The Divine Right of Kings
Professor Richard Kroll, UCI
The Divine Right and Irresistibility of Kings and Supreme Magistrates Clearly Evidenced (1645)
Judging
We must not judge of the king, his government, or counsellors; yea, it is a perilous thing to commit unto subjects the judgment, which prince is wise and godly, and his government good, and which is otherwise; as though the foot must judge of the head; an enterprize very heinous, and must needs breed rebellion, 2.279.23.
Murmuring
We may not murmur
against the king, or speak evil of him, 1.299. 12.31. 34. 300.3.
Resisting
We may not in any case
resist or stand against the superior powers, though they be wicked,
because they have their power from God, 1.72. 12.29. 30. 2.280. 5.33. 285.
6.28.
Rebellion
The sink of all sins,
both of the first and second table, 2.292. 7.
Lucifer, the first
author of rebellion, 2.276.7.
The two principal
causes of rebellion are,
1. Ambition, and restless desire in
some men to be of higher estate than God
hath given them.
2. Ignorance in the people, and lack
of knowledge of God’s blessed will, declared in his holy word, concerning
their obedience, 2.307. 16.28. 313.14.
Rebels no true
Christians, 2.289. 45.
Rebels a wicked
example against all Christendom, and whole mankind, &t., 2.282.
24.
Rebels pretences vain,
viz. redress of the common-wealth, and reformation of religion, 2.301. 19. 302. 2. 22. 25.
29.
Rebellion no good
means of reformation, 2. 279. 34.
Miseries following
rebellion, viz. pestilence, famine, the calamities of war extraordinary,
2.294. 29.
God’s judgment on
rebels, 2. 300. 9.
Rebels never prospered
long, 2. 300. 45.
Hell the place of
rebels, 2. 296. 45.
William Prynne, A Brief Momento to the Present Unparliamentary Junto (1648)
6thly, Consider, that
though many of the kings of Judah and Israell were extraordinary sinfull
and idolatrous, bloody and tyrannical, great oppressors of their people,
yea, shedders of priests, of prophets, and other good men’s innocent
blood, not only in the wars, but in peace; yet there is not one president
in the Old Testament of any one king ever judicially impeached, arraigned,
deposed, or put to death by the congregation, sanhedrim, or parliaments of
Judah and Israel: that those
who slew any of them, in a tumultuous or treacherous manner, were, for the
most part, slaine themselves, either in a tumult, or else put to death by
their children, who succeeded to the crowne, or people of the land; and
that the Israelites, after the revolt from Rehoboam, had never any one
good king, or good day almost amongst them, but were overrun with
idolatry, prophanenesse, tyranny, invaded by enemies, involved in
perpetuall warre, civill or forraigne, and at last all destroyed and
carried away captives into Babilon, as the books of Kings and Chronicles
will informe you: that the
rule in the Old Testament is, not to take any wicked kings from their
thrones, and behead them, but6 “Take away the wicked from
before the king, and his throne shall be established in righteousnesse;”
and the rule in the New Testament,7 “To be subject to kings and
the higher powers, and to submit unto them, even for conscience and the
Lord’s sake; and to make prayers, supplications, and intercessions for
them.”
The Dutie of a King in His Royal Office (1599)
The state of monarchie
is the supremest thing upon earth; for kings are not only Gods lieutenants
upon earth, and sit upon Gods throne, but even by God himselfe they are
called gods. There be three
principall similitudes that illustrate the state of monarchie: one taken out of the word of God;
and the two other out of the grounds of policie and philosophie. In the scriptures, kings are
called gods; and so their power, after a certaine relation, compared to
the divine power. Kings are
also compared to fathers of families: for a king is truely parens patriae, the politique
father of his people. And,
lastly, kings are compared to the head of this microcosme of the body of
man.
Kings are justly
called gods; for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of divine
power upon earth. For, if you
will consider the attributes of God, you shall see how they agree in the
person of a king. God hath
power to create or destroy, make or unmake, at his pleasure; to give life
or send death, to judge all, and not to be judged nor accountable to none;
to raise low things, and to make high things low at his pleasure, and to
God are both soule and body due.
And the like power have kings: they make and unmake their
subjects; they have power of raising and casting down; of life and of
death; judges over all their subjects, and in all causes, and yet
accountable to none but God only.
They have power to exalt low things, and abase high things, and
make of their subjects like men at the chesse; a pawne to take a bishop or
a knight, and to cry up or down any of their subjects, as they do their
money. And to the king is due
both the affection of the soule and the service of the body of his
subjects. And, therefore,
that reverend bishop here amongst you, though I heare, that by divers he
was mistaken, or not well understood, yet did he preach both learnedly and
truly anent this point concerning the power of a king; for what he spake
of a kings power in abstracto,
is most true in divinitie:
for to emperours, or kings that are monarches, their subjects
bodies and goods are due for their defence and maintenance. But if I had been in his place, I
would only have added two words, which would have cleared all; for, after
I had told as a divine what was due by the subjects to their kings in
generall, I would then have concluded as an Englishman, shewing this
people, that, as in generall all subjects were bound to relieve their
king; so to exhort them, that, as we lived in a setled state of a
kingdome, which was governed by his own fundamentall lawes and orders,
that, according thereunto, they were now (being assembled for this purpose
in parliament) to consider how to help such a king as now they had; and
that according to the ancient forme and order established in this
kingdome: putting so a
difference between the generall power of a king in divinity and the setled
and established state of this crown and kingdome. And I am sure that the bishop
meant to have done the same, if he had not been straited by time, which,
in respect of the greatnesse of the presence, preaching before me, and
such an auditory, he durst not presume upon.
As for the father of a
familie, they had of old, under the law of nature, patriam potestatem, which was potestatem vitae et necis, over
their children or familie (I mean such fathers of families as were the
lineall heires of those families whereof kings did originally come;) for
kings had their first originall from them, who planted and spread
themselves in colonies through the world. Now a father may dispose of his
inheritance to his children at his pleasure; yea, even disinherit the
eldest upon just occasion, and preferre the youngest, according to his
liking; make them beggars or rich at his pleasure; restraine or banish out
of his presence, as he finds them give cause of offence, or restore them
in favour againe with the penitent sinner: so may the king deale with his
subjects.
And lastly, as for the
head of the naturall body, the head hath the power of directing all the
members of the body to that use which the judgement in the head thinkes
most convenient. It may apply
sharpe cures, or cut off corrupt members, let blood in what proportion it
thinkes fit, and as the body may spare, but yet is all this power ordained
by God ad aedificationem, non ad
destructionem; for although God have power, as well of destruction as
of creation or maintenance, yet will it not agree with the wisdome of God
to exercise his power in the destruction of nature, and overturning the
whole frame of things, since his creatures were made, that his glory might
thereby be the better expressed:
so were he a foolish father that would disinherit or destroy his
children without a cause, or leave off the carefull education of them; and
it were an idle head that would, in place of physicke, so poyson or
phlebotomize the body.