1. “Political Theory in the Later Middle Ages,” Camb. Med. Hist. (Cambridge, 1911–1936), VIII, 638Google Scholar.

2. For a recent account of the events which culminated in the Great Schism see Ullmann, W., Origins of the Great Schism (London, 1948)Google Scholar. For the canonist background see Tierney, Brian, Foundations of the Conciliar Theory: The Contribution of the Medieval Canonists from Gratian to the Great Schism (Cambridge, 1955)Google Scholar.

3. Ehler, Sidney Z. and Morrall, John B. (ed.), Church and State through the Centuries (Westminster, Md., 1954). p. 105Google Scholar.

4. Camb. Med. Hist., VIII, 638Google Scholar.

5. von Gierke, O., The Development of Political Theory, tr. Freyd, B. (New York, 1939), pp. 147–48Google Scholar.

6. Figgis, J. N., Studies of Political Thought from Gerson to Grotius (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1931), p. 49Google Scholar. Figgis added elsewhere that “the claim of the Council to be superior to the Pope was always at the service of advocates of the rights of the people against the despotism of Kings.” — “Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century,” Camb. Mod. Hist. (Cambridge, 1902–1912), III, 736Google Scholar.

7. Murray, R. H., The History of Political Science (New York, 1926), pp. 147–48Google Scholar.

8. McIlwain, C. H., The Growth of Political Thought in the West (New York, 1932), pp. 326 ff.Google Scholar

9. Sabine, G. H., A History of Political Theory (2nd ed.; New York, 1950), pp. 326–27Google Scholar.

10. A short monograph on Gerson, Jean — Schafer, Carl, Die Staatslehre des Johannes Gerson (Cologne, 1935)Google Scholar—is perhaps the only detailed work on the political theory of any of the foremost Conciliarists. The pioneer work of Figgis, admittedly only a general introduction, remains, in McIlwain's words, the “most brilliant and valuable summary extant.” Political Thought in the West, p. 348, n. 6.

11. “Revolt against authority,” Godfrey Davies asserts, was “the keynote of the seventeenth century,” but then “modern times as distinct from the Middle Ages had begun under the Tudors and were now developing rapidly.” — The Early Stuarts: 1603-1660 (Oxford, 1937), p. xixGoogle Scholar.

12. Janet, P., Histoire de la science politique (3rd ed.; Paris, 1887), I, 471Google Scholar, n. 1; Carlyle, R. W. and Carlyle, A. J., A History of Medieval Political Theory in the West (London and Edinburgh, 1903–1936), VI, 163–64, 247Google Scholar.

13. See, e.g., Allen, J. W., A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century (London 1928)Google Scholar, and his English Political Thought 1603-1660 (London, 1938)Google Scholar; Morris, Christopher, Political Thought in England: Tyndale to Hooker (London, 1953)Google Scholar.

14. Owen, D., Herod and Pilate Reconciled (London, 1663), ch. 8, p. 39Google Scholar. This was the third edition of the work. It had previously appeared under the same title in 1610, and in 1643 under the significant title Puritano—Jesuitismus.

15. John of Paris was a theologian and publicist who wrote his Tractatus de Potestate Regia et Papali early in the fourteenth century. Almain was perhaps the first to note d'Ailly's extensive borrowings from this work—see his Tractatus de Authoritatae Ecclesiae in Gerson, J., Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1706), IIGoogle Scholar, col. 980. For Zabarella's indebtedness to John of Paris, see Tierney, , Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, p. 221Google Scholar.

16. In addition to Owen and such French writers as Cardinal Perron, see Burhill, Robert, De Potestate Regia et Ursurpatione Papali (Oxford, 1613), ch. 6, pp. 193–215Google Scholar; Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli et Pacis, ed. Whewell, William (Cambridge, 1853), Bk. I, ch. 4 § 11, pp. 190–91Google Scholar; Prynne, William, The Soveraigne Power of Parliaments and Kingdoms (London, 1643), Pt. 3, pp. 136 and 144Google Scholar, and App., p. 161; Rutherford, Samuel, Lex Rex: The Law and the Prince (London, 1644), pp. 50, 418, 449Google Scholar.

