Chapter XLVII…

Chapter XLVII

THE FUTURE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.--THEIR PRESENT NECESSITY.

When, after having fixed our eyes on the vast and interesting picture which religious communities present to us, after having called to mind their origin, their varied forms, their vicissitudes of poverty and riches, of depression and prosperity, of coldness and of fervor, of relaxation and strict reform, we see them still subsist and arise anew on all sides, in spite of the efforts of their enemies, we naturally ask what will be their future? their past is full of glory; what influence have they not exerted in society, under a thousand different aspects, and in the thousand phases of society itself? Yet what spectacle do they show us in modern times? On one hand they have been weakened, like an old wall which we see ruined by the effect of time; on the other we have seen them suddenly disappear, like weak trees overthrown by the whirlwind. Moreover, they seemed to be condemned by the spirit of the age without appeal. Matter having become supreme, extended its empire on all sides, scarcely allowing the mind a moment for reflection and meditation; industry and commerce, carrying their turmoil to the remotest parts of the earth, confirmed the judgment of an irreligious philosophy against a class of men devoted to prayer, silence, and solitude. Nevertheless, facts every day belie their conjectures; the hearts of Christians still preserve the most flattering hopes, and these hopes are strengthened and animated more and more. The hand of God, who carries out His high designs and laughs at the vain thoughts of man, shows it more and more wonderful. Philosophy sees a wide field for meditation open before it; it anticipates the probable future of religious communities; it may make conjectures on the influence which is reserved for them in society for the future.

We have already seen what is the real origin of religious institutions; we have found that origin in the spirit of the Catholic religion, and history has told us that they have arisen wherever she is established. They have varied in form, in rule, in object, but the fact has been always the same. Thence we have inferred that wherever the Catholic faith shall be maintained, religious institutions will appear anew under some form or other. This prognostic may be made with complete certainty; we do not fear that time will belie it. We live in an age steeped in voluptuous materialism; interests which are called positive, or, in plainer terms, gold and pleasure, have acquired such an ascendency that we might apparently fear to see some societies lamentably retrograde towards the manners of paganism, towards that period of disgrace when religion might be summed up in the deification of matter. But in the midst of this afflicting picture, when the mind, full of anguish, feels itself on the point of swooning away, the observer sees that the soul of man is not yet dead, and that lofty ideas, noble and dignified feelings, are not entirely banished from the earth. The human mind feels itself too great to be limited to wretched objects; it comprehends that it is given it to rise higher than an air-balloon.

Observe what happens with respect to industrial progress. Those steam-vessels which leave our ports with the rapidity of an arrow to traverse the immensity of ocean, those burning vehicles which skim along our plains, and penetrate into the heart of mountains, realizing under our eyes what would have seemed a dream to our fathers; those other machines which give movement to gigantic workshops, and as if by magic set in motion innumerable instruments, and elaborate with the most wonderful precision the most delicate productions: all this is great and wonderful. But however great, however wonderful it may be, it no longer astonishes; these wonders no longer captivate our attention in a more lively manner than the generality of the objects which surround us. Man feels that he is still greater than these machines and masterpieces of art; his heart is an abyss which nothing can fill; give him the whole world, and the void will be the same. The depth is immeasurable; the soul, created in the image and likeness of God, cannot be satisfied without the possession of Him.

The Catholic religion constantly revives these lofty thoughts, and points out this immense void. In barbarous times she placed herself among rude and ignorant nations to lead them to civilization; she now remains among civilized nations to provide against the dissolution which threatens them. She disregards the coldness and neglect with which indifference and ingratitude reply to her; she cries out without ceasing, addresses her warnings to the faithful with indefatigable constancy, makes her voice resound in the ears of the incredulous, and remains intact and immovable in the midst of the agitation and instability of human things. Thus do those wonderful temples which have been left to us by the remotest antiquity, remain entire amid the action of time, of revolutions, and of convulsions; around them arise and disappear the habitations of men, the palaces of the great and the cottages of the poor, but the time-stained edifice stands like a solemn and mysterious object in the midst of the smiling fields and showy structures which surround it; its vast cupola annihilates all that is near; its summit boldly rises towards the heavens.

