The Divine Right of Kings
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBRARY BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME OF THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND GIVEN IN 1 89 1 BY HENRY WILLIAMS SAGE " l«itoriwy 4rf^m^f M-t fg?yi? aoS^FIW-f^r^ JMl^g$*" M PRINTED IN U.S A. 1 ' *l^ e W- ! . i^'&fe, Cornell University Library JC389 .F47 1914 The divine right of kings 3 1924 030 444 693 olin The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924030444693 THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS BT THE SAME AUTHOR From Gerson to Grotius. Studies in Political Thought from 1414 to 1625. Oamb. TJniv. Press. 3*. 6d. English History illustrated from Original Sources, 1660—1714. 2nd edition. A. & C. Black. 2s. net. Churches in the Modern State. Longmans, Green & Co. 4s. 6d. net. Christianity and History. Finch, 1905. 2s. net. The Gospel and Human Needs. Sixth Impression. Longmans, Green & Co. 4s. 6d. net. Popular Edition. 6d. Civilisation at the Cross Roads. Third Impression. Longmans, Green & Co. 5s. net. Anti-Christ and other Sermons. Longmans, Green & Co. 5s. net. Religion and English Society. Fourth Impression. Longmans, Green & Co. Cloth 2s. Paper Is. : THE DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS BY JOHN NEVILLE FIGGIS, OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE RESURRECTION, LITT.D., HON. D.D. GLASGOW, HON. FELLOW OF S. CATHARINE'S COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE SECOND EDITION WITH THREE ADDITIONAL ESSAYS Cambridge at the University Press 1914 -•<•"&'*& &$" \ A. W To ^ 1 CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS fLoitBDIi: FETTEB LANE, E.C. C. F. CLAT, Manaoeb ffiSiniuraii: 100, PRINCE^ STREET Berlin : A. ASHER AND CO. Eeipjtg: F. A. BROCKHAUS #«fo lorft : G. P. PtFTNAM'S SONS aSoraSBj Btiti Calcutta: MACMILLAN AND CO., Ltd. Eoianto: J. M. DBNT AND SONS, Ltd. Eofcno: THE MARUZEN-KABUSHIKI-KAISHA First Edition 1896 Second Edition 1914 All rights reserved TO THE MEMORY OF EDWARD HENRY MOULE PEEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION SINCE this book first appeared, much water has flowed under the bridge. Yet I have left the essay very much as it was in 1896; not at all because I am satisfied with what I wrote then. However, to write a new book on this topic is not now possible; and it seemed better to make no changes, beyond what were absolutely essential. Historically the chief defect of the book is the absence of any account of Luther's influence. This I tried to remedy in an essay on 'Luther and ; 1 Machiavelli ' in From Gerson to Grotius . The early__ matter is also very incomplete^jjndjbhe-yeader may be referred 16 Lhe chapters m JIr-Carlyle^s-ffiifforff of Political Theoryin the West, which deal with the doctrines^ of QDedifince_,.and ..non-resistance in the early church. Secondly. T wrnte t,h*> pagon-aw-Prae. byterianism without understanding how deeply its 1 I take this opportunity of repeating that in the passages on the Jesuits, there is in that book a grave error: I 'followed a multitude to do evil ' ; and interpreted a certain idiom in their constitutions, as though it meant an order to commit sin. It meant nothing of the kind. vili PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION i: exponents (at least from the days of Cartwright and of , Andrew Melville) were imbued with the doctrine ithe two kingdomS;__Light on this may be afforded by the lecture on Jus Divinum in 1646, which was delivered last May in the University of Leeds and is printed as an additional Essay. Mainly, however, the historical account stands as before, and needed little change, although it might easily have been expanded. It is different with the political structure. On the theory of sovereignty and the relation of small groups to the State, and the notion of a ' higher law,' the opinions of the author have undergone much change; nor has he all in vain heard the wisdom of masters like Acton and Maitland or read the great work of Gierke. It was difficult to know what to do with Chapter IX., but I have changed little; and present views can be seen in the lecture above mentioned, and also in the paper, which follows it, on Bartolus. I have developed them still further in a recent work on Churches in the Modern State. The last paragraph of the original essay is also expunged, since on the matter of modern capitalism both views and sym- pathies are changed. The paper on Bartolus was delivered in 1905 to the Royal Historical Society, and it appears in the Transactions of that body, from which it is reprinted by permission. Also, I have to thank the proprietors of the Journal of Theological Studies for allowing me to reprint