adam Blackwood, entitled 'Pro Eegibus Apologia,' which
1 Cunerus, 'De Christiani Principis terrae est, et regnum Regi datum a
Officio' (Ed. Moris, 1581), p. 63: Deo est, ut supra diximus. Non
"De quo quidem jure vario hoc loco quod Rex possit, recta conscientia,
loquuntur interpretes. Caeterum tamen bonis omnibus subditorum, et subditu
nemo negat, quin hac ratione jus regis ipsis pro libidine frui: sed quoniam
dici posset, quoniam si Rex haec omnia regiae potestati subdita sunt,
faciat, licet aliquando graviter peccet, ut etiamsi pmeter modum exigat,
populus tamen jure pati debeat, et tolerari tamen deboat. "
non rosistero: quoniam rex dominus
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, ni. ] THEORY OP THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 435
is a formal reply to George Buchanan's ' De Jure Begni apud
Scotos. ' Blackwood was a Scotsman, but had been educated
in France, and was a counsellor or judge at Poictiers. 1
Blackwood was an uncompromising defender of the theory
of the unlimited authority of the king. He admitted indeed
that neither the ancient empire of Eome nor the contem-
porary empire had this character,2 but he maintained that
the position of the Kings of Scotland was wholly different:
the lives and fortunes of their subjects were in their power
and they recognised no superior. This was also, he says, the
character of the monarchy in the kingdoms of France, England,
Spain, Portugal, and others, in that the people could not
be admitted to any share in the supreme power; for this was
the true nature of monarchy, that its authority could neither
be divided nor shared. 3
This is a thoroughgoing statement, and the treatise is in
the main an expansion of it. In the first place, Blackwood
maintains that the monarchy in Scotland was founded upon
force, the kingdom was created by Kenneth, and the people
had therefore no legal rights; the king, he seems to mean,
granted to certain great men the "dominium" of certain
provinces, but retained in his own hands the "potestas et
imperium. " 4 The royal authority, he again contends, was
founded in many kingdoms not on election but on the force
1 Cf. D. N. B.
'Adam Blackwood, 'Pro Rcgibus
Apologia,' IV. , pp. 5I and 54.
? Id. id. , IV. (p. 55): "Scotorum
Regmn longe diversum jus est, quibus
capita fortunaeque civium sunt ob-
noxiae, cum ii nulla conditione populo
teneantur, nec superiorem ullam prae-
ter solius numinis potestatem agnos-
cant. Eodemque jure suis regibus
adstricti sunt Galli, Angli, Hispani,
Lusitani, aliique permulti quorum res
rationesquo omnes ita regibus addictao
sunt, ut ne volentibus quidem populus
in ullam supremae potestatis et im-
perii societatem admitti queat. Ea
siquidem est monarchiae natura, ut
sine hoe imperio consistere non possit,
quod nec dividatur nec communica-
tione cum alio profanetur. "
4 Id. id. , VI. (p. 65): "Quod si
praesentem Scotici regni conditionem
spectemus, nec ab ouo quod (licitur.
eius initia repetamus, Picticae ditionis
accessione Kennethus rex non protulisse
fines imperii, sed regnum inchoasse
videbitur, ac virtute bellica peperisse,
quod ante nullum era! . . . . Ut
autem intelligas nihil in huic Scotico
populo fuisse juris, sod fisco cecisse
omnia. Rex arbitratu ea suo proceri-
bus quibusdam erogavit, ut penes
cos, eorumque posteris, provinciarum
dominium essei, penes se potestas et
imperium. "
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 436
[part IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
of arms, or on some other system of law, and by this he means
the law of hereditary succession, which the people cannot
abrogate. 1
Blackwood goes on to maintain that the authority of kings
was analogous to that of the father over his family, or of the
master over his slaves: they impose upon them whatever
laws they please, they do not receive these from them, and they
rule them according to their own judgment. 2 He appeals
to the history of Scotland and cites a passage from Hector
Boece to show that the supreme power and authority of law
had lain with the king. 3 He admits indeed that in Borne
the authority which had at first belonged to the kings was
transferred to the law, but maintains that this was not the
case elsewhere; for, he says, nowhere was such a bridle
(fraenum) imposed upon kings, and their authority subjected
to that of the multitude, nowhere was a law imposed upon
kings which should restrain their supreme authority. The
prince is a living law in the world, and his power and jurisdic-
tion cannot be controlled by any other law than his own will. *
A little further on he asks what can be more absurd than to say
that the king declares the law, while the people makes it. 5
1 Id. id. (p. 71): "Non jam
animadvert is, Buchanane, quam soli-
dum sit hoc disputationis tuae princi-
pium, quam firmo nitare fundamento,
cum tot regna non electione sed vel
armis, vel alio jure quaesita reperia-
mus T Quam quam autem ea vi et
armis initio posita fuere, legibus tamcn
retenta et jure posteria tradita nemo
non intelligit, jure, inquam, non popu-
