King James I, who ruled Scotland as James VI before uniting the crowns of England and Scotland in 1603, introduced the Divine Right of Kings (DRK) as the foundation of his political philosophy. This doctrine provided a theological justification for absolute monarchical power when England’s political landscape was moving toward constitutional limitations. James’s assertion of this inherent, divinely granted authority profoundly shaped his interactions with English institutions during the early 17th century. The doctrine served as a practical tool to defend his actions against political opposition and enforce religious uniformity across his realms.
Defining Royal Authority
James I meticulously formulated his theories on kingship in his political treatise, The Trew Law of Free Monarchies, published in 1598. He argued that monarchs were established by God to rule over their subjects and were accountable only to the divine power that placed them on the throne. The text states that kings are “God’s lieutenants upon earth” and that they “sit upon God’s throne,” positioning the royal office as a sacred trust.
James employed three central analogies to illustrate the nature of his rule. He compared kings to “gods” on earth, exercising divine power with the authority to judge all without being judged themselves. He also likened the monarch to a father of a family (parens patriae), bound by a natural duty to care for his people. Finally, James compared the king to the head of the body politic, from which all direction and care for the body’s members flow, establishing a basis for absolute sovereignty and demanding unconditional obedience.
Justification for Political Rule
James I used the Divine Right of Kings to assert royal prerogative over the established legal and political traditions of England, leading to immediate tension with Parliament and the judiciary. He viewed the common law and its institutions as extensions of the king’s will, not as independent sources of authority that could limit his power. In his view, the laws were ultimately made by the king or his predecessors, meaning authority always flowed from the crown itself.
Conflict with the Law
The king explicitly stated that a monarch was “above the law.” While a good king would voluntarily follow the law for the sake of example, he was not bound to do so. This stance brought him into conflict with common law judges, such as Sir Edward Coke, who argued that the king was subject to the law. James countered by proclaiming that to question the limits of a king’s power was “sedition,” since royal authority was comparable to divine power, which could not be disputed.
Raising Revenue
The doctrine also provided a rationale for James I to seek revenue without the consent of the House of Commons. When merchant John Bate refused to pay a new customs duty, or “imposition,” James’s lawyers successfully argued the case in the courts. The ruling in Bate’s Case (1606) affirmed that the right to regulate trade and set these impositions was an inherent part of the royal prerogative. This victory allowed James to raise substantial funds outside of the Parliamentary grant system.
Challenging Parliament
The king’s initial years were marked by a dispute over an election in the Goodwin Case (1604), where James attempted to annul the election of a member of Parliament. When Parliament protested this infringement of its privileges, James aired his theory that their rights were not their own but were granted by him. This application of DRK illustrated his conviction that Parliament was merely a high court of the king and his vassals, rather than a co-equal branch of government.
Enforcing Religious Conformity
The Divine Right of Kings was applied to James I’s role as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, allowing him to enforce religious conformity. The king sought to maintain the church structure under strict monarchical rule and the authority of the bishops. He famously articulated his support for the episcopal hierarchy with the phrase, “No Bishop, No King,” asserting that the removal of bishops would inevitably lead to the destruction of the monarchy.
Suppressing Puritanism
This application was demonstrated at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where James rejected the demands of Puritan reformers who wished to simplify the church structure. To James, the Puritans’ desire for a Presbyterian model, which had challenged his authority in Scotland, was a direct assault on the divinely ordained structure of his government. By grounding his authority in God, religious non-conformity was recast as both political treason and spiritual rebellion.
Measures Against Catholics
Following the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, James used his divine mandate to justify severe measures against Catholics, including the imposition of the Oath of Allegiance in 1606. The oath required subjects to deny the Pope’s power to depose the king, serving as an explicit extension of James’s DRK theory into religious policy. Through these actions, James I demanded spiritual and political submission from all his subjects, consolidating his control over both the state and the church.