issue on which the feuds of the nobles could be fought out, and it produced its perfect result in the reign of James's son.

More intimately connected than the affairs of Scotland with the general movement of events was the desperate conflict in the Netherlands by which the United Provinces established their independence of Spain. Here, too, the origin of the trouble was rather political than religious. Philip II introduced into the Netherlands the autocratic administrative methods which he employed in Spain. They were in most pronounced conflict with various rights and privileges secured to the different provinces by longstanding charters, and to this grievance was added the fact that the ancient native aristocracy was dis placed in influence by Spanish officials. Very prominent in the new policy of Philip was the greatly increased activity of the Inquisition. Calvinism had become strong in the Netherlands, especially among the lower classes of the people. Under Charles V the punishment of heretics1 had been systematically carried on, and the number of persons executed had reached very great proportions; but there had been no tendency to resistance among the victims. Now, however, the announced purpose of Philip to extirpate the heretics and the fear that the summary and drastic methods of the Spanish procedure were to be

1 The suppression of the Anabaptists in Westphalia caused a great influx of these fanatics into the Netherlands, and the victims of the Inquisition at this time included many of these fugitives and many natives who had imbibed their doctrines.

THE DUTCH REPUBLIC

45

introduced, caused a serious agitation among the lower classes, and brought them into harmony with the bourgeoisie and nobility, whose grievances were of a primarily political character. In the early years of the reign the hostility to the new régime was expressed in animated protests by the aristocracy and in a number of popular tumults. Philip's response was the despatch of the Duke of Alva with a Spanish army to govern the disaffected region. The result of Alva's ruthless policy was that sporadic murmuring and riots became systematic insurrection, headed by William of Orange and supported by all the Protestant especially the Calvinistic— - powers of Europe. From the outset the limits of the rebellion were pretty clearly marked by the predominance of the Reformed faith, and in the various phases of the long struggle the decisive obstacle to a reconciliation proved to be the invincible resolution of the king never to tolerate the Protestant faith and worship. Accordingly the final repudiation of Philip's authority in 1581 was carried out by the northern provinces only, where the population had very generally accepted the doctrines of Protestantism, and the Dutch Republic entered upon its career through a clean-cut application of the theory that denial of religious liberty constituted such tyranny as justified the deposition of the tyrant.

Thus before the end of the sixteenth century the creed of Luther and Calvin, despite the pacific teachings of the Reformers themselves, had by force of circumstances become a decisive factor in the political

transformation of the chief powers of Europe. Protestantism in consequence assumed a militant aspect, and out of the turmoil theories of Christian duty in the state were developed that bore little resemblance to the ancient ideal of passive submission to established authority. To explain the proceedings and the triumphs of the French, the Scottish and the Dutch Calvinists, a thorough and aggressive overhauling of political dogma was required. Some of the chief works by which this was effected must now receive our attention.

2. The Vindicia contra Tyrannos

The controversial literature which was produced in France by the religious wars included many violent anti-monarchic works by Catholic as well as by Protestant writers. The latter found their chief inspiration in the affair of St. Bartholomew's, the former in the abandonment of the League and the assassination of the Guises by Henry III. So far, however, as philosophical foundation and general principles were concerned, the Catholic and the Protestant debaters were substantially on common ground. Both alike justified resistance to a French king on the general principle that under certain circumstances a king became a tyrant and hence an outlaw, and on the particular principle that under the French constitution the monarch was subject to pretty well defined limitations. Among the earliest and most influential demonstrations of both these principles were the two Huguenot works: Franco-Gallia, by the distinguished

HOTMAN'S FRANCO-GALLIA

47

jurist, Francis Hotman, and Vindicia contra Tyrannos, published under the pseudonym of Stephanus Junius Brutus and written probably by either Hubert Languet or Duplessis-Mornay. To these works, and especially the latter, our attention may be confined.1

The Franco-Gallia, published in 1573,2 limited itself practically to the demonstration that France was never, in its constitutional origins, an absolute monarchy; but that, on the contrary, a general assembly of the nation had exercised the highest political powers throughout the early history of the Franks, and during the Merovingian, the Carolingian and the later periods. Hotman's historical erudition was very great, and he massed with powerful effect the quotations that he gathered from the ancient chronicles to show that kings were chosen and deposed, legislation was enacted, and all the most important political business was transacted in the annual public council of the Franco-Gallican state. But the work did not go into the field of general political theory and affected the development of that system of thought only by suggesting and illustrating the applicability of the historical method to the questions

at issue.

Of an entirely different character was the Vindicia contra Tyrannos, or The Grounds of Rights against

1 Prominent among the Catholic anti-monarchic works in France were: Boucher, De justa Henrici III abdicatione; Rossæus, De justa reipublicæ Christianæ in Reges impios et hæreticos auctoritate. See Janet, Histoire de la science politique, II, 82 et seq.; Treumann, Die Monarchomachen; Hallam, Literature of Europe, Vol. II, chap. iv.

2 I have used an English translation published in London, 1738.

Tyrants.1 This embodied a most comprehensive treatment of the foundation of monarchic authority, and presented from the Protestant point of view a doctrine which radically transformed the attitude that had been taken under the instruction of the leading Reformers. The work is systematic as well as comprehensive, and the style exhibits that same glowing quality which marked the expression in St. Bernard, some centuries earlier, of the best traits of the Gallic temperament through the medium of the Latin language exquisitely handled.

The Vindicia answers four questions, of which the first is Whether subjects are bound to obey a prince who enjoins what is contrary to the law of God. To this a negative answer is obvious, based on the positive injunction of the Scriptures, on the incidents of the procedure through which Saul was set up as king over Israel, and, incidentally, on the analogy of the feudal relationship, under which a vassal is bound to obey the superior rather than the inferior lord in case their commands are in conflict. This answer is not different from that which had been given by Luther and Calvin.

2

The second question is not of the right to disobey, but of the right to resist: Whether it is lawful,

1 Published in Latin in 1579 and often thereafter. I have used the edition of 1595, annexed to a Latin version of Machiavelli's Prince.

...

2" Reges omnes Dei vassallos esse, omnino statuendum est. . . Si Deus est domini superioris loco, rex vassalli, quis non domino potius quam vassallo obediendum pronunciet? Si Deus hoc præcipit, rex contra, quis regi adversus Deum obsequium denegantem rebellem judicet? . . . ergo non modo non tenemur obedire regi, contra legem Dei quid imperanti, verum etiam si obediamus, rebelles sumus."