larium suflragiorum . . . sod agna-
tionia atque sanguinis; quam populus
nec abrogare, nec ex ea derogare quid-
quam potest. Est enim regia dignitas,
legis et naturae donum, quod extra
populi oommercium perpetua regni
consuetudo stabilivit. "
? Id. id. , VII. (p. 80): "Rex
hominum coetui praeest, non secus ac
pater familiae, dominus servis, navi
gubernator, quibus imponunt quas
\uluiii leges, non accipiunt; quibus
imperant non ipsorum judicio sed suo:
quos rogere, quos tueri, non ex ipsorum
nutu ac voluntate, sed a natura
prescripta lege tenentur. "
? Id. id. , Vin. (p. 84): "Nam si
re rum nostrarum annales evolvamus,
summam juris ac legum potestatem
penes reges fuisse reperiemus. "
? Id. id. , IX. (p. 96): "Nusquam
enim gentium hoc fraenum regibus
inijectum inveneris, ut multitudinis
imperio submiserint fasces, et legem
acceperint supremae ditionia atque
potestatis suae moderatricem. Prin-
ceps enim animata lex est in terris,
cujus potestas atque jurisdictio non alia
lege quam ipsius voluntate in angus-
tum cogi potest. "
? Id. id. , Xm. (p. 119): "At
quid absurdius dici potest, quam juris
dicendi regem, legum ferendarum
? ? auctorem esse populum. "
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP. III. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 437
Blackwood's statements are curiously inconsistent with the
political conceptions of De Seyssel. His notion of an abso-
lutely unrestrained monarchy goes indeed much further than
even Bodin; for in another place he maintains dogmatically
that not only the persons but the property of all the people
are in the power of the king. It is only the use of this which
belongs to private persons. 1
It is no wonder that Blackwood, in another place, should
seem to be indignant that Aristotle should have described
the Persians and other Asiatic monarchies as being really
barbarous. 2
The treatise of Blackwood is somewhat crude, and shows
little acquaintance with contemporary conditions and theories,
but it may be one source of the opinions of a work which was
important by reason of its authorship, that is, 'The True
Law of Free Monarchies,' written by James VI. of Scotland
and published first in 1598 before he became King of England,
and republished in London in 1603.
3
In this work James unites the secular theory of the absolute
king and the theological theory of his absolute authority as
being by divine right. He opens the work with a general
statement of the proper functions of a monarchy. The office
of a king is to maintain justice and judgment, to establish
good laws for the people, and to procure peace for them.
In his coronation oath he swears, first, to maintain the religion
"presently professed " in the country; secondly, to maintain
all the good laws made by his predecessors; and thirdly, to
maintain the whole country and every estate therein in all
their ancient privileges and liberties. *
This has a very constitutional sound, and seems to restrain
the authority of the king. James was describing, so far, the
1 Id. id. , VI. (p. 68): "Neque
enim ita rerum ignarus es, ut noscias
non modo pcrsonas omnium regibus
obnoxias ac veluti mancipio nexuque
teneri, verum etiam res omnes popu-
larium, ut quo fort tmas ita re gum ease
proprias, ut usu dnmtaxat, ac fruotu,
singulorum esse videntur. "
> Id. id. , VI. (p. 68).
* Our citations are from the edition
of 1603.
4 James I. , 'The True Law of Free
Monarchies,' B. 3.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 438
[PABT IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTCRY.
office or duty of the king, but when he turns to the duty of
the subjects we find quite another mode of thought. He
cites the speech of Samuel (1 Sam. viii. ) on the nature of
kingship, and explains what this implied. "First, he (Samuel)
declares unto them, what points of justice and equitde their
king will break in his behaviour unto them. And next, he
putteth them out of hope that wearie as they will, they shall
not have leave to shake off that yoke, which God, through
their importunities, hath laid upon them. "1
Again, James cites the example of David's conduct to
Saul, as Gregory the Great had done, and concludes: "Shortly,
then, to take up in two or three sentences, grounded upon all
these arguments out of the lawe of God, the dutie and allea-
geance of the people to their lawfull king, that obedience, I
say, ought to be to him, as to God's lieutenant in earth, obey-
ing his commands in all things, except directly against God,
as the commands of God's minister, acknowledging him a
Judge, set by God over them, having power to judge them,
but to be judged onely by God, whom to onely he must give
count of his judgement . . . following and obeying his lawful
commands, eschewing and flying his furie in his unlawfull,
without resistance, but by sobs and teares, to God. " 2
This is indeed the theory of the divine right of the king
and of passive obedience in a most extreme form. James
does not cite directly any authority for this doctrine except
the Scriptures, but we may conjecture that he derived it
from writers like Tyndale.