17. Sacro-sancta Regum Majestas (Oxford, 1644), pp. 14–16Google Scholar.

18. Ibid., p. 16.

19. Bridge, William, The Wounded Conscience Cured, the Weak One Strengthened and the Doubting Satisfied (London, 1642), pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

20. Prynne, William, The Soveraigne Power, Pt. I, pp. 5–7, 31, 68 and 73Google Scholar.

21. See Jedin, Hubert, A History of the Council of Trent, tr. Graf, E. (St. Louis, 1947), I, pp. 34–42Google Scholar.

22. Major, Disputatio de authoritate concilii supra Pontificum Maximum; Almain, Tractatus de authoritate Ecclesae—both in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, cols. 1131-45 and 976-1012. These tracts witness to the revival of Conciliar speculations which took place after Louis XII's breach with Pope Julius II, and the convoking, in 1511, of the Council of Pisa. In an attempt to defend the pope Cajetan wrote his Auctoritas papae et concilii sive ecclesiae comparata, and Louis XII called upon the Faculty of Theology at the University of Paris for a refutation. Almain's tract is a direct outcome of this appeal and Major's work is closely connected with it—see Aimé—Martimort, Georges, Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet (Paris, 1953), pp. 100–101Google Scholar. Both men frequently cite d'Ailly and Gerson (see, e.g., cols. 980, 1011, 1136, 1144) who were their predecessors, not only at the University of Paris but also at the College of Navarre—see Launoy, Jean, Academia Parisiensis Illustrata (Paris, 1652), I, 93, 97, 208, 400 and 401Google Scholar. See also Baxter, J. H., “Four ‘New’ Medieval Scottish Authors,” S. H. R., XXV (1928), 90–97Google Scholar; he draws attention to the Scottish Conciliarist Thomas Livingstone—who was active at the Council of Basel and who later became an associate of Nicholas of Cusa—and claims him as “a direct and essential link in the chain which connects Buchanan and Major back to d'Ailly and Gerson.”

23. Richer incorporated in his work extensive citations from the works of d'Ailly, Gerson, Major and Almain. See Libellus (Paris, 1660), pp. 58 ff., 184 ff., 100, 102, 104, 124, 181, and 246Google Scholar. The same is true of his posthumously published Apologia pro Johanne Gersonio (Lyons, 1676)Google Scholar, and in yet another work—Vindiciae Doctrinum Majorum Scholae Parisiensis (Cologne, 1683)Google Scholar—he published tracts of John of Paris, d'Ailly, Gerson, Almain, and Major.

24. See, e.g., Appendix ad defensionem declarationis Cleri Gallicani (1682), Bk. I, chs. 5, 6 and 7, where he cites Major and Almain as having continued the tradition, Oeuvres complètes de Bossuet (Paris, 1836), IX, pp. 528–34Google Scholar.

25. du Pin, L. E., Traité de la puissance ecclésiastique et temporelle ([n.p.], 1707), pp. 475–76Google Scholar. He supports his argument, of course, with frequent references to the works of d'Ailly and Gerson.

26. Gersonii, Joannis, Opera Omnia (Antwerp, 1706), see vols. I and IIGoogle Scholar.

27. Baumer, F. L., The Early Tudor Theory of Kingship (New Haven, 1940), pp. 50–53Google Scholar. Cf. Zeeveld, W. Gordon, Foundations of Tudor Policy (Cambridge, Mass., 1948), pp. 133–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sawada, P. A., “Two Anonymous Tudor Treatises on the General Council,” J. E. H., XII (1961), 197–214Google Scholar.

28. White, J., The Way to the True Church (London, 1608). See esp. sec. 36, pp. 161–209Google Scholar.

29. Salmon, J. H. M., The French Religious Wars in English Political Thought (Oxford, 1959), pp. 69–79Google Scholar; cf. McIlwain, Charles H., The Political Works of James I (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. lix–lxxixGoogle Scholar.

