is bound by the Lawes of God God saies he is simply absolute not bound to any Law but the Prince onely absolute to some respects for though he be above the Civill Law yet he is under the Law of God of Nature and of Nations We will allow this absolute power that you speake of if you canevince us out of holy Writ to which Princes as well as people owe subjection that ever such power was communicated to any just Prince that he might dispose of the lives and estates of his Subjects at his owne will and pleasure what is this but Tyrranny and if God who only hath absolute power over his people did sometimes in his wrath for the sinnes of his people put a Tyrannicall King over them yet this is no warrant for others to be so God who is the only proprietor and free dispenser of all things and giveth what he pleaseth and to whom and when he pleaseth what he out of his bounty doth bestow upon his meanest servant he doth invest him in as pure and absolute a right as he doth the greatest Prince in his Monarchy and therefore it lies not in the power of his Prince to dispossesse him of it We have a most exact and perfect discription of a Tyrant in the word of God 1 Sam. 8. where when the people of Israel not contented with that Governement that God had appointed over them asked a King of Samuell God in his anger and as a judgement upon the people for their sin gave them a King to rule over them but such a one who according to the discription of Samuell would make his will his Law for saies Samuell to the people This will be the manner of the King that shall reigne over you he will take your sonnes and appoint them for himselfe for his Charets c. And he will appoint him Captaines over thousands c. And he will take your daughters to be confectioners c. And hee will take your fields and your vineyards and give them to his servants And he will take your servants and cattle and put them to worke c. Here you have a compleate delineation of a Tyrant For marke Samuell tells the people what he will doe not what he ought to doe thus and thus he will doe saith he and he will render no better reason for what he doth stat pro ratione voluntas his will is reason sufficient to deprive you of your substance and to inslave you and your postetity for ever This was the judgement of God and therefore not to be drawne in example or made a president for others And therefore let every unjust Prince take heede that whilest hee is made the Rod and scourge of God for his peoples sinnes hee himselfe be not at the last throwne into the fire But now you shall heare the duty of a good Prince set forth in Deut. 17 He shall not multiply horses to himselfe c. Neither shall he multiply wives nor silver and gold He shall write him a coppie of this Law in a Booke c. And it shall be with him and hee shall reade therein all the dayes of his life that hee may learne to feare the Lord his God to keepe all the words of this Law and these statutes to doe them Now marke what followes all That his heart be not lifted up above his brethren c. For my part I do not find here that the Kings will is a Law or that he hath power to open shut the purses of his Subjects at his pleasure A just Prince must not multiply silver gold why then doubtlesse he must not doe it upon the ruines of his Subjects Hee must keepe this law and I am sure this Law doth not make him lawlesse or justifie Tyranny And lastly his heart must not bee lifted up above his brethren that is he must not so exalt his owne power as to depresse and destroy his people Another Argument is this that the people did transferre this power to the King that by it they might be more commodiously governed Page 24. but this is not that supreame power sic volo sic jubeo but an ordinary power directed by law To this Albericus answers with his distinction before taken that there is an ordinary and an extraordinary power in the Prince and he saies that the people sometimes by this extraordinary power which is the supreame and absolute power may be governed more commodiously for he saies That people of indomitable and rigid spirits are better governed by this extraordinary then an ordinary power and those Subjects are to be governed by an Iron Rod that will not yeeld to the ferula Certainly Albericus when he wrote this booke thought he had been tutering of children I confesse that I have often read and heard that the government by Monarchy is much to be preferred and set before Oligarchy Democracy or Aristocracy‑ but I never heard that tyranny might be more apt commodious then a just and lawfull governement neither did I ever read of any people of so savedge and barbarous a nature who would not rather stoope to a just and legall then an unjust and tyrannicall dominion No question it is most commodious both for King and people that the one should have a certain positive rule by which he might governe and the other by which he might obey And that Prince who governs his people by the rule of justice shall find more faithfull and loyall Subjects then he that swayes them by the Scepter of an extraordinary and tyrannicall power But heare what Albericus doth determin to be tyranny That sayes he Pag. 25. is tyrannous which in a tyrant is wonted and ordinary in aiust Prince extraordinary and casuall To take away famous and excellent men to expell or drive away those that are wise to exterminate studies to have and countenance such about him as are envious private calumniators and accusers of others to follow delight in bloody warres these others of that kind he saies to be tyrannous How Albericus are these tyrannous I thought the supreame power had beene unlimitted why so it is for he saies that even these very actions which imediatly before he styles tyrannous Possunt aliquandoetiam esse justa may sometimes be just May tyrannous actions be just what a diametricall contradiction is this he may as well call darkenesse light or light darkenesse good evill or evill good In vaine doth he labour to make this good by strange and tyrannous actions as he would have them which are done by Princes for the good of the common wealth neither is this malum necessariun a necessary evill as he calls it for whatsoever is simply tyranous cannot be said to be just and whatsoever is done and in truth is so for the common good cannot beare the infamous scandall of tyrannous But this saying of Albericus savours more of Machavilians Politiques then of just and legall governement Pag. 27.