He goes on to show that this absolute power of the king
was also founded upon the "Fundamental and Civile Lawe,
especially of this country. " He admits that in the first ages
it may be true that various commonwealths chose a ruler
for themselves, but this, he says, has nothing to do with
Scotland, for Scotland was conquered by King Fergus, who
came from Ireland, and he and his successors imposed their
laws upon the country, "and, so it follows, of necessity, that
the kings were the Authors and Makers of the lawes, and
not the lawes of the kings. " He does not ignore the existence
>> Id. id. , B. 1 Id. id. , C.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, ni. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 439
of the Parliament, but in it " the lawes are but craved by his
subjects and onely made by him at their rogation and with
their advice. For albeit the king make daily statutes and
ordinances, mjoyning such paines thereto, as he thinks meet,
without any advice of Parliament or Estates, yet it lyes in
the power of no Parliament to make any kinde of lawes or
statute, without his sceptre be put to it, for giving it the
force of a Law. "1
So much for Scotland, but James also maintains that " the
same ground of the king's right over all the lande, and subjects
thereof, remaineth alike in all other free monarchies, as well
as in this "; and, with special reference to England, he con-
tends that William the Conqueror made himself King of
England by force, and made his own laws. 1
The king then is the source of all law, and he is over all
law; he is "maister over every person that inhabiteth 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 one of his subjects without a cleare law: yet the same
lawes, whereby he taketh this, are made by himself, or his pre-
decessors. And so the power flowes alwayes from himselfe. " 2
The king should, indeed, govern according to his law, "For
albeit it be true that I have at length prooved, that the king
is above law, as both the author and giver of strength thereto;
yet a good king will not onely delight to rule his subjectes by
the law, but even will conforme himself, in his own actions
thereunto, always keeping that ground, that the health of
the commonwealth be his chiefe law. " 2
The king may mitigate or suspend a general law, but "a
good king although he be above the Law, will subject and
frame his actions thereto, for example's sake to his subjectes,"
but he does this "of his own free will, but not as subject
thereto. " 3
Having thus set out his conception of the absolute authority
of the king as founded upon divine law, and the principle
that the king is the source of law and above law, he con-
siders some arguments against this. James had evidently
>> Id. id. , C. ? Id. id. , D. I. ? Id. id. , D. 2.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 440
[PART IV.
THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
heard of the theory of a contract between king and people,
and he is at pains to show that this conception had no value,
"For, say they, there is a mutuall paction, and contract
bound up, and sworne betwixt the king and the people,
whereupon it followeth, that if the one part of the Contract
or the Indent bee 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 betwixt two
parties of all lawe frees the one partie if the other breake
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 confesse that a King at his coronation, or at the entry
to his kingdome, willingly promiseth to his people, to discharge
honourably and truly the office given him by God over them.
But presuming that thereafter he breake his promise unto
them, never so inexcusable, the question is, who should be
judge of this breake, giving unto them this contract were made
to them never so sicker, according to their alleageance. " 1
We return to France and may observe the contentions of
Pierre de Belloy in a short treatise entitled 'Apologie Catho-
lique,' published in 1585 and directed against the Catholic
League and its refusal to admit that Henry of Navarre could
be recognised as the legitimate heir to the French crown. He
admitted that there were laws of the emperor (i. e. , of the
Eoman law) which declared a heretic to be incapable of
inheritance, but these, he maintained, applied only to private
persons and not to kingdoms or empires, for these could not
be taken from their true lords for heresy or for any other
cause, for they are held immediately from God Himself, and
not from men; subjects are bound to obey and serve their
princes, and cannot question their justice. 2
1 Id. id. , II. main de ceux qui en sont les vrais
* Pierre de Belloy,' Apologie Catho- Seigneurs, soit pour heresie, ou autre
lique,' ed. 1585 (fol. 30): "Or, autre raison quelconque, pource qu'ils sont
chose est des Empires et Royaumes, tenus immediatement de la main do
qui no peuvent estre, arracher de la Dieu Eternel, nou des hommes. . . . De
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, m. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY. 441
And again, the people have no right to control the actions
of the king, but may only lift their eyes to heaven and
remember that it is by the divine will that the sceptre has
passed into the hands of him who bears the crown, whether
he is good or bad. This is specially the case where the king
comes to the throne, as in France, by legitimate succession,
and where, by the law of the monarchy, the people have not
only placed all their power in the hands of the king, but have
tied themselves to the succession of the Blood Eoyal. 1
A more important work, which also sets out the theory of
the absolute monarchy, was published in 1596; this was the
'De Eepublica ' of Peter Gregory of Toulouse.