30. Figgis, , From Gerson to Grotius, p. 42Google Scholar.

31. D'Ailly, P., Propositiones Utiles, in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IGoogle Scholar, col. 112. For a translation and introduction to this work see Oakley, Francis, “The ‘Propositiones Utiles’ of Pierre d'Ailly: An epitome of Conciliar Theory,” Ch. Hist., XXIX (1960), 398–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32. De Gestibus Basiliensis Concilii, Bk. I; Pius, II, Opera quae extant omnia (Basel, 1571), p. 8Google Scholar.

33. Pt. I, p. 6. The passage was also cited by Bridge, William, The Wounded Conscience cured, p. 8Google Scholar.

34. See, e.g. Almain, , Quaestio resumptiva … de dominio naturali, civili et ecclesiastico, in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 964.

35. Burhill, , De Potestate Regia, Tract. II, ch. 6, pp. 193–215Google Scholar. James, I, A Premonition to all most mightie Monarches and A Remonstrance for the Right of Kings and the Independence of their crownes, in The Political Works of James I, ed. McIlwain, C. H. (Cambridge, Mass., 1918), pp. 119–20, 202–06Google Scholar.

36. Davy, Jacques, Cardinaldu Perron, , An Oration made on the Part of the Lordes Spiritual in the Chamber of the Third Estate—delivered in 1614, translated into English (St. Omer, 1616), pp. 46–50, 59, 63, 121–22Google Scholar.

37. A Remonstrance, McIlwain, , Political Works, p. 202Google Scholar. Here James, denying that Childeric was deposed by Pope Zacharias, adds: “‘The word, Hee deposed,’ saith Major, ‘is not to bee understood as it is taken at the first blush or sight; but hee deposed is thus expounded in the glosse, Hee gave his consent unto those by whom he was deposed,’” For Major's own words see his Disputatio de statu et potestate Ecclesae, in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, cols. 1128 A and 1129 B.

38. Prynne, , The Soveraigne Power, Pt. III, pp. 144–45Google Scholar.

39. Salmon, The French Religious Wars, indicates very clearly and documents very fully the extent of this indebtedness.

40. Figgis, , From Gerson to Grotius, p. 140Google Scholar; Rainolds, William (Rossaeus), De justa reipublicae Christianae in reges impios et haereticos authoritate (Paris, 1590)Google Scholar.

41. Boucher, , De justa Henrici Tertii abdicatione e Francorum Regno (Lyons, 1591)Google Scholar.

42. Figgis, , From Gerson to Grotius, p. 156Google Scholar. The reverse was true of later French writers who, because of the association of theological Gallicanism with the cause of the French monarchy, restricted the application of its Conciliar constitutionalism to the Church alone.

43. Vindiciae contra Tyrannos … Being a Treatise Written in Latin and French by Junius Brutus, and Translated Out of Both into English (London, 1689), p. 142Google Scholar. This work was attributed to Hubert Languet and, more recently, at least in part to du Plessis Mornay. See Patry, Raoul, Philippe du Plessis Mornay, un huguenot homme d'état (Paris, 1933), pp. 275–82Google Scholar.

44. Owen, , Herod and Pilate Reconciled, p. 43Google Scholar; cf. Mesnard, Pierre, L'Essor de la philosophie politique au XVI^e siècle (Paris, 1936), p. 321Google Scholar.

45. Buchanan, G., Opera Omnia (Edinburgh, 1715), I, § 8, p. 36Google Scholar, cf. p. 30; translated by Arrowood, Charles F., The Powers of the Crown in Scotland (Austin, Texas, 1949), pp. 136–37Google Scholar; cf. 118-19.

46. Ponet, J., A Shorte Treatise of Politicke Power (Strassburg, 1556)Google Scholar; a facsimile edition is printed in Hudson, Winthrop S., John Ponet (1516?-1356): Advocate of Limited Monarchy (Chicago, 1942)Google Scholar. The Lutheran Bekenntnis of Magdeburg (1550) was, of course, the first formal declaration by an ‘orthodox’ Protestant group of a right of active resistance to tyranny.