The labors of religion do not remain without fruit; penetrating minds acknowledge her truths; even those who refuse their submission to the faith confess the beauty, utility, and necessity of this divine religion; they regard it as an historical fact of the highest importance, and agree that the good order and prosperity of families and states depend upon it. But God, who watches over the safety of the church, is not content with these avowals of philosophy; torrents of all-powerful grace descend from on high, and the Divine Spirit is diffused and renewed on the face of the earth. Even from the whirlwind of the world, corrupt and indifferent as it is, privileged men frequently come forth, whose foreheads have been touched with the flame of inspiration, and whose hearts are on fire with heavenly love. In retreat, in solitude, in meditation on the eternal truths, they have acquired that disposition of mind which is necessary to perform arduous tasks; in spite of raillery and ingratitude, they devote themselves to console the unfortunate, to educate the young, and to convert idolatrous nations. The Catholic religion will last till the end of time, and so long will there be these privileged men separated by God from the rest, to be called to extraordinary sanctity, or to console their brethren in their misfortunes. Now these men will seek each other, will unite to pray, will associate to aid each other in their enterprise, will ask for the apostolical benediction of the Vicar of Jesus Christ, and will found religious institutions. Whether they be old orders only modified, or entirely new ones; whatever be their forms, rules of life or dress, all this is of little importance; the origin, the nature, and the object will be the same. It is vain for men to oppose the miracles of grace.

Even the present condition of society will require the existence of religious institutions. When the organization of modern nations shall have been more profoundly examined, when time by its bitter lessons and terrible experience shall have thrown more light on the real state of things, it will be evident that errors greater than men have imagined, have been committed in the social as well as in the political order. Sad experience has corrected ideas to a great extent, but this does not suffice.

It is evident that present societies want the necessary means to supply the necessities which press upon them. Property is divided and subdivided more and more; every day it becomes more feeble and inconstant, industry multiplies productions in an alarming manner, commerce extends itself indefinitely; that is to say, society, approaching the term of pretended social perfection, is on the point of attaining the wishes of that materialistic school, in whose eyes men are only machines, and which has not imagined that society can undertake any grander or more useful object than the immense development of material interests. Misery has increased in proportion to the augmentation of production; to the eyes of all provident men it is as clear as the light of day that things are pursuing a wrong course, and that if a remedy cannot be applied in time, the dénouement will be fatal; the vessel which we see advancing so rapidly, with all her sails set and a favorable wind, is about to strike upon a rock. The accumulation of riches, brought about by the rapidity of the industrial and commercial movement, tends towards the establishment of a system which would devote the sweat and the lives of all to the profit of the few; but this tendency finds its counterpoise in levelling ideas which agitate very many heads, and which, moulded into different theories, more or less openly attack property, the present organization of labor, and the distribution of productions. Immense multitudes, overwhelmed with misery and in want of moral instruction and education, are disposed to promote the realization of projects not less criminal than foolish, whenever an unhappy concurrence of circumstances shall render the attempt possible. It is superfluous to support the melancholy assertions which we have just made with facts; the experience of every day confirms them but too much.

Such being the case, may we be allowed to inquire of society, what means there are, either of improving the state of the masses, or of guiding and restraining them? It is clear that, for the first of these, neither the inspirations of private interests, nor the instinct of preservation which animates the favored classes, are sufficient. These classes, properly speaking, as they exist, have not the character which constitutes a class: they are only a collection of families just emerged from poverty and obscurity, and who rapidly advance towards the abyss whence they came, leaving their place to other families who will run the same course. We find nothing fixed or stable about them. They live from day to day, without thinking of the morrow: far different from the old nobility, whose origin was lost in the obscurity of the remotest antiquity, and whose strength and organization promised long centuries of existence. These men could and did follow a system; for what existed to-day was sure of existence to-morrow; now all is changeable and inconstant. Individuals, like families, labor to accumulate, to lay by riches, not in order to sustain for ages the power and splendor of an illustrious house, but to enjoy to-day what has been but just acquired. The presentiment of the short duration which things must have, augments still more the giddiness and frenzy of dissipation. The times are past when opulent families were desirous of founding some enduring establishment to evince their generosity and perpetuate the splendor of their names: hospitals, and other houses of beneficence, do not come from the coffers of the bankers, as they did from those of the old castles. We must acknowledge, however painful may be the avowal, that the opulent classes of society do not fulfil the duty which belongs to them: the poor should respect the property of the rich; but the rich should, in their turn, respect the condition of the poor: such is the will of God.

It follows from what I have stated, that the resource of beneficence is wanting in the social organization; and observe well, that administration does not constitute society. Administration supposes society to be already existing and entirely formed; when we expect the salvation of society from means purely administrative, we attempt a thing which is out of the laws of nature. In vain shall we imagine new expedients; in vain shall we form ingenious plans, and make new experiments; society has need of a more powerful agent. It is essential that the world should submit to the law of love or that of force, to charity or servitude. All the nations who have not had charity, have found no other means of solving the social problem, than that of subjecting the greatest number to slavery. Reason teaches, and history proves, that neither public order, property, nor even society itself, can exist, unless one of these is chosen; modern society will not be exempted from the general law; the symptoms which now present themselves to our eyes clearly indicate the events whereof the generations which are to succeed us will be the witnesses.

