1640 DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGS. 145 of the obedience due to kings. "The most high and sacred order of kings," it was declared in a canon ordered to be read in churches four times in every year, "is of Divine right." It was founded in the prime laws of nature, and clearly established by express texts both of the Old and New Testaments, that God had Himself given authority to kings over all persons ecclesiastical or civil. Therefore it was treasonable against God, as well as against the King, to maintain any independent coactive power either papal or popular,' whilst 'for subjects to bear arms against their kings, offensive or defensive, upon any pretence whatsoever,' was 'at the least to resist the powers which are ordained of God,' and such as resisted would 'receive to themselves damnation.' of the language used. In this language there was nothing new. It had been used in the sixteenth century to attack the claims of the Pope. It would New import be used again in the latter half of the seventeenth century to attack the claims of the Presbyterians. Where Laud erred was in failing to see that an argument always derives its practical force from the mental condition of those to whom it is addressed. The Divine right of kings had been a popular theory when it coincided with a suppressed assertion of the Divine right of the nation. Henry VIII. and Elizabeth had prospered, not because their thrones were established by the decree of Heaven, but because they stood up for the national independence against foreign authority. Charles and Laud had placed themselves outside the national conscience, and their Divine right of kings was held up to the mockery of those to whom their assertions were addressed. Nowhere was Laud's feeble grasp on the realities of life shown more than in the clause relating to taxation. It was the The question duty of subjects to give 'tribute and custom, and aid of taxation. and subsidy, and all manner of necessary support and supply' to kings, 'for the public defence, care, and protection of them.' Subjects, on the other hand, had 'not only possession of, but a true and just right, title, and property to and in all their goods and estates, and ought so to have.' A more innocuous proposition was never drawn up, if it implied that the subjects were to be the judges whether their money The etcetera was needed for the public defence. If, on the other hand, it implied that the King was to be the judge, it erected a despotism as arbitrary as that which existed in France. What was the bearing of such high-sounding platitudes on the question really at issue-whether an invasion of Scotland was or was not necessary for the public defence and protection of Englishmen? In one point at least the new canons directly imitated the Covenant. It was impossible that the effective force of the oath which bound Scotsmen together could have oath. escaped the eye of Laud. The Church of England, too, should have its oath, not enforced by lawless violence, but emanating from legitimate authority. "I, A. B.," so ran the formula, "do swear that I do approve the doctrine and discipline, or government, established in the Church of England, as containing all things necessary to salvation, and that I will not endeavour by myself or any other, directly or indirectly, to bring in Popish doctrine contrary to that which is so established, nor will I ever give my consent to alter the government of this Church by archbishops, bishops, deans, and archdeacons, &c., as it stands now established, and as by right it ought to stand, nor yet ever to subject it to the usurpations and superstitions of the See of Rome." Its unpopu larity. This oath, soon to be known to the world as the etcetera oath, was hardly likely to serve the purpose for which it was intended. The ridicule piled on the demand, that every clergyman, every master of arts who was not the son of a nobleman, all who had taken a degree in divinity, law, or physic, all registrars, actuaries, proctors, and schoolmasters, should swear to make no attempt to alter institutions, which the very framers of the formula omitted completely to specify, would have had little effect if the oath had in any way given expression to the popular sentiment. It is true that, even in this unlucky production, all was not amiss, and in these days we may contemplate with satisfaction the spirit which demanded no more than a general approval of the doctrine of the Church as containing all things necessary to salvation. After all, the main fault to be found with the oath is that it was intended to be imposed on those who did not want to take it ; 1640 LAUD AND GOODMAN. 147 whilst the Covenant, at least in its earlier days, was intended to bind together, in conscious unity, those who approved more or less zealously of its principles.1 The right of to sit. The very existence of this Convocation, after the dissolution of Parliament, was in itself a special offence. It accentuated the distinction, already sharp enough, between the Convocation laity and the clergy. The clergy, it seemed, were to form a legislature apart, making laws in ecclesiastical matters, and even laying down principles for the observance of Parliaments in such essentially secular matters as the grant of subsidies. No doubt it was the Tudor theory, that Cnovocation was dependent on the King and not on Parliament, just as it was the Tudor theory that the Royal supremacy in ecclesiastical matters was vested in the Crown antecedently to Parliamentary statutes. The time was now come when the sufficiency of these theories to meet the altered circumstances of the time would be rudely put to the test. Even in Convocation itself, the question was raised. Bishop Goodman of Gloucester, who had retained his bishopric in spite of his conversion to the Roman Catholic Church, May 29. Conduct of took umbrage at a canon directed at those professors Goodman. of his creed who were more honest than himself. 