ENGLANDS MONARCH OR A CONVICTION AND refutation by the Common law of those false Principles and insinuating flatteries of Albericus delivered by way of Disputation and after published and dedicated to our dread Soveraigne King JAMES in which he laboureth to prove by the Civill Law our Prince to be an absolute Monarch and to have a free and Arbitrary power over the lives and Estates of his people TOGETHER WITH A GENErall confutation and that grounded vpon certaine Principles taken by some of their owne profession of all absolute Monarchy LONDON Printed by Thomas Paine Anno Dom. 1644. To the Reader THis worke after so much labour and expence of time by others in the like subiect may now be thought vaine and superstitious scarce deserving the vacant houres of a mans time much lesse those oppertunities which necessary occasions and imployments call for But Reader let not this make you vilipend or undervalue his endeavour who doth here present you with such a peece of Sophistry that hapily you never read nor heard off and that is Albericus published in latine the great propugnor of our King to be an absolute Monarch which he would mainetaine too by the Civell Law and who but our good King JAMES must be made the Patron of these absurde Principles Give me but your patience I will not acomagere tread in others steps the Author hath lead me into a large field of novelty where if you please to solace your selfe but a while you shall finde it more apt to informe your iudgement then confirme your memory which if made good unto you let him have your favourable censure who ever was and will be a faithfull servant to his Country ENGLANDS MONARCH HAving by accident met with a Book full of the fallacies of these times and yet dedicated to our late Soveraigne King Iames and for ought I can be informed passed over in silence without the least reproofe I thought it my duty out of that faith and loyaltie that I owe to my King and Countrey to publish its principles to the world and by the way as I goe to give a particular answer to every one of them The Authors name is Albericus what Country man I know not but his name as also his principles seeme to speake him a stranger by birth and a Civilian by his profession His Book is intituled Three Regall disputations Regales Disputationes tres And the first is Of the absolute power of the King Depotestate Regis absolutae And this is the taske that I have at this time imposed upon my selfe to debate and refute the absurditie of this principle being a Tenet utterly repugnant and absolutely destructive to the Lawes of England and the Liberties of the Subject I am not ignorant that the greatest part of the unhappie hereticall principles of this Booke are at this day defended by force of Armes by such as would be called Royalists or if you will the Kings friends while in the meane time they sell their Birthright and inheritance for a poore messe of Pottage and become Actors in this sad Tragedie of the ruine of their King and Countrey But to begin with the Author who in the very first position of his Booke were it Orthodox in this Kingdom would quite confound all our Lawes and Liberties That which pleaseth the Prince saith he hath the force of a Law Quod Principi placvit Legis habet vigorem pag. 5. I this is that which your Prelaticall flatterers Parasiticall Courtiers perswade his Majesty and this peece of poyson they have suckt out of such unworthy underminers of their own Liberty as my Author is And this he saies to be Page 5. a regall Law brought in by his Empire for that the people have conferred upon him all their rule and power That is the people have given power to their Prince to bee a Tyrant and tread them under feet at liberty a principle so void of reason that it carries not the least colour or probabality with it but of this hereafter But this position Quod Principi placuit c. That which pleaseth the Prince hath the force of a Law He saith is to to be understood of the Romane Emperour Page 5 6 7. for his excellency above others as also for other reasons that he renders If this bee so Albericus what have we that are English Subjects live under a Municipall Law to doe with that or why diddest thou dedicate this unsound and unwarrantable peece of flattery to our King couldest thou imagine so learned and so wise a Prince would be wrought upon to subvert the Lawes and enslave his Subjects who can make as good a Title by the Law to their liberty as the King to his Crowne But Albericus well knew that the best Princes might be corrupted and that ambition may captivate the Crowne as well as the Peasant I even in those dayes our Liberties were invaded by the infusion of such false Maximes as these are And to this houre we groane under that heavie burthen my little finger shall bee heavier then my Fathers Loynes And though we live under a Municipall Law which utterly denies and condemnes these flattering positions of the Civilians as absolutely destructive to that freedom wee were borne under yet my Author doth affirme that all interpeters that is of the Civill Law without any difficulty do attribute this power to all supreame Princes Page 7. Now hence he raises a question who those supreame Princes are Page 7 8 9. And the some of his definition of the supreame Princes may be reduced shortly to this They are supreame Princes who neither have nor acknowledge any one above them but God and to him onely are bound to render an account who are free from all Law whose willis a sufficien treason whose reason is as an absolute law And he saies this is no barbarous Law but the Romane Law If so Albericus why doe such Sycophants vent their poyson here in England Sir God be thanked wee have a Law of our owne whose fundamentalls crye downe this definition as paradoxicall to sence and reason whose light is so great that it neede not borrow of others to adde to its perfection But here wee may see that the same Doctrine is preached to our King at this day that was to his predecessor what else meant the long discountinance of Parliaments the onely assurance we have of the continuance of our Lawes and Liberties I and what meanes the taking up of Armes too against them But yet to come nearer to this definition of the Civilians of an absolute Prince what meanes that frequent expression of His Majestie in His Declarations that he is responsible to God alone for his actions I am certaine this is Lex Romana the Romane Law But when hee had shewne what is not this supreame power and who are not these supreame Princes he saith Page 10. That our King is amongst the other