Happily, the fire of charity still burns on the earth; but the indifference and prejudices of the wicked compel it to remain under the embers. They are alarmed at the least spark of it which escapes, as if it would enkindle a fatal conflagration. If the development of institutions which are exclusively based upon the principle of charity was favored, their salutary results and the superiority which they possess over all that are founded on other principles would soon be evident. It is impossible to supply the wants which I have just pointed out, without organizing, on a vast scale, systems of beneficence directed by charity: now this organization cannot be made without religious institutions. It cannot be denied that Christians who live in the world may form associations by which this object will be accomplished more or less completely; but there are always a multitude of cases which absolutely require the co-operation of men exclusively devoted to them. It is necessary, moreover, to have a nucleus to serve as the centre of all efforts, which presents, by its own nature, a guarantee for preservation, and which provides against the interruptions and oscillations which are inevitable in a large concourse of agents, who are not bound together by any tie strong enough to preserve them from differences, from separation, and even from intestine contests.

This vast system which we speak of ought to extend not only to beneficence, but also to the education and instruction of the many. The establishment of schools will remain sterile, if not mischievous, as long as they are not founded upon religion; and they will be thus founded only in appearance and name, while the direction of these schools does not belong to the ministers of religion. The secular clergy may fulfil a portion of this charge, but they are not enough for the task; on the one hand, their limited number, and on the other, their other duties, prevent their acting on a scale sufficiently large to supply all the necessities of the times: hence it follows, that the propagation of religious institutions in our days has a social importance, which cannot be mistaken without shutting one's eyes to the evidence of facts.

If you reflect on the organization of European nations, you will understand that their real advance has been prevented by some fatal cause. Indeed, their situation is so singular, that it cannot be the result of the principles whence these nations have drawn their origin, and which have given them their increase. It is evident that the countless multitude which one sees in society, making use of all its faculties with complete liberty, could not, in the state in which it now is, have been comprised in the primitive design--in the plan of true civilization. When we create forces, we should know what we shall do with them, by what means we shall move and direct them; without this we only prepare violent shocks, endless agitation, disorder, and destruction. The mechanician who cannot introduce a force into his machine without breaking the harmony of the other movers, takes care not to introduce it; and he sacrifices acceleration of movement and the greatest strength of impulse to the fundamental necessity of the preservation of the machine and the order and utility of its functions. In the present state of society, we observe that power which is not in harmony with the others; and the men who are charged with directing the machine pay but little attention to gaining the required harmony. Nothing acts upon the mass of the people but the ardent desire of ameliorating their condition, of placing themselves in comfort, and of obtaining the enjoyments of which the rich are in possession; nothing to induce them to be resigned to the rigors of their lot; nothing to console them in their misfortunes; nothing to render the present evils more supportable by the hopes of a better future; nothing to inspire them with respect for property, obedience to the laws, submission to government; nothing to produce in their minds gratitude towards the powerful classes; nothing to temper their hatreds, diminish their envy, and mollify their anger; nothing to raise their ideas above earthly things, their desires from sensual pleasures; nothing to form in their hearts a solid morality capable of restraining them from vice and crime.

If we pay attention, we shall see that the men of this age have only three means of restraining the masses, and they regard these as enough; but reason and experience show that these expedients are not only not efficacious, but even dangerous; they are these,--private interests well understood, public force well employed, and enervation of body, followed by feebleness of mind, which restrains the populace from violent means.

"Let us make the poor man understand," says the philosopher, "that he has an interest in respecting the property of the rich; that his powers and his labor are also real property, which require to be respected in their turn; let us maintain an imposing public force, always ready to act on the menaced point, in order to stifle any attempts at disorder at their birth; let us organize a police, extending over society like an immense net, and allowing nothing to escape its sight; let us satisfy the people with cheap enjoyments of all kinds; let us furnish them with the means of imitating, in their grosser orgies, the refined pleasures of our saloons and theatres, thereby their manners will be softened--that is to say, they will be enervated; the people will become impotent to make great revolutions, their arms being weak, and their hearts cowardly." This is the system of those who attempt to govern society and control disturbing passions without the aid of religion.

Let us pause for a moment to examine these means. It is, no doubt, easy to say, in fine language, that the poor man is interested in respecting the property of the rich; and that from this consideration alone he ought to submit to the established order of things; and this without even saying a word of the principles of morality, and leaving out all that is removed from mere material interests. It is easy to write books to explain such doctrines; but the difficulty consists in making them understood in the same way by the wretched father of a family, who, confined all the day to hard labor, plunged into an unwholesome atmosphere, or buried in the bowels of the earth to work in a coal-mine, can scarcely earn the subsistence of himself and his family; and who, returning in the evening to his squalid abode, instead of repose and consolation, finds only the complaints of his wife and the tears of his children, asking him for a mouthful of bread. In truth, is it strange that such a doctrine should not be graciously received by those wretched beings, whose minds cannot perfectly understand the parity between the poor and the rich with respect to the interests of all, and the respect due to property? We will say plainly, that if you banish from the world the moral principles, and desire to found the respect due to property exclusively on private interest, the words here addressed to the poor man are only a solemn imposture: it is false that his private interest is in accordance with the interests of the rich.