He cites the Aristotelian classification of the three good
forms of government--good because they are directed to the
wellbeing of the whole community. 2 He refuses to admit
that there are strictly any mixed governments: the supreme
power must lie either with the king, or the "Optimates," or
the people. 3 He indeed admits the three forms, but pays
no further attention to the aristocracy and the popular
government, and assumes that the people had transferred all
their authority to the prince. *
It is, however, with the nature of the French monarchy
that he is really concerned. The king holds supreme authority,
he does indeed protect the people from oppression by the
nobles, he admits plebeians to the magistracy and the public
sorte que les sujets n'ont que voir sur
les Rois, et ne sont nez que pour les
obeir et servir, quels que leurs Princes
soient, sans s'informer plus avaut de la
justice d'iceux. "
1 Id. id. (fol. 31): "D dy dono que
ce n'est pas au pouple de controoler,
qu'avec humilite, et obeyssance, les
actions et qualite? s de son Roi, mais il
doit seulement lever les yeux au ciel,
et considerer en soy-mesme que par la
volonte? Divino le sceptre est tombe? e? s
main et pouvoir de celuy qui porte
la Couronne, soit-il bon ou mauvais;
singulierement quand il y est appelle?
par legitime succession telle qu'est on
nostre France, en laquelle par Loy
Monarchique le peuple n'a pas seule-
ment remise toute sa puissance en la
main et pouvoir du Roy, ains qui
plus est, s'est lie? les mains et n'y peut
pourveoir tant que restera quoique
masse de sang royal, selon la Loy du
Royaume, par laquelle le Roi ne meurt
jamais, pour qu'incontinent le mort
saisit le vif plus proche masle du
defunct par agnation. "
! Peter Gregory of Toulouse, 'De
Republica,' I. 19; V. 1, 2.
>> Id. id. , V. 1-3.
? Id. id. , in. 4, 6.
? ? Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? 442 THE LATER SIXTEENTH CENTURY. [PABT IV.
offices, he governs the country through various councils or
courts, he gives the cities municipal laws and officers; but
all this is under the royal authority and can be changed by
him at his discretion. All, however, is to be done justly and
for the welfare of the people, or the monarchy would degenerate
into tyranny. 1
He maintains indeed that the famous passage in 1 Samuel
viii. describes the abuse of the royal authority, not its legiti-
mate use, unless indeed such actions should be required for
the public good2; but the absolute power of the prince has
been given him by God, he is God's vicar, and we must
recognise in him the majesty and image of god. 3
Gregory repudiated emphatically the opinion, which he
attributes to Aristotle, that the man who rules over an un-
willing people is a tyrant, for, as he maintains, if this were
true, there neither has been, nor could be, a State which
deserves the name of a monarchy; for a State which depends
upon the will of the people cannot be called a monarchy, but
a democracy; the supreme power in such a State resides in
the people and not in the prince. The king who violates the
1 Id. id. , V. 18: "In Galliae Monar-
chia Status nunc talis est qui omnes
rerum publicarum salubres leges con-
tineat. Nam penes unum regem
omnium rerum summa, verum non ut
tyrannus moderatur rempublicam aut
regnum, sed habet concilia virorum
electorum, et ita optimatum habet
diversos senatus, qui quotidiana negotia
justitiaeque merita, populo distri-
buant, citra appellationem nomine
tamen principis, suo tamen privilegio
et sibi conoessa potestate. Habet et
democraticas bonas illas leges prin-
ceps in regno, ut libertas populi
conservetur, a nullo optimatum op-
primetur, legibus regatur diligenter,
ad aoquum et bonum redactis: non
excludit princeps plebeios a mngis-
tratibus, ab administratione reipub-
licae, sed eos idoneos admit tit; con-
cedit civitatibus suis decuriones, con-
fules, legesque municipales; quao
omnia habent rerum publicarum mix-
tionem; at sub monarchia tamen, quia
in potestate principis est, seu regis,
haec omnia mutare, si sibi videatur.
Attamen presumitur, non nisi juste,
et ad salutem populi et ejus utilitatem,
mutare aut tollore; alioquin et ipsins
monarchia degeneraret in tyrannidem. "
Cf. id. id. , IX. 12.
>> Id. id. , IX. 1, 5, and 8; in.
2, 10.
? Id. id. , VI. 2, 9: "Neque in
principibus tam inspicere vol con-
siderare debemus quid ipsi per se et
tanquam homines sunt, sed quantum
ill is concessum et permissum a Deo sit.
Neque in principibus tam personam
singularem reveremur, quantum majes-
tatem Dei et imaginem potestatemque
consideremus et reveremus ex parte
illius cujus delegati sunt, et vicarias
in terra partes gerunt. "
? ? Cf. id. id. , m. 1, 10: "Postquam
Generated for (University of Chicago) on 2014-12-19 10:34 GMT / http://hdl. handle. net/2027/mdp. 39015002404211 Public Domain in the United States, Google-digitized / http://www. hathitrust. org/access_use#pd-us-google
? CHAP, in. ] THEORY OF THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY.
