Poynet thus assailed in his own exile, enacted the celebrated homily against rebellion, which denounces every pretext of resistance to governors. It rarely happens that any parties, even the best and purest, will, in the strife to retain or recover their ascendency, weaken themselves by a scrupulous examination of the reasoning or the testimony which is to serve their purpose. Those have lived and read to little advantage who have not discovered this. Similar tenets among 32. It might appear that there was some peculiar association between these popular theories of resistance the Leaguers. and the Protestant faith. Perhaps, in truth, they had a degree of natural connexion; but circumstances, more than general principles, affect the opinions of mankind. The rebellion of the League against Henry III., their determination not to acknowledge Henry IV., reversed the state of parties, and displayed, in an opposite quarter, the republican notions of Languet and Buchanan as fierce and as unlimited as any Protestants had maintained them. Henry of Bourbon could only rely upon his legitimate descent, upon the indefeasible rights of inheritance. If France was to choose for herself, France demanded a Catholic king; all the topics of democracy were thrown into that scale; and, in fact, it is well known that Henry had no prospect whatever of success but by means of a conversion, which, though not bearing much semblance of sincerity, the nation thought fit to accept. But during that struggle of a few years we find, among other writings of less moment, one ascribed by some to Rose, Bishop of Senlis, a strenuous partisan of the League, which may perhaps deserve to arrest our attention.* 33. This book, De Justa Reipublicæ Christianæ in Reges Potestate, published in 1590, must have been partly * The author calls himself Rossæus, and not, as has been asserted, bishop of Senlis. But Pits attributes this book to Rainolds (brother of the more celebrated Dr. John Rainolds), who is said to have called himself Rossæus. The Biographie Universelle (art. Rose) says this opinion has not gained ground; but it is certainly favoured by M. Barbier in the Dictionnaire des Anonymes, and some grounds for it are alleged. From internal evidence it seems rather the work of a Frenchman than a foreigner; but I have not paid much attention to so unimportant a question. Jugler, in his Historia Literaria, c. 9, does not even name Rose. By a passage in Schelhorn, viii. 465, the book seems to have been sometimes ascribed to Genebrard.-[Herbert names Rainolds as the author, and says that it is supposed to have been printed at Edinburgh; but I cannot think this at all probable.— 1842.] Authority of States over written before the death of Henry III. in the preceding year. He begins with the origin of human society, Rose on the which he treats with some eloquence, and on the Christian principle of an election of magistrates by the com- Kings. munity, that they might live peaceably, and in enjoyment of their possessions. The different forms and limitations of government have sprung from the choice of the people, except where they have been imposed by conquest. He exhibits many instances of this variety: but there are two dangers, one of limiting too much the power of kings, and letting the populace change the dynasty at their pleasure; the other, that of ascribing a sort of divinity to kings, and taking from the nation all the power of restraining them in whatever crimes they may commit. The Scottish Calvinists are an instance of the first error; the modern advocates of the house of Valois of the other. The servile language of those who preach passive obedience has encouraged not only the worst Roman emperors, but such tyrants as Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Elizabeth of England. 34. The author goes, in the second chapter, more fully into a refutation of this doctrine, as contrary to the practice of ancient nations, who always deposed tyrants, to the principles of Christianity, and to the constitution of European communities, whose kings are admitted under an oath to keep the laws and to reign justly. The subject's oath of allegiance does not bind him, unless the king observe what is stipulated from him; and this right of withdrawing obedience from wicked kings is at the bottom of all the public law of Europe. It is also sanctioned by the church. Still more has the nation a right to impose laws and limitations on kings, who have certainly no superiority to the law, so that they can transgress it at pleasure. 35. In the third chapter he inquires who is a tyrant; and, after a long discussion, comes to this result, that a tyrant is one who despoils his subjects of their possessions, or offends public decency by immoral life, but above all, who assails the Christian faith, and uses his authority to render his subjects heretical. All these characters are found in Henry of Valois. He then urges, in the two following chapters, that all Protestantism is worse than Paganism, inasmuch as it holds out less inducement to a virtuous life, but that Calvinism is much the worst form of the Protestant heresy. The Huguenots, he proceeds to prove, are neither parts of the French church nor commonwealth. He infers, in the seventh chapter, that the king of Navarre, being a heretic of this description, is not fit to rule over Christians. The remainder of the book is designed to show that every king, being schismatic or heretical, may be deposed by the pope, of which he brings many examples; nor has any one deserved this sentence more than Henry of Navarre. It has always been held lawful that an heretical king should be warred upon by his own subjects and by all Christian sovereigns; and he maintains that a real tyrant, who, after being deposed by the wiser part of his subjects, attempts to preserve his power by force, may be put to death by any private person. He adds that Julian was probably killed by a Christian soldier, and quotes several fathers and ecclesiastical