France and Scotland.

government in the next century. It was translated into English and made a text-book at Cambridge. There is no question of the great effect of Bodin's writings upon those of Hobbes and Filmer and Leslie; and he is quoted by various other writers. There can hardly be any doubt, that the comparatively thorough understanding of the doctrine of sovereignty evinced by some of the least able among English writers was due to Bodin rather than to Hobbes, who was hated as an 'atheist' and despised as a believer in the original compact 1.

A further source of influence is to be found in the relations of France to Scotland. The close connection between the two countries led to the migration to France of some Scotch Catholics, who would look with unfriendly eyes at the attempts of the Presbyterian leaders to dominate the politics of their country, whether by deposing Mary Stuart or menacing her son. The theory of popular governApologia ment propounded by Buchanan was met by a reply from Blackwood, a Scotsman settled in France. Buchanan is again one of the chief objects of attack

pro Regibus.

1 It is worthy of note that Bodin in more than one place 、expresses himself in the strongest terms on the subject of the sovereignty being vested in the English king. In the coexistence of the privileges of the English Parliament and of the unlimited authority of the Crown, he finds evidence of his contention, that conciliar assemblies, whatever their power and antiquity, are no legal check upon the 'sovereign.' From Elizabeth's treatment of the House of Commons in respect to the succession he infers that Parliament has no real power to control the action of the Crown. La Republique, 1. 8, pp. 139 sqq. "La souueraineté appertient pour le tout sans diuision aus Roys d'Angleterre, et les estats n'y ont que voir."

in the De Regno of Barclay, another Gallicised Scot. De Regno. That Barclay should have announced upon the titlepage that his book was a reply to a Scotch Presbyterian, a Huguenot, and a French Papalist writer is evidence of the connection between the political ideas of France and Scotland. This book was dedicated to Henry IV. But Barclay never forgot that he was a Scotsman and that James I. needed to be defended in the exercise of his Divinely granted authority. Had it not been for the latter making it a condition that Barclay should renounce Catholicism, he would probably have returned to Scotland, there to find a new field for controversy in the sacred cause of monarchy'. But the influence of both Barclay and Blackwood upon the mind of James is unquestionable, and through this channel if no other they must have influenced English thought. Filmer, indeed, singles them out along with Heywood as his chief forerunners, and regards their utterances as a complete expression of the rights of kings. Barclay's treatise De Potestate Papae was translated into English in 1611, a proof that his influence was not confined to France. Thus there is a chain of connection between the English and French theories of Divine Right. French theory and practice must certainly have influenced these Scotch writers. They could hardly enter into the controversy against 'Brutus' or Boucher, without taking account of French writings in support of monarchy. Nor could Scotsmen, living in France, remain unaffected by what was going on around them and by the circum1 Dict. of Nat. Biog., III. 173.

Blackwood.

་

stances which led to a large body of French Catholics supporting the Divine right of Henry IV. There can be no doubt that the earlier struggles of Huguenots, Leaguers, and Politiques all contributed to the development of English political thought in the seventeenth century, whether in the direction of Divine Right or of the original compact.

Blackwood's two works, De Vinculo Religionis et Imperii and the Apologia pro Regibus, are instances of the double aspect of the theory. The former treatise was written in order to emphasize the connection between the true faith and the doctrine of non-resistance. Its first two parts published in 1575 are written to shew that Calvinism involves a theory of resistance and is therefore false. The book is a protest from a strong Roman Catholic against the clericalism of the Presbyterian system. Exactly as Anglican divines affirm the Papal claims to be heretical, because they tend to dissolve the bond between sovereign and subjects, so Blackwood contends that Calvinism is proved to be false by its teaching of resistance1. He complains that the new system takes away all freedom from states: whereas true religion is ever the support of government, and forbids resistance even to tyrants. The inference

1 "Religio quae semper hucusque regnorum conservatrix fuit, nunc temporum in reges armatur. Ex quo apparet veram non esse religionem, sed larvatam hypocrisim et perfidiam personâ religionis indutam, eo detestabiliorem, quo meliore se auctore jactitat." (De Vinculo, 261.)

2 "Quae, vestram fidem, conscientiae libertas quae in effraenam progressa licentiam, nihil imperio, nihil reipublicae, nihil mori

is that religion is the only security of States,-that there will be an end of law and order if false sects are permitted to exist. It is a sense of the political danger involved in toleration that prompts the author to write. The aim of most writers is to inculcate the religious duty of obedience, that of Blackwood is to assert the political necessity of persecution.

The third part of the book was not published until after the assassination of Henry IV. and is notable as containing a very strong condemnation of the League. The author is nearly heartbroken to think that any Catholic should have borrowed the maxims of Protestants. The interest of this treatise is great, for it affords complete justification for the manner in which Anglican divines identified Papist and Dissenting principles of governments. Blackwood makes the same identification from the opposite point of view. His argument is that no true Catholic can approve resistance, therefore all who profess to approve it in defence of the Catholic cause are in reality on the side of the Protestants. The Anglican view is that no true Protestant can approve resistance, and therefore that those Dissenters who allow it in the cause of Protestantism are Papists in disguise.

The Apologia pro Regibus is interesting in a different way. Whether or no it be out of compliment to the reputation of Buchanan, as a classical

bus, nihil legibus liberum reliquit?" (De Vinculo, 262.) "Jamne religione perfidiam velabant suam? At religio servat ac tuetur, non labefactat, non evertit imperia." (Ibid. 289.)

scholar, the inspiration of the book is largely classical'. Although Scripture is sometimes cited, the bulk of the illustrations and arguments are from classical history or philosophy. Appeals to Roman law are frequent and the secular tone of the whole is remarkable. Perhaps Blackwood thought that his former work said enough upon the religious side. Or it may be, that the cause lay in the position of the writer as a Roman Catholic defending against Presbyterian subjects a king who was known to be a heretic. The book is further interesting for its references to England, which to Blackwood as to Bodin, is a clear instance of undiluted absolutism. Certainly if the derided principle of a mixed monarchy were proved to have no force in England, it would hardly be thought to exist in France or Scotland. Blackwood, who is a strong Anglophobist, declares that neither in England nor certain other

1 Blackwood's position as at once a strong royalist and a devoted Papalist is remarkable. In the last part of the De Vinculo he extols the Pope's power, but avoids all reference to the deposition of Childeric or any disputed case; he is careful to confine himself to the perfectly harmless instances of royal reverence for the person of the holy Father. But in the Apologia pro Regibus his views come out more clearly. He cannot understand why Buchanan should object to the Pope doing what he approves in his own ministers. (121). The deposition of Childeric was done not at the bidding but with the consent of the Pope, and therefore implied no popular rights against the prince (p. 197). He ascribes sovereignty to the Pope and declares him to be as far superior to other monarchs as they are to their subjects. Yet he admits an ultimate power in the council to depose for heresy. But since this power is never exercised save in cases of Papal heresy, no inference of popular sovereignty can be drawn from it. The people are no judge of truth (201-4).