'He would be torn with wild horses,' he told Laud, 'before he would subscribe that canon.' When he reached the place of meeting his courage failed him. He fell back on a denial of the right of Convocation to make canons when Parliament was not sitting. Laud waved aside the objection and told him he was obliged to vote for or against the canons. On his refusal to do either, the Archbishop, with the consent of Convocation, suspended him from his office. In the end, Goodman gave way and signed the canons as they stood. As soon as the King heard what had passed he committed the Bishop to the Gatehouse, to answer for his offence in entering into communications with Rome whilst he remained a bishop of the English Church. Charles and Laud were, before all things, anxious to clear Canons, in Laud's Works, v. 607, Dissolution themselves from the stigma of friendliness to Rome. When Convocation was dissolved, on the 29th, the Archof Convoca- bishop protested that the King 'was so far from Popery that there was no man in England more ready to be a martyr for our religion than his Majesty.' tion. of Estates at In such a case protests could avail little. They could not call out the national enthusiasm, without which Charles's cause April. was hopeless. Of such enthusiasm there was no lack Convention in Scotland. A Convention of Estates, a kind of Edinburgh. informal Parliament, had sat in Edinburgh in April. It had taken every precaution against surprise. Lord Eglinton was directed to watch the coast from the Clyde to the English. border against the landing of the Irish army. Argyle was naturally entrusted with the defence of the Western Highlands. As in the preceding year the main difficulty lay in Aberdeen. On May 5 the Earl Marischal marched in, imposed a fine on the Royalist town, and enforced the signaAberdeen, ture of the Covenant.2 In Edinburgh, Ruthven had continued firing on the town from his impregnable Edinburgh position in the castle, and had killed some thirty of Castle. the inhabitants in the streets.3 An attempt was made to undermine his defences, but the rocks on which they were built were so hard that the project was soon abandoned. At sea Charles's cruisers were let loose on Scottish commerce, and a large number of vessels were brought as prizes into English harbours. May. Ruthven in The ap The Scottish Parliament had been prorogued to June 2. A decision would soon be taken upon the attitude proaching to be observed towards the King. No doubt could Edinburgh. be entertained what that decision would be. Every letter from the South brought confirmation of the belief that session at Laud's Works, iii. 287, vi. 539. 9. Sloane MSS. 1,467, fol. 117, 121. the Convocation of York. Spalding, i. 267. Rossingham's News-Letter, June 2, The Marquis of Douglas to Guthrie, May 21. Ernley to Conway, May 22. 75, 98. 1640 THE KING AND THE SCOTS. 149 England was not with Charles. It was openly said at Edinburgh, that as soon as Parliament met the castle would surrender, and 20,000 Scots would cross the border to support the demands which had been made by their commissioners. The King orders prorogation. In such a temper the Scots were not likely to respect the King's order for the prorogation of Parliament till the beginning of July, an order which, as they rightly judged, was only intended to gain time for the completion of the English military preparations. The Covenanting leaders consulted the principal divines and lawyers of their Opinions of party on the course to be pursued, and received the lawyers. assurance that Parliament might lawfully sit without the presence either of the King or of his Commissioner. They were even informed that a king who sold his country to a stranger, who deserted it for a foreign land, or who attacked it with an invading force, might lawfully be deposed.2 The King's deposition canvassed. 1 Burnet, 165. "The Scots Estates," wrote Dr. Burton, "did not admit the irresponsibility of the Sovereign. We have seen them bringing James III. to task, and the precedent was made all the more emphatic by the attempt of the lawyers of the seventeenth century to conceal it by mutilating the record in which it is set forth. The punishment of bad Sovereigns is a thing in which the literature of the country deals in a tone evidently directed towards practice. We find the Estates of Scotland dealing with many things now deemed the peculiar function of the executive. They kept in their own hands the power of making peace and war. We shall find that at the time we have now reached," i.e. the first years of Mary Stuart, "a critical question was standing over, Whether the Crown had a veto on the acts of the Estates; in other words, Whether the consent of the Sovereign was necessary to an Act of Parliament, and down to the Union with England this question was not decided." Hist. of Scotl. iv. 93. 2 The evidence for this is a deposition by Sir T. Steward that Argyle had said in his presence that at Edinburgh it was agitatt.. whether or not ane Parliament might be holdane without the King or his Commissioner, and that a King might be depositt being found guilty of any of thir three: 1, Venditio; 2, Desertio; 3, Invasio.' Napier, Memorials of Montrose, i. 266. This seems to me credible in itself, and it is borne out by the deposition of John Stuart even before his recantation (ibid, i. 297, 299). It is evident, too, from the following phrase in a letter from John |