Let us suppose the most fearful revolution, let us imagine that the established order is radically upset, that authority gives way, that all institutions are swallowed up, that laws disappear, that properties are divided, or remain abandoned to the first who shall seize them, there is no doubt that the rich man loses; let us see what can happen to the poor. Will he be robbed of his wretched possessions? no one will dream of doing so; misery tempts not cupidity. You will tell me that he will find no work, and that hunger will therefore be his lot. That is true; but do you not see that in this case the poor man is a gambler at a high stake, for whom the chance of loss, arising from the want of work, is compensated by the probabilities of obtaining a share of the rich booty? You add that he will not be allowed to keep that part; but observe that, if his poverty becomes changed into riches, he will soon imagine a new order of things, a new arrangement, a government which will guarantee acquired rights, and prevent the destruction of established things. Will he be without an example to follow in such circumstances? Have recent examples been so easily forgotten? The poor man sees clearly that a great number of his fellows will suffer evils without end or compensation; he is not ignorant that he himself may, perhaps, be of the number of the unfortunate; but, supposing that he has no other guide than interest, supposing that new misfortunes, in the last excess, can bring him only hunger and nakedness--things to which he is so well accustomed, whether owing to the small return for his labor, or to the frequent interruptions of work and the vicissitudes of industry--you cannot charge with rashness the boldness with which he comes forward, at the risk of increasing his privations in some degree, and with the hope of being delivered from them, perhaps for ever. This is a matter of calculation; and when private interest is in question, we cannot grant to philosophy the right of regulating the calculations of the poor.

The public power, and the vigilance of the police, are the two resources in which the best hopes are founded; and certainly not without reason; for, at the present time, if the world is not revolutionized, it is owing to them. We no longer see, as in ancient times, troops of slaves bound together with chains, but we see whole armies, with arms in their hands, guarding capitals. If you observe closely, after so many discussions, so many trials, so many reforms, so many changes, questions of government and public order have, in the end, resolved themselves into questions of force. The rich class is armed against the poor; and above both, there are armies to maintain tranquillity with cannon, if necessary. Assuredly, the picture which is exhibited to us in this respect, among modern nations, is worthy of our attention. Since the fall of Napoleon, the great powers have enjoyed an Augustan peace; for it is not worth while to speak of the small events which, from time to time, have disturbed this universal peace; neither the occupation of Ancona, nor the siege of Antwerp, nor the war in Poland, can be considered as European wars; as to Spain, limited, as she is by nature, to a narrow theatre, she can neither traverse the seas, nor pass the Pyrenean mountains. Well, in spite of this, the statistics of Europe show us enormous armies; the budgets which are necessary to support them exhaust and overwhelm the nations. What is the use of this military preparation? Do you believe that such gigantic forces are kept on foot only that governments may not be taken unawares by a general war; that war, which always threatens and never breaks out; that war, which is feared neither by the government nor by the people? No! they have another object: these armies are intended to compensate for the moral means, the want of which is deplorably felt on all sides, and nowhere more keenly than where the words justice and liberty have been proclaimed with the most ostentation.

The enervation of the numerous classes, by means of monotonous, effortless labor, and a complete abandonment to pleasure, may be considered by some as an element of order; as their power of striking is thereby taken away, or at least diminished. We allow that the workmen of our age are not capable of displaying the terrible energy of ancient champions of the Commons; of those men who, throwing off the yoke of the feudal lords, struggled hand to hand with formidable warriors, whose names were immortalized on the plains of Palestine. The new revolutionists want, also, that courage and that enthusiasm which are communicated to the soul by great and generous ideas. The man who fights only to procure enjoyments will never be capable of making heroic sacrifices. Sacrifices demand self-denial; they are incompatible with egotism: now the thirst for pleasure is egotism, carried to the last degree of refinement. Nevertheless, it must be observed that a mode of life purely material, and deprived of the stimulus of the moral principles, ends by extinguishing the feelings, and plunges the soul into a sort of stupidity, into a forgetfulness of self, which may, in certain cases, supply the place of valor. The soldier who marches with tranquillity to death, when leaving a brutal orgy, and the man who commits suicide with imperturbable calmness, without anxiety for the future, are precisely in the same position. The boldness of the one, and the firmness of the other, show contempt of life. So, if we suppose their passions to be excited by the trouble of the times, the numerous class may display an energy of which they are supposed to be incapable; the sight of their numbers may raise their courage; bold and cunning leaders, putting themselves at their head, may succeed in rendering them terrible.

