James VI and I
A Speech to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at
White-Hall
(1610)
. . . the state of monarchy is the supremest thing upon earth. For kings are not only God's
lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called
gods. There be three principal similitudes that illustrates the state of monarchy. One taken out
of the word of God, and the two other out of the grounds of policy and philosophy. In the
Scriptures kings are called gods, and so their power after a certain relation compared to the
divine power. Kings are also compared to fathers of families, for a king is truly parens
patriae, the politic father of his people. And lastly, kings are compared to the head of this
microcosm 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 to God, you shall see how they agree in the
person of a king. God has power to create, or destroy, make, or unmake at his pleasure, to give
life, or send death, to judge all, and 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 soul 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 cases, 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 chess: a pawn 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 soul and the service of the body of his subjects. . . .
As for the father of a family, they had of old under the law of nature patiam potestatem, which
was potestatem, vitae et necis [power of life and death], over their children or family. I mean
such fathers of families as were the lineal heirs of those families whereof kings did originally
come, for kings had their first original 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 occasions, and prefer the youngest,
according to his liking; make them beggars or rich at his pleasure; restrain, or banish out of his
presence, as he finds them give cause of offence, or restore them in favour again with the
penitent sinner. So may the king deal with his subjects.
And lastly, as for the head of the natural body, the head has the power of directing all the
members of the body to that use which the judgement in the head thinks most convenient. It
may apply sharp cures, or cut off corrupt members, let blood in what proportion it thinks fit,
and as the body may spare, but yet is all this power, ordained by God ad aedificationem, non
ad destructionem [for constructive, not destructive use]. For though God have power as well
2
of destruction as of creation or maintenance, yet will it not agree with the wisdom 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
careful education of them. And it were an idle head that would in place of physic so poison or
phlebotomize the body as might breed a dangerous distemper or destruction thereof.
But now in these our times we are to distinguish between the state of kings in their first
original, and between the state of settled kings and monarchs that do at this time govern in civil
kingdoms. For even as God, during the time of the Old Testament, spake by oracles and
wrought by miracles, yet how soon it pleased him to settle a Church which was bought and
redeemed by the blood of his only Son, Christ, then was there a cessation of both, he ever after
governing his people and Church within the limits of his revealed will. So in the first original
of kings, whereof some had their beginning by conquest, and some by election of the people,
their wills at that time served for law. Yet how soon kingdoms began to be settled in civility
and policy, then did kings set down their minds by laws, which are properly made by the king
only, but at the rogation of the people, the king's grant being obtained thereunto. And so the
king became to be lex loquens [a speaking law], after a sort, binding himself by a double oath
to the observation of the fundamental laws of his kingdom: tacitly, as by being a king, and so
bound to protect as well the people as the laws of his kingdom, and expressly, by his oath at his
coronation. So as every just king in a settled kingdom is bound to observe that paction made to
his people by his laws, in framing his government agreeable thereunto according to that
paction which God made with Noah after the deluge: 'Hereafter seed-time and harvest, cold
and heat, summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease, so long as the earth remains.'
And therefore a king governing in a settled kingdom leaves to be a king, and degenerates into a
tyrant, as soon as he leaves off to rule according to his laws. In which case the king's
conscience may speak unto him as the poor widow said to Philip of Macedon: 'Either govern
according to your law, aut ne rex sis [or you are no king].' And though no Christian man
ought to allow any rebellion of people against their prince, yet does God never leave kings
unpunished when they transgress these limits. For in that same psalm where God says to kings
vos dii estis [you are gods], he immediately thereafter concludes, 'But ye shall die like men.'
The higher we are placed, the greater shall our fall be. Ut casus sic dolor: the taller the trees
be, the more in danger of the wind; and the tempest beats sorest upon the highest mountains.
Therefore all kings that are not tyrants, Or perjured, will be glad to bound themselves within
the limits of their laws; and they that persuade them the contrary are vipers and pests, both
against them and the commonwealth. For it is a great difference between a king's government
in a settled state and what kings in their original power might do in individuo vago [as
unrestrained individuals]. As for my part, I thank God I have ever given good proof that I
never had intention to the contrary. And I am sure to go to my grave with that reputation and
comfort, that never king was in all his time more careful to have his laws duly observed, and
himself to govern thereafter, than I.
3
I conclude then this point touching the power of kings with this axiom of divinity: that do
dispute what God may do is blasphemy, but quid vult deus [what God wishes], that divines
may lawfully, and do ordinarily, dispute and discuss, for to dispute a posse ad esse [from
potential to actual] is both against logic and divinity, so is it sedition in subjects to dispute
what a king may do in the height of his power. But just kings will ever be willing to declare
what they will do, if they will not incur the curse of God. I will not be content that my power
be disputed upon. But I shall ever be willing to make the reason appear of all my doings, and
rule my actions according to my laws. 1. What is the central claim that King James makes in his
speech? (10 points)
2. What are the reasons he uses to support his claim? (10
points)
3. What evidence does he provide to illustrate his
reasons? (10 points)