Kings that is the supreame Princes who are free from the Law which is saith he of an absolute power and this is not subject either to the rules of necessity or publique Law Then he saies that there is potestas extraordinaria libera an extraordinary and free power which he saies in England wee doe signifie by the name Regiae Praerogativae of the Royall Prerogative And further he sayes That the interpreters of their Law doe commonly write that there is a double power in a Prince the one ordinary bound by the Law the other extraordinary free from the Law and hee saies that they define that to be the absolute power by which hee may take away another mans right though it be great and that without a cause too Is this that extraordinary power which we by the Law of England call the Royall Prerogative I wonder at the madnesse and the ignorance of the Author that should publish a thing so absolutely contrary to the knowne Lawes of the Realme but I will refute him by our Law and not by rayling though he deserves no better First that our King according to their own definition is not one of these supreame Princes or absolute Monarches nothing more pregnant or plainely demonstrable in our Law For hee is under the Law and so saies Bracton and Fleta two of our ancientest Law Bookes in severall places commonly knowne so that I neede not to cite them But Bracton goes further Bracton de acquirendo rerum Domino fol. 34. that not onely habet legem superiorem the Law is above him but also curiam suam viz. Comites Barones c. which can bee understood of no other then the Parliament that that likewise is above him why then if both Law Parliament be above him he can be no absolute Monarch according to themselves But further by the Lawes and constitutions of this Kingdome the Legislative power doth not reside in the King alone for he cannot create a Law or destroy or disanull any Law by his Patent or Proclamation but in the three estates joyntly together assembled in one body in Parliament and therefore to maintaine our Prince to be an obsolute Monarch is utterly to oppose and overthrow the fundamentalls of our Lawe But how satte this is laboured at this day I leave it to the consciences of al honest men to judge for if the King might have power to discontinue Parliaments as long as he pleaseth or being called to have a negative Voyce to all their reasonable demands will not this bee a compendious way to bring all the Legislative power into his owne hands But then he sais that by this extraordinary or absolute power which he would have our Prince to have He may take away any mans right be it never so great For he sayes Page 13. That the Prince by his Empire possesses all things that he hath an imperiall and universall dominion though the particular and private be in the proprietor Which in plainer English is to tell you that the King hath an interest and power over every mans particular property which is as absolutely false as can be imagined and stands as much in opposition to our Law as one contrary can to another for what then would become of our Petition of Right Or how could we say that we had right to any thing when the King at his owne pleasure might dispossesse us of all this were a ready way to inslave us and to make us hould by that base tenure of Villeinage I do not denie but that the Common wealth hath an interest paramount the property of every private man but this is not left to the sole disposition of our Prince but the Parliament who may dispose of the generall interest for the good of the Common wealth and in such case we our selves are the free dispensers of our owne for t is not more their power then our owne consents that binds us But thankes be to God that every man by our Law let Court Parasites say what they will hath as absolute a right in that hee enjoyes as his Prince claimes in his Crowne nay I may be bold to affirme without prejudice to the royall interest that he hath a greater for that the King is seised or possessed in the right of his Crowne onely the people in their owne right What one principle more aumenticke in our law then this that the King cannot take away any mans property without his owne consent and how is this consent to be purchased why no otherwise then by Act of Parliament with whom the generall property which is above every mans particular interest is intrusted And therefore those that will have the King to be an absolute Monarch over his people must instruct him how to repeale Magna charta and all the other Lawes made in confirmation of it and the Subjects liberty before they can court them into slavery But here it will be objected that the lawes of this Realme doe avow and maintaine our King to be an absolute Monarch very just and with this difference wee shall allow him to be so that is as to all forraine power authority or jurisdiction what soever he is an obsolute Emperor within these his dominions in plainer language he is no dependent or tributary Prince but is as he is acknowledged to be by the statute of 24. H. 8. ca. 12 Furnished with plenary whole and intire power preeminence authority prerogative and jurisdistion c. So that no forraine Prince or Potentate whatsoever can challenge or excercise the least authority in these Kingdomes but this doth no way conclude our Prince to be an absolute Monarch in the excercise of his jurisdiction over his people T is true that my Lord Coke sayes our King is an absolute King but how not over his people and that is cleared by the case that he puts which is this Artold King of Manne sued to King H. 3. to come into England c. upon which my Lord Coke observes Lib. 7. fo 21. that seeing that Artold King of Manne sued for a licence in this case to our King it proveth him an absolute King which is evident as to any forraine power or authority whatsoever but not to his own Subjects For as to them he hath but a qualified limitted power confined to the rules of law the customs of his Kingdome These things pondered on I stand amazed at thy brasen confidence Albericus that durst affirme our King to be an absolute Monarch and canst prove it no better then by the daubing principles of the Civill Law what else is this but to argue a case at Common Law upon the notions and grounds of the Civil which were an absurdity next to madnesse But I stand most astonished when I consider that our Prince must be made the Patron of such dangerous absurde principles This is that that hath so much advanced Prerogative and depressed Liberty And these times are become the