historians who justify and commend the act. He concludes by exhorting the nobility and other orders of France, since Henry is a relapsed heretic, who is not to be believed for any oaths he may make, to rally round their Catholic king, Charles of Bourbon. Treatise of Boucher in the same 36. The principles of Rose, if he were truly the author, both as to rebellion and tyrannicide, belonged naturally to those who took up arms against spirit. Henry III., and who applauded his assassin. They were adopted, and perhaps extended, by Boucher, a leaguer still more furious, if possible, than Rose himself, in a book published in 1589, De Justa Henrici III. Abdicatione a Francorum Regno. This book is written in the spirit of Languet, asserting the general right of the people to depose tyrants, rather than confining it to the case of heresy. The deposing power of the pope, consequently, does not come much into question. He was answered, as well as other writers of the same tenets, by a Scottish Catholic residing at Paris, William Barclay, by Barclay. father of the more celebrated author of the Argenis, in a treatise "De Regno et Regali Potestate adversus Buchananum, Brutum, Boucherum et Reliquos Monarchomachos," 1600. Barclay argues on the principles current in France, that the king has no superior in temporals; that the people are bound in all cases to obey him; that Answered the laws owe their validity to his will. The settlement of France by the submission of the League on the one hand, and by the Edict of Nantes on the other, naturally put a stop to the discussion of questions which, theoretical and universal as they might seem, would never have been brought forward but through the stimulating influence of immediate circumstances. adopt these 37. But while the war was yet raging, and the fate of the Catholic religion seemed to hang upon its The Jesuits success, many of the Jesuits had been strenuous tenets. advocates of the tyrannicidal doctrine; and the strong spirit of party attachment in that order renders it hardly uncandid to reckon among its general tenets whatever was taught by its most conspicuous members. The boldest and most celebrated assertion of these maxims was by Mariana, in a book, De Rege et Regis Institu- Mariana, tione. The first edition of this remarkable book, De Rege. and which is of considerable scarcity, was published at Toledo in 1599, dedicated to Philip III., and sanctioned with more than an approbation, with a warm eulogy, by the censor (one of the same order, it may be observed), who by the king's authority had perused the manuscript. It is, however, not such as in an absolute monarchy we should expect to find countenance. Mariana, after inquiring what is the best form of government, and deciding for hereditary monarchy, but only on condition that the prince shall call the best citizens to his councils, and administer all affairs according to the advice of a senate, comes to show the difference between a king and a tyrant. His invectives against the latter prepare us for the sixth chapter, which is entitled, Whether it be lawful to overthrow a tyrant? He begins by a short sketch of the oppression of France under Henry III., which had provoked his assassination. Whether the act of James Clement, "the eternal glory of France, as most reckon him, were in itself warrantable, he admits to be a controverted question, stating the arguments on both sides, but placing last those in favour of the murder, to which he evidently leans. "These words, æternum Galliæ decus, are omitted in the subsequent editions, but as far as I have compared them there is very little other alteration; yet the first alone is in request. All philosophers and theologians, he says, agree that an usurper may be put to death by any one. But in the case of a lawful king, governing to the great injury of the commonwealth or of religion (for we ought to endure his vices so long as they do not reach an intolerable height), he thinks that the states of the realm should admonish him, and on his neglect to reform his life, may take up arms, and put to death a prince whom they have declared to be a public enemy; and any private man may do the same. He concludes, therefore, that it is only a question of fact who is a tyrant, but not one of right, whether a tyrant may be killed. Nor does this maxim give a licence to attempts on the lives of good princes; since it can never be applied till wise and experienced men have conspired with the public voice in declaring the prince's tyranny. "It is a wholesome thing," he proceeds, "that sovereigns should be convinced that, if they oppress the state, and become intolerable by their wickedness, their assassination will not only be lawful but glorious to the perpetrator. This language, whatever indignation it might excite against Mariana and his order, is merely what we have seen in Buchanan. 38. Mariana discusses afterwards the question, whether the power of the king or of the commonwealth be the greater; and after intimating the danger of giving offence, and the difficulty of removing the blemishes which have become inveterate by time (with allusion, doubtless, to the change of the Spanish constitution under Charles and Philip), declares in strong terms for limiting the royal power by laws. In Spain, he asserts, the king cannot impose taxes against the will of the people. "He may use his influence, he may offer rewards, sometimes he may threaten, he may solicit with promises and bribes (we will not say whether he may do this rightly), but if they refuse, he must give way; and it is the same with new laws, which require the sanction of the people. Nor could they preserve their right of deposing and putting to death a tyrant, if they had not retained the superior power to themselves when * Est salutaris cognitio, ut sit principibus persuasum, si rempublicam oppresserint, si vitiis et fœditate intolerandi erunt, ea conditione vivere, ut non jure tantum sed cum laude et gloria perire possint. p. 77. |