1. Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, 1579

First published in Latin (as Vindiciae contra tyrannos) in Edinburgh but written by a French Protestant, this tract makes a central argument that would have long-lasting influence: kings derive their power from a covenant or contract with their people, and therefore the people have a right to resist the king if the king goes against God’s will in religious matters. But who was best placed to interpret God’s will?

“Now we reade of two sorts of Covenants at the Inaugurating of Kings, the first betweene God, the King, and the People, that the people might be the people of God: The second between the King and the people, that the people shall obey faithfully, and the King command justly.”. . . . The Question is, If it be lawful to resist a Prince violating the Law of God, or ruinating the Church, or hindring the restoring of it? If we hold ourselves to the tenure of the holy Scripture, it will resolve us. For, if in this case it have been lawful to the Jewish people (the which may be easily gathered from the books of the Old Testament) yea, if it have been injoyned them, I beleeve it will not be denyed, that the same must be allowed to the whole people of any Christian Kingdom or Country whatsoever.”

Source: Hubert Languet (or Philippe de Mornay), Vindiciae contra tyrannos, a defence of liberty against tyrants, or, Of the lawful power of the Prince over the people, and of the people over the Prince being a treatise written in Latin and French by Junius Brutus, and translated out of both into English. London: Printed by Matthew Simmons and Robert Ibbitson, 1648, 7 and 19 (with the original spelling).

2. Jean Bodin, The Six Books of the Commonwealth, 1576

Even before the publication of Defence of Liberty (no. 1), the Catholic lawyer Bodin had viewed with alarm the publication of Protestant pamphlets that justified resistance to the French king in the wake of the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre. In his Six Books, one of the founding texts of modern political theory, Bodin developed the idea that sovereignty must be absolute and undivided and that therefore subjects had no right to resist their king.

“And in that the greatness and majesty of a true sovereign prince, is to be known; when the estates of all the people assembled together, in all humility present their requests and supplications to their prince, without having any power in any thing to command or determine, or to give voice, but that that which it pleaseth the king to like or dislike of, to command or forbid, is holden for law, for an edict and ordinance. Wherein they which have written of the duty of magistrates, & other such like books, have deceived themselves, in maintaining that the power of the people is greater than the prince; a thing which oft times causeth the true subjects to revolt from the obedience which they owe unto their sovereign prince, & ministreth matter of great troubles in Commonwealths. Of which their opinion, there is neither reason nor ground except the king be captive, furious [insane], or in his infancy, and so needeth to have a protector or lieutenant appointed him by the suffrages of the people. For otherwise if the king should be subject unto the assemblies and decrees of the people, he should neither be king nor sovereign; and the Commonwealth neither realm nor monarchy, but a mere Aristocracy of many lords in power equal.”

Source: Jean Bodin, Of the lawes and customes of a common-wealth. Learnedly discoursing of the power of soveraignety and majestracy [sic], and of the orders and degrees of citizens, with the priviledges of corporations and colledges: and other things pertinent to estates and societies. / Written by I. Bodin . . . Out of the French and Latin copies, done into English, by Richard Knolles, author of the Turkish history . . . , London: Printed by A[dam].I[slip]. and are to bee sold at the signe of the Bell in Saint Pauls Church-yard, 1606, 95.

Questions to Consider