However this may be, it is at least certain that society cannot continue its career without the aid and influence of moral means; these means cannot suffice, shut up within the narrow circle in which they are confined; consequently, it is indispensable to encourage the development of institutions adapted to exercise moral influence in a practical and efficacious manner. Books are not enough; the extension of instruction is but an inefficient means, which may even become fatal, unless based upon solid religious ideas. The propagation of a vague religious feeling, undefined, without rules, without dogmas or worship, will only serve to propagate gross superstitions among the masses, and to form a religion of poetry and romance among the cultivated classes; they are vain remedies, which do not stop the progress of the disease; but, by augmenting the delirium of the patient, precipitate his death.

The education, the instruction, the improvement of the moral condition of the people, these words, which are in the mouth of everybody, prove how keenly and generally the wound in the social body is felt, and how urgent is the necessity of the timely application of a remedy, in order to prevent incalculable evils. This is the reason why projects of beneficence ferment in so many minds; why it is attempted, under so many different forms, to establish schools for children and adults, and other similar institutions; but all will be useless, unless the work be confided to Christian charity. Let us profit by the knowledge acquired by experience in this matter; let us take advantage of administrative improvements, the better to attain our end; let the establishments be accommodated to present wants and exigences; let charity never embarrass the action of power, and power, on its side, never oppose the action of charity: all this will be well; but nothing of all this is inconsistent with a system, in which the Catholic religion will recover the influence which belongs to her; of her it may be said, with perfect truth, that she makes herself all to all, to gain the whole world.

The little minds which do not carry their views beyond a limited horizon; bad hearts, which nourish only hatred, and delight only in exciting rancor and in calling forth the evil passions; the fanatics of a mechanical civilization, who see no other agent than steam, no other power than gold and silver, no other object than production, no other end than pleasure; all these men, assuredly, will attach but little importance to the observations which I have made; for them, the moral development of individuals and society is of little importance; they do not even perceive what passes under their eyes; for them, history is mute, experience barren, and the future a mere nothing. Happily there is a great number of men who believe that their minds are nobler than metal, more powerful than steam, and too grand and too sublime to be satisfied with momentary pleasure.

Man, in their eyes, is not a being who lives by chance, given up to the current of time and the mercy of circumstances, who is not called upon to think of the destinies which attend him, or to prepare for them, by making a worthy use of the moral and intellectual qualifications wherewith the Author of nature has favored him. If the physical world is subject to the laws of the Creator, the moral world is not less so; if matter can be used in a thousand ways for the profit of man, the mind, created to the image and likeness of God, is also endowed with valuable powers; a vast sphere opens before him; he feels himself called to work for the good of humanity, without confining himself to combinations and modifications of matter, like an instrument or a slave of the material element, whereof the empire and control have been granted to him by God. Let faith in another life, and charity, which have come down from God, fertilize these noble feelings, and enlighten and direct these sublime thoughts; you will then clearly see that matter has no claim to be the ruler of the world; and that the King of the creation has not yet abdicated his rights. But if you attempt to build on any other foundation than that which has been established by God, do not indulge flattering hopes, your edifice will be like the house built upon sand; the rain came, the wind blew, and the edifice was overturned with violence.[27]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XLVIII. RELIGION AND LIBERTY

In the thirteenth chapter of this work we said, "The heart is filled with generous indignation when we hear the religion of Jesus Christ reproached with a tendency towards oppression. It is true, that if we confound the spirit of real liberty with that of demagogues, we shall not find it in Catholicity. But if we abstain from a monstrous abuse of the name, if we give to the word liberty its reasonable, just, useful, and pleasant meaning, then the Catholic religion may fearlessly claim the gratitude of the human race, for she has civilized the nations who have professed her, and civilization is true liberty." From what we have already shown, the reader may judge whether Catholicity has been favorable, or otherwise, to European civilization, and, consequently, whether she has done any injury to real liberty. On the various points on which we have compared her with Protestantism, we have seen the injurious tendencies of the one and the advantages of the other; the judgment of clear and enlightened reason cannot be doubtful.

As the real liberty of nations does not consist in appearances, but resides in their intimate organization, in the same way as the life does in the heart, I might dispense with entering into a comparison of the two religions with respect to civil liberty; but I do not wish to be accused of having avoided a delicate question, from a fear that Catholicity would not come out of it with honor, or to allow it to be suspected that my faith has any difficulty in sustaining a parallel as advantageously on this ground as on others.

