petitions that they at least recognised no mediate power between the king and the Almighty. If we were to judge their opinions by the language of some of their petitions, we might imagine that they were no less favourable to despotism than the Anglicans. But such a judgment would do them great injustice. No body of men ever exhibited a greater alacrity in resisting persecution by force, and, with a few exceptions, the general tone of their theology as of their policy was eminently favourable to liberty. Opinions on these subjects have so completely changed since the seventeenth century that the defence of the French Protestants is chiefly to be found in the writings of their adversaries; and, according to modern notions, it would be difficult to find a nobler eulogy than is implied in the accusation of one of the ablest of these, who declared that the general tendency of the Protestant writings was always to the effect that 'kings and subjects were reciprocally bound by contract to the performance of certain things in such a manner that if the sovereign failed to perform his promise the subjects were freed from their oath of

1 Many instances of this are collected by Bianchi (tom. i. pp. 4684), but the fullest account I have met with is in a very clever anonymous book (written from a strong Catholic point of view, and ascribed by some to an author named Pellison, and by others to Bayle), called Avis aux Refugiez sur leur prochain retour en France, par M. C. L. A. A. P. D. P. The condemnation of the book of Suarez was by a Synod of Tonneins, in 1614. On the other hand, on the extremely liberal views of Jurieu, who preceded both Sydney and Locke, see Michelet, Hist. de Louis XIV. pp. 431-436. The book in which Jurieu especially expressed them is his Soupirs de la France Esclave.

allegiance, and might engage themselves to new

masters.'

1

The opinions of the French Protestants on these points may be more easily ascertained from their actions than from their writings; and the right of resisting religious persecution was naturally more considered than the right of resisting political ty ranny. Jurieu strenuously asserted the first right; and although Saurin is said to have taken the opposite view, the numerous rebellions of the Protestants leave no doubt as to their general sentiments. The two most remarkable works bearing upon the secular aspect of the question that issued from this quarter were the Franco-Gallia' of Hotman, and the 'Vindiciae contra Tyrannos' of Junius Brutus.

Its

The first of these was published in 1573. author (who had escaped from France to Geneva at the time of the massacre of St. Bartholomew) was one of the most learned lawyers of the day, and the chief advocate of the Protestant view of some of the legal questions that arose about the succession of the crown.3 The Franco-Gallia' is an elaborate attempt to prove that the Crown of France is, by right, not hereditary but elective. The arguments Avis aux Refugiez, pp. 64, 65 (ed. 1692).

2 Michelet, Hist. de Louis XIV. (1860), p. 432.

3 The works of Hotman were collected in three large volumes, in 1600. After the Franco-Gallia the best known are the Brutum Fulmen, which was written on the occasion of the excommunication of the King of Navarre; and the Antitribonius, which was written in opposition to the revival of Roman legislation. Joseph Scaliger said he helped in the composition of the Franco-Gallia (Scaligerana, art. Hottomannus).

are drawn in part from general considerations about the origin of government, which Hotman attributed to the will of the people,' but chiefly from facts in French history. The writer also attempts to show, in an argument that was evidently directed against Catherine de' Medici, that the exclusion of women from the French throne implied, or at least strongly recommended, their exclusion from the regency, and that on every occasion in which they had exercised the supreme power disastrous consequences had ensued.2

A much more remarkable book was the 'Vindicia contra Tyrannos,' which was published about the same time as the Franco-Gallia,' and translated into French in 1581, and which, being written with much ability, exercised a very considerable influence. Some have ascribed it, but apparently without reason, to Hotman-others to Linguet or to Parquet. The author, whoever he may be, holds, like Hooker, that the regal authority is, in the first instance, derived from the people, but that notwithstanding this it is held by Divine right. From this consideration he argues that a king is bound by two pacts, on the observance of which his legitimacy depends-a pact to God that he will govern according to the divine law, and a pact to the people that he will govern according to their interests. A nation may resist by arms a sovereign

3

1 Franco-Gallia, lib. i. c. 9.

2 Lib. i. c. 24. So Knox: To promote a woman to beare rule is repugnant to nature, contumelie to God, a thing most contrarious to his reveled will and approved ordinance; and finallie it is the subversion of good order, of all equitie and justice.' (Monstrous Regiment of Women.)

3 Quæst. ii.

who has violated the Divine law, because the first of these pacts is then broken, and also because it is part of the Providential system that subjects should be punished for the crimes of their ruler, which implies that they are bound to prevent them.' This last proposition the author maintains at length from the Old Testament. Whenever the king violated the Divine command, some fearful chastisement was inflicted upon the nation, and the chief office of the prophets was to signalise these violations, and to urge the people to resistance. Every page of Jewish history bears witness to this, and at the present day the Jews are dispersed because their ancestors did not snatch Christ from the hands of Pilate. But it is impossible to go so far without advancing a step further; for if the Jewish precedent is to be applied, it is manifest the Divine law is violated not merely by the persecution of truth, but also by the toleration of error. No crime was more constantly denounced or more fiercely punished under the old Dispensation than religious tolerance. No fact is more legibly stamped upon the Jewish writings than that, in the opinion of their authors, a Jewish sovereign who permitted his people to practise unmolested the rites of an idolatry which they preferred was committing a sin. Nor does the author of the book we are considering shrink from the consequence. He quotes, as an applicable precedent, the conduct of the people who at the instigation of Elijah massacred the whole priesthood of Baal, and he main

1 Vindicia contra Tyrannos, p. 45 (ed. 1610).

tains that the toleration of an 'impious sacred rite' is a justifiable cause of rebellion.1

The question then arose in what manner this resistance was to be organised. And here the writer separates himself clearly from the school of Mariana, for he strongly denies the right of an individual to take the life of a persecutor by way of assassination, however favourable the people might be to the act. Resistance can only be authorised by a council representing the people. In all well-regulated countries a parliament or assembly of some kind exists which may be regarded as representative; and although each individual member is less than the king, the council, as a whole, is his superior, and the vote of the majority may depose him. When such a council does not exist it may be extemporised, but the elements should, if possible, be drawn from the aristocracy and the magistrates. Nor is it simply a nation that may thus withdraw its allegiance. The author, evidently with a view to the position of the French Protestants, adds that particular districts or cities, if the inhabitants desire it and if their magistrates consent, may likewise withdraw themselves from their allegiance, and may insist upon the maintenance among them of the worship they believe to be right, and the suppression of that which they believe to be wrong. The principles which were thus urged in favour of rebellion on religious grounds apply, with very little change, to rebellions that are

1 Vindicia, pp. 38-39, 60,

2 P. 45,

3 P. 60,