in later

hashed up in the interests of the Puritan party in Use made 1647; but had the fortune to be reprinted by the of the book supporters of the Exclusion Bill as the best com- times. pendium of arguments against the doctrine of inherent right1. It was strange that a work written to exclude a Protestant prince from the throne of England should have exercised its most effectual influence in all but causing the exclusion of a Papist 2.

Roman

strong

From this time forth anti-papal writers will feel Antibound to attack the notions of popular sovereignty writers put forward by the great Jesuit controversialists henceforth in order to serve the occasion. Doleman, Bellar- supporters mine and Suarez are the bêtes noires of Anglican of absolute monarchy. divines. Against them as the preachers of resistance and inventors of the theory of original compact the heavy artillery of the royalist pamphleteers is always directed. The attempt of the Jesuits

1 Halifax charges the author of the History of the Succession with plagiarism from Doleman, from whom he asserts all his arguments to have been drawn.

2 Cardinal Allen's Defence of the English Catholics is based upon a similar theory of popular rights to that of Parsons. The purpose of the book, however, is to justify the deposing power, and the succession is not discussed. Yet Allen's insistence on the importance of the coronation ceremony as conferring rights upon the Pope is interesting. Once more it is in the necessities of Papalist controversy that originates the theory that the coronation oath proves the existence of a compact between king and people. "Upon these conditions [the oath to preserve the Catholic faith] therefore, and no other, kings be received of the Bishop that in God's behalf anointeth them; which oath and promise not being observed, they break with God and their people; and their people may, and by order of Christ's supreme minister their chief Pastor in earth, must needs break with them; heresy and infidelity in the Prince tending directly to the perdition of the Commonwealth" (115).

cir. 1600.

to manufacture anti-monarchical sentiment in the interests of the Papal claims could only have as its main result the effect of causing orthodox English churchmen to attach an increased value to kingship and to emphasize the peculiar importance of hereditary succession.

Heywood's Royal King and Loyal Subject1 reaches perhaps the high-water mark of sixteenth century loyalism. The plot and general development of this play have no other object than that of illustrating the virtue of absolute obedience under oppressive and tyrannical treatment. To the King of England is attributed arbitrary and unlimited authority. Loyalty could hardly go further than the unbroken submission of the Earl Marshal, nor could caprice ever make more unreasonable demands, than the King in this play. The author evidently wrote his work with the one aim of inculcating this lesson of royal omnipotence and perfect obedience. Nor is the play evidence of Heywood's sentiments only; its success testifies to those of his audience. Assuredly no other motive but that of loyalty could have led to such a play being 'acted with applause,' as we are told that it was. Despite the recent panegyric on the author by a republican critic2, it may be questioned whether this production is not too deficient in dramatic power and poetic interest to have afforded pleasure to an audience that

1 For the probable date of the play see J. Payne Collier in Introduction (p. vi) to the reprint by the Shakespeare Society.

2 Mr Swinburne in Nineteenth Century, Oct. 1895 (400), The Romantic and Contemporary Plays of Thomas Heywood. It is fair to say that The Royal King is not placed on a level with most of the author's works.

was not steeped in royalist sentiment. Of The Maid's Tragedy, which was a little later, the same cannot be said. Yet it also proves how strong was the popular belief in the mystical nature of kingship and in its claims to unquestioning obedience.

Thus, then, it appears that by the close of the sixteenth century events have done much to strengthen the monarchy, and to generate notions of its Divine institution; and that there has been elaborated a theory of the unlimited jurisdiction of the Crown and of non-resistance upon any pretence, which will not be brought to the test of popular criticism until the next century. These notions have all arisen out of the necessities of the struggle with the Papacy, although the Civil Wars of the previous age have doubtless produced by way of reaction a sense of the necessity of securing strong government and universal obedience to the law. English controversialists, in answering the theory of the Papal supremacy, were driven to propound a doctrine of the Divine Right of secular governments, which is in its essential meaning no other than the Imperialist theory of two centuries and a half before. To the Empire ancient and mediæval they go for the historical justification of their position, and for the rest build up their argument with texts and illustrations from Scripture. Theories of inherent rights of birth as governing the succession are latent rather than expressed. But the sentiment in favour of indefeasible hereditary right has been steadily growing, and will appear triumphant, so soon as England's Empress" shall have left the way free for a successor, reigning by right of birth alone.

Similarity of political

controversy in England and France.

752.

CHAPTER VI.

HENRY OF NAVARRE AND THE SALIC LAW.

THE political and religious questions which occupied the minds of Englishmen in the seventeenth century find their counterpart in controversies evoked during the French Wars of Religion'. In the theories of Huguenots, Lorrainers and Politiques appear most of the ideas, of which we hear so much in England a little later. France indeed was a soil peculiarly suited to the development both of regal and papal theories. From the position of the king, as eldest son of the Church, men might demonstrate his subjection to the Pope. The deposition of Childeric by Pope Zacharias was the earliest exercise of the deposing power, and was alleged by the supporters of the league against both Henry III. and Henry IV. as conclusive proof, that this power had been recognized in the past. In no other country is the connection of politics and theology more intimate and vital. Of pure politics there is even less than there is in England in the next century. Political theory is never developed, save with the object of strengthening some theological position.

The pretensions of the Huguenots to be taking up arms against their prince by the authority of God

1 On this point and the position of Henry IV. see the remarks in Seeley's Growth of British Policy, 1. 68.

exemplify the fact, more patent later in Scotland and England, that the Presbyterian and the Papal theories of politics are at bottom identical. The essence of both is the claim put forward by an ecclesiastical organization to control and direct the action of the State. Huguenot Preachers and Presbyterian Disciplinarians are like their Papalist enemies in this, that they would place the secular power under the heel of the spiritual, or else would claim the exercise of sovereign rights for a portion of the community. It was as a danger to the State, claiming for themselves an imperium in imperio, that the Huguenots as a political power were finally crushed by Richelieu, while religious liberty was preserved to them.

Again, in the position assumed by the League with regard to Henry III., there is much that is parallel to the relation between Charles I. and the Long Parliament. Henry is lawful king; no one doubts it. Yet he must be restrained and coerced by force of arms in the interests of the Crown which he wears. The distinction between the personal and political authority of the Crown first arose, as has been shewn, in England under Edward II., and will reappear during the Great Rebellion. But the conception of their office entertained by the ultraroyalist rebels of the League is precisely similar. They too claim to be taking up arms against the person of their king in support of his authority.

Lastly, the reign of Henry IV. is the supreme triumph of legitimism, and far outdoes in importance the accession of James I. to the English Crown. James I. had the sentiment of the whole English nation at his back; and the very few disloyal