47. Hudson, , Panet, pp. [102]–[106]Google Scholar; cf. p. [60]

48. Even Ponet's work, perhaps the least well-known of the four, was reprinted twice on the eve of the Civil War. See Hudson, , Panet, pp. 210–11Google Scholar.

49. See Salmon, , The French Religious Wars, p. 173Google Scholar; Murray, R. H., The Political Consequences of the Reformation (Boston, 1926), p. 209.Google Scholar

50. For a full discussion of the immediate popularity of the work and of its later influence see McKechnie, W. S., “De Jure Regni Apud Scotos,” in George Buchanan: Glasgow Quatercentenary Studies (Glasgow, 1907), pp. 211–24, 276–96Google Scholar. Of the Oxford condemnations Salmon remarks (p. 145) that “it was an indication of the persistent influence of monarchomach theory that the Vindiciae contra Tyrannos and the De Jure Regni apud Scotos should be listed beside the many English and Scottish works which in the preceding forty years had reproduced French doctrines of resistance.”

51. It has often been suggested that Buchanan was influenced by the political views of his master but their works never seem, in fact, to have been compared. Indeed, apart from the short monograph of Hrabar, V. E.—Le droit politique et le droit international dans les Questions de Jean Mair sur les Sentences de Pierre Lombard (Kiev, 1927)Google Scholar—which is concerned primarily with theories of international law, the comments of Carlyle, , History of Medieval Political Theory, VI, pp. 247–48Google Scholar, constitute the only published treatment of Major's political ideas. And Carlyle fails to see any connection between what he calls “political principles” and “the ecclesiastical questions of the relation between the Pope and the General Council.”

52. For the best biographical sketch of Major see Mackay, Aeneas J. G., “Life of the Author,” in A History of Greater Britain, as Well England as Scotland compiled jrom the Ancient Authorities by John Major, tr. and ed. Constable, A., Pub. Scot. Hist. Soc., X (Edinburgh, 1892), pp. xxix–cxvGoogle Scholar; hereafter cited as History. The surname Major will be used throughout this essay as it is the form by which he is most usually known. The more correct form, however, is possibly the Scottish version Mair—cf. Elie, Hubert, Le Traité de L'Infini de Jean Mair (Paris, 1937), pp. vi–viiiGoogle Scholar.

53. Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, cols. 1122-63. Their titles are: Disputatio de Statu et Potestate Ecclesiae, Disputatio de Authoritate Concilii, and Disputatio de Potestate Papae in rebus temporalibus. Du Pin's edition is widely accessible, and wherever possible, therefore, my references will be given to it. With the exception of the extracts printed in it (and previously printed in 1606 and 1683), Major's commentaries were never republished after 1530 and are neither well known nor easily accessible today. Before that date, however, they went through several editions, and those which have been available to me and to which the remainder of my references will be given are: In primum Sententiarum (Paris: Henricus Stephanus, 1510)Google Scholar, In secundum Sententiarum (Paris: Joannes Parvus et Jodicus Badius Ascensius, 1528)Google Scholar, and In Quartum Sententiarum (Paris: Philip Pigouchet, 1509)Google Scholar.

54. Major, , History, pp. cxxxiv–cxxxvGoogle Scholar.

55. Cf., e.g., the question of the claim of Robert Bruce to the Scottish throne, Major, , History, Bk. IV, chs. 17-18, pp. 213–20Google Scholar.

56. D. 40, c. 6; Friedberg, A. (ed.) Corpus Juris Canonici (Leipzig, 1879), I, 146Google Scholar. Major cites this canon in his Disp. de auth. conc., Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1134. Cf. Tierney, , Foundations of the Conciliar Theory, p. 9Google Scholar.

57. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1135.

58. In the light of this, Carlyle's failure to see any connection between Major's “political principles” and his discussion of ecclesiastical questions is all the more surprising. See supra, n. 51.

59. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1139.

60. Disp. de stat. et pot. eccl., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1128: “Ex mystica theologia debile capitur argumentum.”

61. Said in reply to the argument that “in a real body the head has the preeminency over all the other members; therefore also in a mystical body the head is chief over all the rest of the members.” Major, , History, Bk. IV, ch. 18, p. 220Google Scholar; cf. Disp. de stat. et pot. eccl., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1128.

62. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, II, Opera Omnia, col. 1136; Sent. III, dist. 37, qu. 1, fol. 98v; qu. 2, fol. 99v; Sent. IV dist. 24, qu. 4, fol. 140r.

63. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1136.

64. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1135.

65. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1157.

66. Ibid., col. 1156; cf. Major, , History, Bk. IV, ch. 3, pp. 158 ff.Google Scholar

67. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1157. The distinction between the exercise of power regulariter and casualiter, and, indeed, the very terminology itself, was an old one, being found, for instance, in the writings of William of Ockham; see Jacob, E. F., Essays in the Conciliar Epoch (2nd ed.; Manchester, 1953), p. 104Google Scholar.

68. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, cols. 1157-58.

69. Ibid., col. 1158.

70. Major, , History, Bk. IV, ch. 18, p. 220Google Scholar.

71. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1141.

72. Sent. II, dist. 44, qu. 5, fols. 98v-99r; cf. Aristotle, , Politics, IIIGoogle Scholar, chs. 6 and 7; Barker, Ernest (tr.), The Politics of Aristotle (Oxford 1948), pp. 110–15Google Scholar.

73. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1154.

74. Ibid., col. 1151.

75. Major, , History, Bk. IV, ch. 18, p. 220Google Scholar.

76. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1142.

77. See Salmon, , The French Religious Wars, pp. 7–8Google Scholar.

78. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1150.

79. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1141.

80. Ibid., col. 1142.

81. Ibid.

82. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1132.

83. Ibid., col. 1142.

84. Ibid., col. 1139.

85. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1135.

86. Ibid., col. 1137.

87. Ibid., col. 1135.

88. Major, , History, Bk. IV, ch. 17, p. 213Google Scholar; cf. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1141.

89. Major, History, Bk. IV, ch. 17, p. 214Google Scholar.

90. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1135. It has been suggested that Major went a step further and approved of tyrannicide. See McCrie, Thomas, The Life of John Knox (New York, 1813), p. 405Google Scholar, n. 13, where, in support of this contention, McCrie quotes a passage from Major (Sent. III, dist. 37, qu. 37, fol. 117r). Major's own conclusion, however was that it is against the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” for anyone on his own authority to put to death even a tyrant worthy of death. The passage which McCrie cites is merely part of a reply to an argument raised against this conclusion, and its import is not fully clear. The most it would seem to permit would be the execution—by a minister of community and with the consent of the whole community—of a tyrant justly condemned.

91. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1139.

92. Ibid., col. 1135.

93. Ibid., col. 1139.

94. Ibid., col. 1136.

95. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1137; cf. Aristotle, , Politics, VIIGoogle Scholar, ch. 12; tr. Barker, p. 185.

96. Defensor Pacis I, xii; ed. Previté-Orton, C. W. (Cambridge, 1928), p. 49Google Scholar: “Valentiorem inquam partem considerata quantitate personarum et qualitate in communitate”; cf. Gewirth, Alan, Marsilius of Padua (New York, 1951), I, 184 ff.Google ScholarZabarella, , Tractatus de Schismate, printed in Niem, Th., De Schismate (Argentorati, 1609), p. 542Google Scholar, cf. Ullman, , Origins of the Great Schism, pp. 197–99Google Scholar.

97. See, e.g., X, 3, 11, c.1. It seems sometimes to have been assumed that a two-thirds' majority could be considered to embody the wiser as well as the greater part. See Post, Gaines “Parisian Masters as a Corporation: 1200-1245,” Speculum, IX (1934), 432Google Scholar. But it is significant that when Major himself refers elsewhere (Sent. IV, Quaestio prologi, fol. 1v ) to the canon law in order to justify his contention that the voice of the greater part should prevail over that of the few, he chooses a canon which, though it concerns the requirement of a two-thirds' majority for a valid papal election, nevertheless explains that this is a special case and does not effect the lesser churches in which the decision of the major et sanior pars is to prevail. See X, 1, 6, c.6. Note, too, that Major uses the expression in majore numero rather than major pars to indicate a simple majority. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1158.