In order to clear up this question completely, it is necessary to examine thoroughly the vague accusations which have been made on this matter against Catholicity, and the eulogiums lavished on the pretended Reformation. It is necessary to show that only gratuitous calumny has been able to reproach the Catholic religion with favoring servitude and oppression; it is necessary to dissipate, by the light of philosophy and history, that deceitful prejudice, by the aid of which freethinkers and Protestants have labored to persuade the people that Catholicity is favorable to servitude, that the Church is the bulwark of tyrants, that the name of Pope is synonymous with that of friend and natural protector of whoever desires to debase men and reduce them to servitude.

There are two ways in which this question may be decided; by doctrines and by facts.

Those who have said that the human race had lost its rights, and that they were revived by Rousseau, certainly have not given themselves much trouble in examining what are the real rights of the human race, and what are the apocryphal rights advanced by the philosopher of Geneva in his Contrat Social. Indeed, it may be said with more truth, that the human race had very valuable rights, acknowledged as such, and which Rousseau lost sight of. He undertook to examine thoroughly the origin of the civil power, and his wild notions, instead of explaining the matter, have only served to confuse it. I believe that on this important point men have never had ideas less clear and distinct than now. Revolutions have upset every thing in theory and in fact; governments have been sometimes revolutionary, sometimes reactionary; and sometimes revolution, and sometimes reaction, has been predominant. It is extremely difficult to obtain from modern books a clear, accurate, and exact knowledge of the nature of the civil power, of its origin, and of its relations with subjects; in some of these you will find the doctrines of Rousseau, in others those of Bonald: Rousseau is a miner who saps in order to overturn; Bonald is the hero who saves in his arms the tutelary deities of the city delivered to the flames; but in his fear of profanation, he carries them covered with a veil. However, it would not be just to attribute to Rousseau the melancholy honor of having begun the confusion of ideas on this point; at various times there have been found misguided men, who have labored to disturb society by anarchical doctrines; but the embodiment of these doctrines, and the forming of them into seductive theories, dates chiefly from the birth of Protestantism. Luther, in his book De Libertate Christiana, sowed the seeds of endless troubles by the extravagant doctrine, that a Christian is subject to no one. In vain did he have recourse to the evasive declaration, that he did not speak of magistrates or civil laws; the peasants of Germany drew their own consequences; they rose up against their lords, and enkindled a dreadful war. The divine right held by Catholics has been accused of favoring despotism; and it has been considered as so much opposed to the rights of the people, that the two expressions are often antithetically employed. Divine right, well understood, is not opposed to the rights, but to the excesses of the people; so far from giving unlimited extent to power, it confines it within the limits of reason, justice, and public advantage. In his lectures on the general history of civilization in Europe, M. Guizot, speaking of this right as proclaimed by the Church, says: "The rights of liberty and political guarantees are combined with difficulty with the principle of religious royalty; but that principle in itself is elevated, moral, and salutary." (Lecture ix.) When men like M. Guizot, who have made these questions their special study, are so lamentably deceived on this point, who can be astonished that the same thing occurs to the generality of writers!

Before I go further, I will make one observation, which we ought always to have present to our minds. On these questions we continually hear mention made of the schools of Bossuet and of Bonald; private names are put forward, sometimes in one way and sometimes in another. Much as I respect the merits of these men, and of others not less illustrious produced by the Catholic Church, yet I must observe that she is not responsible for any doctrines but those which she herself teaches; that she is not personified in any doctor in particular; and that being herself appointed by God himself to be the oracle of infallible truth in faith and morality, she does not permit the faithful to defer blindly to the mere word of any private man, however great may be his merit in science and in sanctity. If you wish to know what the Catholic Church teaches, consult the decisions of her Councils and her Pontiffs; consult also her doctors of distinguished and unsullied reputation; but beware of confounding the opinions of an author, however respectable he may be, with the doctrines of the Church and the voice of the Vicar of Jesus Christ. By this warning I do not mean to prematurely condemn the opinions of any one, but simply to put those on their guard who, little versed in ecclesiastical studies, might, in certain cases, confound revealed dogmas with what is mere human thought. Having premised this much, let us enter freely into the question.

Wherein does this divine right, of which we hear so much, consist? In order to explain this matter completely, we must state the objects over which this right extends; for these objects being widely different, there will also be a great difference in the application made to them of the principle. A great number of questions present themselves in this very important matter; but it appears to me that they may all be reduced to these, which embrace the rest, viz. What is the origin of the civil power? How far does it extend? Is it lawful to resist it in any case?

