The Pa triarchal Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men""; the command to "render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar's"; Christ's words to Pilate "thou couldest have no power at all against me except it were given thee from above"; the behaviour of the primitive Christians; and above all the direct enjoining by both S. Peter and S. Paul of obedience to constituted authority, "The powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. And they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." "Ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience' sake." "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake-whether it be to the king as supreme, &c.5" The Patriarchal theory, the most unqualified form of the form of which Filmer and others profess to find theory not in Genesis, forms the basis of the most symmetrical form of the doctrine of Divine Right, but it is far from universal and there is no reason for regarding it as of the essence of the theory. essential to it. No importance Nor, again, does the sacramental character of unction play much part in the exposition of the 2 S. Luke xx. 25. 3 S. John xix. 11. 1 Daniel iv. 4 Rom. xiii. 1-7. It was held of great importance to maintain that Kplois meant damnation in the strict sense. There is a lengthy dissertation of Hammond to prove this single point. 5 1 Pet. ii. 13-17. A favourite argument to prove that kings are accountable to God alone is the text "Against thee only have I sinned” (Ps. li. 4). It is quoted by a French writer as having the authority of Otto of Freising, and is used by Leslie among others. to unction. divine authority of kings. Richard II. undoubtedly attached believed that unction conferred an indelible mark, and the notion of the sacredness of royal power, as compared with all other constituted authority, was certainly strengthened by this ancient ceremony1. But it plays, in the controversies of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, a quite different part. In France the supporters of the League are found arguing, that unction is necessary to make a king, and that Henry IV., who as a heretic cannot be anointed by the Archbishop of Rheims, can therefore never be truly king. In England, the writers on the popular side are continually pointing to the coronation oath as evidence of the theory of compact, and as limiting the royal authority. Hence both in France and England, the counter-assertion is common that unction is of no importance, and confers no special grace; that the king is king before his coronation as fully as he is after; and that resistance to an 'uncrowned' king is verily damnable. The phrase, "the Lord's Anointed," is merely common form for the sacred person of the 1 Shakespeare expresses the sentiment rather of Richard II. himself than of the believers in the Divine Right of Kings, in the famous lines: "Not all the water in the rude rough sea Can wash the balm from an anointed king." There can be no doubt that the notion of the sacred character conferred by unction was held by Richard, and that it long remained an element in popular feeling. But the exigencies of their position drove the supporters of the theory of Indefeasible Right to minimize the effect of unction. Any stress laid upon it tended to make the king a mere official, and to support the doctrine of the originally elective character of kingship. King and is used by writers who are far from attributing any sacramental character to the ceremony. Undoubtedly the ordinary view is that of a royalist divine, who declares in set terms that "Royal Unction confers no grace, but declares a just title only." Indeed no other view was really compatible with the notion of indefeasible hereditary right1. 1 The Royal Charter granted unto Kings, Chap. m. What is meant by the anointing of Kings. “Unxit in regem includes nothing but a due title, excludes nothing but usurpations; gives him the administration to govern, not the gift to govern well; the right of ruling, not of ruling right." "Anointing is a sacred signature betokening sovereignty, obedience to the throne, allegiance to the Crown." Usher after quoting David's sentence on the Amalekite for slaying the Lord's anointed goes on: "And this indeed must be the main foundation not only of the observance but also of all the other branches of that allegiance, which we do owe unto our Prince; that with the right which he hath obtained by Election or Succession here below we be careful to conjoin that unction which he hath received from above." (Power of the Prince, p. 125.) Clearly unction is regarded, as equivalent to God's institution of kings, not as a grace conferred by the sacrament of anointing. Cf. Coke on Calvin's Case. "Coronation is but a royal ornament and solemnization of the royal descent, but no part of the title." He goes on to quote the case of two seminary priests, who claimed that before his coronation it was not high treason to seize and imprison King James. This doctrine was of course condemned by the judges, who declared him to be as full king before coronation as after (7 Reports, 10 b). It is significant, that neither The Maid's Tragedy nor The Royal King and Loyal Subject, although each asserts most emphatically the sacred character of Kingship, contains the slightest hint that this character is acquired through unction. In France again, Servin writing on behalf of Henry IV. distinctly denies that unction has any significance, or is more than a pious ceremony. Blackwood indeed appears to take a different view: "An non quemadmodum sacerdotes sic et reges cum inaugurantur oleo id est divina quadam virtute inunguntur? Nam oleum, illud quo reges olim sacerdotes theory belongs to when theology closely Now a theory, such as that described, has plainly The as much relation to theology as to politics, and cannot be judged from the standpoint of an age, when the an age, two are sharply divided. Although something is heard politics at times of the importance of religious considerations and in regulating international politics or state-inter- were ference, yet no one now claims that politics is a connected. branch of theology. Men may appeal with more or less of sincerity to Christian sentiment as a factor in political controversy, but they have ceased to regard political theory as a part of Christian doctrine. The theory of the Divine Right of Kings belongs to an age in which not only religion but theology and politics were inextricably mingled, when even for utilitarian sentiments a religious basis must be found if they were to obtain acceptance. All men demanded The same some form of Divine authority for any theory of are emgovernment. There is hardly a hint that those ployed by who disbelieved in the Divine Right of Kings had of the any quarrel with the methods of their opponents. Until towards the close of the seventeenth century, the atmosphere of the supporters of popular rights is as theological as that of the upholders of the Divine Right of Kings. John Hall indeed brushes aside the Biblical illustrations and authorities of the royalists; but most are content to argue on just the same lines as their et prophetae perfundebantur, divinitatis symbolum erat ac veluti sacramentum" (Apologia pro Regibus, p. 15, cf. also De Vinculo Religionis et Imperii, pp. 232, 314). But this view is far less common than that given in the text. 1 The Grounds and Reasons of Monarchy prefixed to Harrington's Works, p. 8. methods opponents theory. opponents. They point out that Scripture has been misunderstood, that texts have been ignored which inculcate the right and duty of resistance, that the early Christians exhibited the virtue of Passive obedience merely because they could not help themselves. Even the original compact finds its biblical model in the 'law of the kingdom' laid down by Samuel. Towards the end of the seventeenth century, with Locke and Sidney and even the more able of the royalists, politics begin to pass into a more modern stage. But most writers, of whom Johnson the author of Julian the Apostate is a fair specimen, have hardly a notion, that political theory can be framed except on a theological basis, or proved save by the authority of the Bible. Writers on behalf either of unlimited obedience or popular rights, though they are undoubtedly impelled by a pressing sense of the utility of resistance or vice versa, yet seek by appealing to Scripture to establish their theory upon an immutable basis, and to base it upon transcendental grounds, of which no fresh view of what was merely expedient should ever destroy the force. To judge aright the political theories of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, we must not consider them from the standpoint of an age in which all political theory is confessedly utilitarian1; their true relations are to a time when theology and politics were closely united both in theory and practice. It is useless to demonstrate, what nobody doubts, that the theory of the Divine Right of Kings has 1 Professor Sidgwick (Elements of Politics 34) bears witness to the exclusively utilitarian character of modern politics. |