Johannes Althusius: Politica - Hubertlerch.com - HubertLerch.com

Althusius_0002
9/10/05 4:09 PM
point Althusius is making would seem to find support from historical incidents reported in the following book and chapter divisions
of the English translation by Thomas Johnes: I, 170 and 171; II, 57 and 59; III, 135; IV, 45.]
[49] De dominio regis, III, tit. 5.
[50] [This edict or constitution was issued in 1356. It fixed the method of holding elections and coronations in the Holy Roman
Empire, and assigned duties and privileges therein to specified electors.]
[51]
Chapter XXXVIII.
[52] The Kingdom and the Regal Power, IV, 10; VI.
[53]
[These examples from the Bible came originally from Junius Brutus, whom Barclay was attempting to refute along with
George Buchanan, Jean Boucher, “and other monarchomachs.” The passage in Brutus is the following: “Now seeing that the
people choose and establish their kings, it follows that the whole body of the people is above the king; for it is a thing most
evident, that he who is established by another, is accounted under him who has established him, and he who receives his
authority from another, is less than he from whom he derives his power. Potiphar the Egyptian sets Joseph over all his house;
Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel over the province of Babylon; Darius the six score governors over the kingdom. It is commonly said that
masters establish their servants, kings their officers. In like manner also, the people establish the king as administrator of the
commonwealth.” Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, quest. 3.
The nature of Barclay’s refutation of Brutus is to observe that “examples of this sort do not sufficiently suit the conclusion. … For
the examples plainly demonstrate that you mean this conclusion about those who constitute others under themselves, as Potiphar
Joseph, Nebuchadnezzar Daniel, and Darius prefects under himself. But your discussion before was about a king whom a people
set up, not indeed under itself, as Pharaoh or Potiphar set up Joseph, and the others that you mention, but plainly above itself
and promised that it would obey him. Have you ever learned that it has been handed down to memory that any nation set up a
king under itself?” Thus the significance of the four biblical passages that follow, which Barclay first produced and Althusius
reproduced. The Kingdom and the Regal Power, IV, 10.]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
Deuteronomy 17:14.
I Samuel 8:19.
I Samuel 10:19.
I Kings19:16.
[This right of resistance receives further definition and limitation in Chapter XXXVIII.]
[59]
[Althusius neglects to develop this idea at this point, but apparently had in mind his belief that while rulers change and are
mortal, the people is immortal. In a similar vein, Junius Brutus wrote that “The commonwealth never dies, although kings be
taken out of this life one after another: for as the continual running of the water gives the river a perpetual being, so the
alternative rotation of birth and death renders the people immortal.” Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, quest. 3.]
[60]
Digest II, 1, 14. [ “It is accepted in our system of justice that if anyone submits himself to the jurisdiction of someone of
inferior or equal rank, the latter can administer justice for and against him.” ]
[61]
Digest V, 8, 6. [ “Indeed, it is said that the son of a family can be the arbiter in a matter relating to his father, and it
seems proper to many that he can also be the judge.” ]
[62] Matthew Stephani, De jurisdictione, II, pt. 2, num. 3.
[63] Commentarii (Code III, 13).
[64] Conrad Lancellot, Templum omnium judicum, II.
[65] Theodore Beza, De divortiis et repudiis. [No other theologian is mentioned by Althusius in this connection.]
[66] The Kingdom and the Regal Power, IV, 25.
http://oll.libertyfund.org/Home3/EBook.php?recordID=0002
Page 79 of 132