The first question is, What is the origin of the civil power? How do we know that this power is from God? There is much confusion prevailing on these points; and certainly it is to be lamented, that at a time so disturbed as the present they should be misunderstood; for whatever may be said to the contrary, doctrines are never wholly laid aside, either in revolutions or in restorations; men's interests, no doubt, have great weight therein, but they are not left alone in the arena. The best way of forming clear ideas on these points is to have recourse to ancient authors, especially those whose doctrines have been respected for a long period of time, who continue to be respected down to this day, and who are looked upon as safe guides in the right interpretation of ecclesiastical doctrines. This way of studying the question which now occupies us ought to be acceptable to those even who entertain contempt for the writers of whom we speak; for we are now engaged more in seeking in what the doctrine consists, than in examining into its truth. Now for this purpose we cannot find witnesses better informed, or interpreters more competent, than men who have devoted their whole lives to the study of the doctrine.

This last reflection is in no way contradictory to what we have said above, on the care which we ought to take not to confound the mere opinions of men with the doctrines of the Church; it only tends to remind us of the necessity which exists of perusing a certain class of authors, who are certainly not worthy of the ungrateful neglect with which they are treated; indeed, it is impossible that their important labors, conscientiously pursued for so long a time, should produce no fruit. In order to understand the better the opinion of these writers on the matter which now occupies us, we ought to observe the difference which they make in the application of the general principle of divine right to the origin of the civil or to that of the ecclesiastical power. From this comparison there arises a bright light, which resolves and clears up all difficulties. Open the works of the most distinguished theologians, consult their treatises on the origin of the power of the Pope, and you will see that in establishing this power on divine right, they mean that it emanates from God, not only in a general sense, that is, inasmuch as all being comes from God; not only in a social sense, that is, inasmuch as the Church being a society, God has willed the existence of a power to govern it; but in a most special manner that God has Himself instituted this power, that He has Himself established its form, that He has Himself pointed out the person, and that consequently the successor to the chair of St. Peter is of divine right the supreme pastor of the universal Church, having over the whole of this Church supreme honor and jurisdiction.

With respect to the civil power, these authors speak thus. In the first place, all power comes from God; for power exists, and all existence comes from God; power is sovereignty, and God is the lord, the supreme master of all things; power is a right, and in God is found the source of all right; power is a moral movement, and God is the universal cause of all sorts of movements; power tends towards an exalted end, and God is the end of all creatures; His Providence ordains and directs all things with mercy and efficacy. Thus we see that St. Thomas, in his work De Regimine Principum, affirms that all power comes from God as supreme master, as may be shown in three ways: as it is a being, as it is a mover, and as it is an end. (Lib. 3, cap. 1.)

As I am treating of this method of explaining the origin of power, I must pause for a moment to refute Rousseau, who, in the allusion which he made to this doctrine, showed that he did not understand it. He says, "All power comes from God, I allow; but all diseases also come from Him. Are we, therefore, to say that it is forbidden to call in a physician?" (Contrat Social, liv. i. c. 3.) It is true that one of the senses in which the divine origin of power is affirmed is, that all finite beings emanate from an infinite being; but this sense is not the only one. Indeed, theologians knew very well that this idea, by itself, did not imply its legitimacy, and that it extended as well to physical force; for as the author of the Contrat Social adds: "the pistol held by a robber in a wood is also a power." Rousseau, in this passage, has sacrificed the sense to show his ingenuity; the love of making a brilliant sally has seduced him into removing the question from its proper ground. It was easy, indeed, to see that, with respect to the civil power, men do not speak of a physical, but of a moral, a legitimate power; in any other way it would be in vain to seek for its origin: as well might they seek the source of riches, health, strength, courage, subtilty, or the other qualities which contribute to form the material force of all power. The question is with regard to the moral being which is called power; and in the moral order, illegitimate power is not power, it is not a being, it is nothing. Consequently, there is no need of seeking its origin in God, or in any thing else. Therefore, power emanates from God as the source of all right, justice, and legitimacy; and in considering power, not as a mere physical, but as a moral being, it is affirmed that it can come from God alone, who is the plenitude of all being. Not only is this doctrine, taken generally, above all difficulty, but it must be admitted by all who do not profess themselves atheists; they alone can call it in question. Let us now descend to particulars, and see whether Catholic doctors teach any thing which is not perfectly reasonable even in the eyes of philosophers.