98. Disp. de auth. conc., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1139.

99. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1157.

100. Major, , History, Bk. IV ch. 17, p. 215Google Scholar.

101. Major, , History, Bk. IV, ch. 18, p. 219Google Scholar.

102. The standard biography of Buchanan remains that of Brown, P. Hume, George Buchanan, Humanist and Reformer (Edinburgh, 1890)Google Scholar.

103. The work is in the form of a dialogue between Buchanan and a certain Thomas Maetellanus (presumably Maitland). My references will be given both to the most recent translation—that of Charles F. Arrowood, The Powers of the Crown in Scotland—and to the edition of the Latin text which is to be found in Buchanan, George, Opera Omnia, I, § 8Google Scholar—which will be cited as LT. I have not hesitated to alter the translation when the sense of the Latin has seemed to me to require a different rendering.

104. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 61Google Scholar; LT, pp. 9-10.

105. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 136Google Scholar; LT, p. 36.

106. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 137Google Scholar; LT, p. 36. And thus he can insist that the dictates of reason are superior to “the ancient customs of past centuries,” Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 110Google Scholar; LT, p. 27.

107. “I am able to cite from the codes of many a nation, a great number of most beneficial laws to which there is no parallel in the Holy Bible”—Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 123Google Scholar, LT, p. 31.

108. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 123Google Scholar, LT, p. 31.

109. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 47–48Google Scholar; LT, pp. 4-5.

110. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 47–48Google Scholar; LT, pp. 4-5.

111. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 45–46Google Scholar; LT, pp. 3-4.

112. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 48Google Scholar; LT, p. 5.

113. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 48–49Google Scholar; LT, p. 5.

114. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 50Google Scholar; LT, p. 6.

115. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 49Google Scholar; LT, p. 5.

116. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 59Google Scholar; LT, p. 9.

117. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 73Google Scholar; LT, p. 14.

118. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 92Google Scholar; LT, p. 21.

119. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 521Google Scholar; LT, p. 6.

120. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 52Google Scholar; LT, p. 6.

121. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 54Google Scholar; LT, p. 7.

122. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 92Google Scholar; LT, p. 21.

123. Cf. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 56Google Scholar and 70; LT, pp. 8 and 13.

124. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 113Google Scholar; LT, p. 28.

125. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 1231Google Scholar; LT, pp. 31-32—another version of the maxim rex singulis major, universis minor.

126. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 98Google Scholar; LT, p. 23.

127. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 101–107Google Scholar; LT, pp. 24-26.

128. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 129–130Google Scholar; LT, pp. 33-34.

129. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 109Google Scholar; LT, p. 27.

130. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 131Google Scholar; LT, p. 34.

131. It should be noted that Buchanan explicitly ascribes this distinction to the canonists who formulated it with reference to the Papacy—“For while they exempt the Pope, whom they regard as incapable of error, from being held accountable under the laws, yet they confess the man who is Pope is liable to faults and to being punished for his faults.” Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 118–19Google Scholar; LT, p. 30.

132. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 142–43Google Scholar; cf. pp. 117-18 and p. 148; LT, p. 38; cf. pp. 29-30 and p. 40.

133. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 113Google Scholar; LT, p. 28.

134. Cf. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 19Google Scholar; Allen, , Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, pp. 339 ffGoogle Scholar. Sabine, too, echoes this interpretation, History of Political Theory, p. 384.

135. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 131Google Scholar; LT, p. 34. Italics mine.

136. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 133Google Scholar; LT, p. 34. Italics mine.

137. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 125Google Scholar; LT, p. 32.

138. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 71Google Scholar; LT, p. 13.

139. Allen, , Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, p. 340Google Scholar.

140. Ibid., p. 341.

141. For Beza, see the texts cited by Mesnard, , L'Essor de la philosophie politique, pp. 318 and 323Google Scholar. Ponet, , Shorte Treatise, ed. Hudson, , p. [13]Google Scholar.

142. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 71Google Scholar; LT, p. 13.