the article on Erastus and Erastianism, PKEPACE TO THE SECOND EDITION IX which appeared in 1900. It shares with the main body of the book the defect of being written beneath the shadow of the Austinian idol. All this makes a lame defence. But a new edition was called for; and I have done the best I could. I must not conclude this preface, without ex- pressing my warm thanks to my friend, Mr C. N. Sidney-Woolf, Fellow of Trinity College. He has not only read through the proof sheets, but has been good enough to make the Index. It is an added pleasure to me to feel that this office has been performed by the man who took to heart the writer's expressed wish, and has given us a study of 1 Bartolus , at once profound and sympathetic which illuminates for all a very obscure region of the history of medieval thought. J. NEVILLE FIGGIS. House of the Restorection, MlBFIELD. December 3, 1913. 1 Bartolus of Sattoferrato, by C. N. Sidney-Woolf, Cambridge University Press, 1914. PREFACE HAVE to thank the Adjudicators of the Prince I Consort Prize for their kindness in permitting me very much to expand, and entirely to rewrite, my dissertation of four years ago. To the late Professor Seeley in particular was due the suggestion, that I should investigate French political theories in the sixteenth century and endeavour to discover their bearing on English thought. Even so, I am sensible of the extreme inadequacy of this sketch. Within any reasonable time it would be impossible to arrive at a complete account of a doctrine, which has relation to every political theory from medieval to modern times. At some future date, it may be within my power to attempt a fuller account of the develop- ments which political theory has undergone since the later Middle Ages. This little essay is at most a preliminary survey of the ground, and can lay claim to neither finality nor completeness. With the view of fixing attention, so far as possible, on .the main subject, I have avoided discussing in any '•detail the origin and development of the rival 'theories, such as the original compact and popular PREFACE XI sovereignty. On the other hand I have endeavoured in many cases to give the means of verification of statements as to the true nature and purpose of the doctrines discussed, by putting into footnotes a few of the more striking utterances of all parties. Lest however the notes should be unduly heavy, I have collected into an Appendix a small number of passages illustrating the points which Chapters VIII. and IX. are intended to elucidate. To Mr R. A. Nicholson of Trinity College, for his kindness in going through the whole book and drawing up the list of Errata, and to other friends, for help and suggestions, while the sheets were passing the press, I tender my grateful thanks. J. N. F. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PASS I. Introductory 1 II. Early Ideas of Kingship .... 17 III. The Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy 38 IV. Wyclifpe and King Richard II. 66 V. Kingship in England prom Henry IV. to Elizabeth 81 VI. Henry op Navarre and the Salic Law . 107 VII. From James I. to the Jacobites . 137 VIII. Passive Obedience and the Chcrch op England 177 IX. Non-Resistance and the Theory op Sove- reignty 219 X. Conclusion 256 Aaron's Ron Blossoming or Jus Divimm in 16^6 . 267 Erastus and Erastianism 293 Bartolus and the Development op European Political Ideas .... 343 Appendix A. Extracts prom Statutes relating to the Succession . 373 „ B. Extracts illustrative op points discussed in Chapters VIII. and IX 377 Index 402 CHAPTEE I INTRODUCTORY A modern essayist has said with truth, that The " never has there been a doctrine better written ^^"4 against than the Divine Right of Kings 1 ." But Right of those, who have exhausted their powers of satire commonly in pouring scorn upon the theory, have commonly condemned been at little pains to understand it. That the doctrine is absurd, when judged from the stand- point of modern political thought, is a statement that requires neither proof nor exposition. But the modern standpoint is not the only one, and the absurdity of the doctrine in our eyes is the least interesting or important fact about it, except as driving us to seek further for its real meaning and value. Nor is " The Divine Right of Kings " But of its differentiated by reason absurdity from other theories of political theories of the seventeenth century. The '** time rival doctrine of an original compact was no whit absurd. less ridiculous in theory, and (if we consider its 1 Gairdner and Spedding, Studies in English History, 245. Cf. also Mr Gairdner's remarks in the preface to Letters and Papers Illustrative of the Reigns of Richard III.