Question 3: Whether it is lawful to resist a ruler who is
oppressing or ruining the country, and how far such resistance may be extended;
by whom, how, and by what right or law it is permitted.
• The whole body
of the people is above the king.
“Now, since the people choose and establish their kings, it
follows that the whole body of the people is above the king. This is because he
who is established by another is under that person, and he who receives his
authority from another is less than the person from whom he derives his power.”
“Therefore, as all the whole people is above the king, and
likewise taken in one entire body, are in authority before him, yet
individually, every one of them is under the king. It is easy to know how far
the power of the first kings extended, in that Ephron, king of the Hittites,
could not grant Abraham the sepulchre, but in the presence and with the consent
of the people (Gen. 23): neither could Hemor the Hevite, king of Sichem,
contract an alliance with Jacob without the people's assent and confirmation
thereof (Gen. 34); because it was then the custom to refer the most important
affairs to be dispensed and resolved in the general assemblies of the people.
This might easily be practiced in those kingdoms which were then almost
confined within the circuit of one town.”
• The assembly
of the three estates.
“… In ancient times, the general or three estates were
assembled every year (and these days, they meet when required by urgent
necessity) and all the provinces and towns of any size, meaning the burgesses,
nobles and ecclesiastical persons, did they all send their deputies, and there
they did publicly deliberate and conclude matters which concerned the public
state. The authority of this assembly was always such that whatever it decided,
whether it were to establish peace, or declare war, or create a regent in the
kingdom, or impose some new tribute, was held firm and inviolable. And even by
the authority of this assembly, kings themselves, if convicted of loose
intemperance, or incompetence, or even for a charge as great as tyranny, were
removed from the throne. And not only that, but all their descendants also were
excluded from the royal succession, just as their ancestor was, by the same
authority, raised to the throne of the same kingdom.”
• Why kings
were created.
“Let us then conclude, that they [kings] are established in
this place to maintain by justice, and to defend by force of arms, both the
public state, and particular persons from all damages and outrages. This is why St. Augustine said, "Those
are properly called lords and masters who provide for the good and profit of
others, as the husband for the wife, fathers for their children." They
must therefore obey them who provide for them; although, indeed, to speak
truly, those who govern in this manner may in a sort be said to serve those
whom they command over. For, as says the
same doctor, they command not for the desire of dominion, but for the duty they
owe to provide for the good of those who are subjected to them; not affecting
any lord-like domineering, but with charity and singular affection, desiring
the welfare of those who are committed to them.”
• Whether the
ruler have power of life and death over his subjects.
“The minions of the court consider it self-evident that
rulers have the same power of life and death over their subjects as ancient
masters had over their slaves. With these false imaginations have so bewitched
rulers, that many, although they do not much use this imaginary right, yet
imagine that they may lawfully do so, and in how much they desist from the
practice thereof, insomuch that they quit and relinquish their right and
due."
"But we affirm on the contrary, that the ruler is but
as the minister and executor of the law, and may only unsheathe the sword
against those whom the law has condemned; and if he do otherwise, he is no more
a king, but a tyrant; no longer a judge, but a malefactor, and instead of that
honorable title of conservator, he shall be justly branded with that foul term
of violator of the law and equity.”
• Whether the
king be the usufructor of the kingdom?
"To conclude, we must needs resolve, that kings are
neither proprietors nor usufructuaries of the royal patrimony, but only
administrators. And being so, they can by no just right attribute to themselves
the propriety, use, or profit of private men's estates, nor with as little
reason the public revenues, which are in truth only the commonwealth's."
"If the prince therefore persist in his violent
courses, and contemn frequent admonitions, addressing his designs only to that
end, that he may oppress at his pleasure, and effect his own desires without
fear or restraint; he then doubtless makes himself liable to that detested
crime of tyranny: and whatsoever either the law, or lawful authority permits
against a tyrant, may be lawfully practiced against him. Tyranny is not only a
will, but the chief, and as it were the complement and abstract of vices. A
tyrant subverts the state, pillages the people, lays stratagems to entrap their
lives, breaks promise with all, scoffs at the sacred obligations of a solemn
oath, and therefore is he so much more vile than the vilest of usual
malefactors. By how much offences committed against a generality, are worthy of
greater punishment than those which concern only particular and private
persons. If thieves and those who commit sacrilege be declared infamous; nay,
if they justly suffer corporal punishment by death, can we invent any that may
be worthily equivalent for so outrageous a crime?"
"Furthermore, we
have already proved, that all kings receive their royal authority from the
people, that the whole people considered in one body is above and greater than
the king; and that the king and emperor are only the prime and supreme
governors and ministers of the kingdom and empire, but the people the absolute
lord and owner thereof. It therefore necessarily follows, that a tyrant is in
the same manner guilty of rebellion against the majesty of the people, as the
lord of a fee, who feloniously transgresses the conditions of his investitures,
and is liable to the same punishment, yea, and certainly deserves much more
greater than the equity of those laws inflicts on the delinquents."
"There is ever, and in all places, a mutual and
reciprocal obligation between the people and the prince; the one promises to be
a good and wise prince, the other to obey faithfully, provided he govern
justly. The people therefore are obliged to the prince under condition, the
prince to the people simply and purely. Therefore, if the prince fail in his
promise, the people are exempt from obedience, the contract is made void, the
right of obligation of no force. Then the king if he govern unjustly is
perjured, and the people likewise forsworn if they obey not his lawful commands.
But that people are truly acquit from all perfidiousness, who publicly renounce
the unjust dominion of a tyrant, or he, striving unjustly by strong hand to
continue the possession, do constantly endeavour to expulse him by force of
arms."
"It is therefore permitted the officers of a
kingdom, either all, or some good number of them, to suppress a tyrant; and it
is not only lawful for them to do it, but their duty expressly requires it; and,
if they do it not, they can by no excuse colour their baseness."*
Christ, not man, is
King!
Dale
No comments:
Post a Comment