When King James came to London, in 1604, he found himself in such a totally different atmosphere that he tried to use the power of England behind him to force the rule of the bishops, in place of elders, upon his Scottish subjects. In England the Church lords told King James, when discussing religious matters, that he was inspired of God. Those who have read the disgustingly fulsome praise of King James, made in their preface by the translators of the English Bible in 1611, can see that they believed in the divine right of kings. On the contrary, in 1596, Andrew Melville, the preacher, in a public audience, called James VI “God’s silly vassal.” Said he to him, “I tell you, sir, there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is Christ Jesus the King, and his kingdom the Kirk, whose subject James VI is, and of whose kingdom, not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. And they whom Christ hath called to watch over his Kirk and govern his spiritual kingdom have sufficient power and authority to do so both together and severally.” The Scottish commons, as Froude says, are the sons of their religion, and they are so because that religion taught the equality of man. The literature of the subject of the relation of the king to the people, which now holds its place triumphantly in England, shows that this theory, regnant in the twentieth century, originated and was elaborated in Scotland. The idea that the royal government arises from popular electoral choice, and that for a king to break his part of the contract makes him forfeit his right and justifies war against him,--which has always been the American idea,--was first wrought out in Scotland. The true theory of the relations between a king and his subjects first appeared in a book published in Edinburgh, in 1580. It was written by George Buchanan, and was the same that was burned by Englishmen at Oxford in 1683. It was not until 1594 that Hooker, in his “Ecclesiastical Polity,” developed the idea of a social compact, which later was expanded by John Locke, who was so much read by our fathers. Yet even before Buchanan, French writers had discussed the rights and duties of kings on the same democratic lines, and William of Orange, in his “Apology” of 1570, had lengthily exploited the idea and demonstrated in his life the right to take up arms against princes who abused their trust. The “Apology” was but the preface to the Dutch Declaration of Independence in July, 1581--the political ancestor of ours of 1776.