143. Politics, III, ch. 10; IV, ch. 12 § 1; tr. Barker, pp. 123-27, 185.

144. Sent. IV, Quaestio prologi, fol. 1v; cf. supra, n. 99.

145. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, pp. 19, 134Google Scholar; LT, p. 35—the Latin being: “Itaque, si cives non e numero, sed dignitate censeatur, non solum pars melior, sed etiam major, pro libertate, pro honesto, pro incolumitate stabit.”

146. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 134Google Scholar; “B. A great many of the people are such as you describe, to be sure, but not the majority.” LT, p. 35: “(M. … Haec quanta sit futura multitudo vides.) B. Magna profecto: nec tamen maxima.”

147. De jure regni apud Scotos, Or A Dialogue Concerning the Due Privilege of Government in the Kingdom of Scotland, tr. by Philalethes, (n.p., 1680), pp. 115, 117, and 118Google Scholar.

148. Cf. Mesnard, , L'Essor de la philosophie politique, p. 361Google Scholar; Lewis, Ewart, Medieval Political Ideas (New York, 1954), I, 204Google Scholar. The very organization of representative bodies by estates is indicative of the medieval belief that not only number but also status was relevant to the assessing of the weight of an opinion.

149. Not all of these examples are drawn from Scottish history—e.g., the replacement of Childeric as King by Pepin (d. 768)—an example later to be cited again and again by Huguenot resistance theorists. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1157; Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 76Google Scholar; LT, p. 15.

150. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 45Google Scholar; LT, p. 3; Janet, , Histoire de la science politique, II, 46Google Scholar.

151. See Brown, Hume, Buchanan, p. 43Google Scholar.

152. Arrowood, , Powers of the Crown, p. 137Google Scholar; LT, p. 36; cf. Arrowood, pp. 118-19; LT, p. 30.

153. Though Major does discuss the “state of innocence” which existed before the Fall, when private property was unknown and things were used by all in accordance with the dictates of right reason, Sent. IV, dist. 15, qu. 6, fols. 86r-86v.

154. Disp. de pot. pap., in Gerson, , Opera Omnia, IIGoogle Scholar, col. 1154.

155. Gooch, G. P., English Democratic Ideas in the Seventeenth Century (2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1927), pp. 37–38Google Scholar; Mackay, , John Major's Greater Britain, p. lxxxiiGoogle Scholar.

156. Figgis, , From Gerson to Grotius, p. 128Google Scholar.

157. Brown, Hume, Buchanan, p. 44Google Scholar.

158. Allen, , Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century, p. 337Google Scholar.

159. The same could be said of the comparable differences between the political views expressed in Ponet's, Shorte Treatise, and Goodman, Christopher's How Superior Powers Oght to be Obeyd (Geneva, 1558)Google Scholar. Christopher Morris has well described this latter work as “a long and tedious sermon on the text: “We must obey God rather than man,’” Political Thought in England: Tyndale to Hooker, p. 152.

160. Brown, Hume, Buchanan, pp. 44 and 275Google Scholar.

161. Laski, Harold in the introduction to his edition of A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants (London, 1924), p. 5Google Scholar; Burhill, , De Potestate Regia, ch. 6, pp. 193–215Google Scholar; Perron, , Oratio, p. 63Google Scholar; James, I, Remonstrance, ed. McIlwain, , pp. 202–06Google Scholar; Grotius, Hugo, De Jure Belli, Bk. I, ch. 4 § 11, ed. Whewell, , pp. 190–91Google Scholar; SirEliot, John, De Jure Majestatis, ed. Grosart, A. B. (London, 1882), I, 46Google Scholar; Prynne, , The Soveraigne Power, Part 3, pp. 136, 144Google Scholar; App., pp. 101, 161; Rutherford, , Lex Rex, Qu. XLIII, p. 449Google Scholar.

162. Figgis, , From Gerson to Grotius, p. 5Google Scholar.

163. Ibid., p. 60.

164. Camb. Med. Hist., VIII, 636Google Scholar.

165. Hudson, , Ponet, p. [105]Google Scholar.