Man, they say, was not created to live alone; his existence supposes a family; his inclinations urge him to form an alliance, without which the human race could not be perpetuated. Families are connected with each other by intimate and indestructible ties; they have common wants; none can insure happiness, or even preservation, without the aid of others. Therefore they are bound to enter into society. Society cannot exist without order, or order without justice; and both require a guardian, an interpreter, an executor. This is the civil power. God, who created man, and willed also his preservation, consequently willed the existence of society, and the power which it requires. Now the existence of the civil power is as conformable to the will of God as the existence of the paternal; if families have need of the paternal, society has no less need of the civil power. Our Lord has condescended to secure us from mistakes on this important point by telling us in the Scriptures, that all power emanates from Him, that we are obliged to obey it, that whoever resists it resists the Divine command. I seek in vain for an objection to this way of explaining the origin of society, and of the power which governs it. This doctrine preserves natural, human, and divine right; all these rights are connected, and support each other. The sublimity of the theory rivals its simplicity; revelation sanctions what was shown by the light of reason, and grace fortifies nature. Such, then, is the famous divine right, presented as a bugbear to the ignorant and unsuspecting, in order to make them believe that the Catholic Church, when she teaches the obligation of obeying the legitimate power, and founds this obligation on the law of God, proposes a dogma injurious to true human liberty.

To hear some men ridicule the divine right of kings, one would say that we Catholics believed that certain individuals and families have received bulls of institution from Heaven, and that we are grossly ignorant of the history of the changes of the civil power. If they had examined the matter more deeply, they would have found that, far from being liable to the reproach of such folly, we have only established a principle the necessity of which was acknowledged by all the legislators of antiquity, and that our belief is quite reconcilable with true philosophical doctrines and the events recorded by history. In support of what I have said, see with what admirable clearness St. Chrysostom explains this point in his 23d homily on the Epistle to the Romans: "There is no power that does not come from God." What do you say? Is every prince, then, appointed by God? I do not say that; for I do not speak of any prince in particular, but of the thing itself, that is, of the power itself: I affirm that the existence of principalities is the work of the divine wisdom, and that to it it is owing that all things are not given up to blind chance. Therefore it is that the Apostle does not say, "That there is no prince who does not come from God;" but he says, speaking of the thing in itself, "There is no power which does not come from God." "Non est potestas, nisi a Deo. Quid dicis? Ergo omnis princeps a Deo constitutus? Istud non dico. Non enim de quovis principe mihi sermo est, sed de re ipsa, id est de ipsa potestate. Quod enim principatus sint, quodque non simpliciter et temere cuncta ferantur, divinæ sapientiæ opus esse dico. Propterea non dicit: non enim princeps est nisi a Deo. Sed de re ipsa disserit dicens: non est potestas nisi a Deo." (Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Rom.) It appears, from the words of St. John Chrysostom, that the meaning of divine right, according to Catholics, is, that there exists a power for the government of society, and that it is not abandoned to the mercy of passion and imagination. This doctrine, which insures public order, by establishing the obligation of obedience on motives of conscience, does not descend to the inferior questions, which do not affect the fundamental principle.

It may perhaps be objected, that if we admit the interpretation of St. John Chrysostom, it was not necessary for the sacred text to teach that which reason so clearly dictated. To this our reply is twofold: 1st, that the sacred Scripture expressly prescribes to us several obligations which nature imposes on us independently of all divine right, as to honor parents, not to kill, not to rob, and other things of the kind; 2d, that in the present case the Apostles had very good reason to recommend particularly obedience to legitimate power, and to sanction in a clear and conclusive manner this obligation, founded on the natural law itself. Indeed, the same St. Chrysostom tells us, "that at that time a very widely-spread opinion represented the Apostles as seditious men and innovators, laboring by their speeches and acts to bring about the downfall of laws." "Plurima tunc temporis circumferebatur fama, traducens Apostolos veluti seditiosos rerumque novatores; qui omnia ad evertendum leges communes et facerent et dicerent." (Hom. 23, in Epist. ad Tim.)

It was no doubt to this that St. Paul alluded when, admonishing the faithful of the obligation of obeying authority, he told them that "such was the will of God, that by acting thus they might put to silence the imprudence of foolish men." (Epist. i. c. 2.) We also know from St. Jerome, that in the beginning of the Church, some, hearing the Gospel liberty preached, imagined that universal liberty also was meant. The necessity of inculcating a duty, the fulfilment of which is indispensable for the preservation of society, will be clearly perceived if we consider with what ease an error so flattering to proud and rebellious minds might take root. After fourteen centuries had passed away, we see the error reproduced in the time of Wickliff and John Huss. The Anabaptists made a dreadful application of it when they inundated Germany with blood. At a later period, the fanatical sectaries of England raised the greatest disorders and brought about fearful catastrophes by a similar doctrine, condemning alike the civil and ecclesiastical power.

The religion of Jesus Christ, the law of peace and love, when preaching liberty, spoke of that liberty which draws us from the slavery of sin and the power of the devil, renders us co-heirs of Jesus Christ, and participators of grace and glory. But she was very far from propagating doctrines which could favor disorder, or subvert law and authority. It was, then, of the greatest importance to her to disprove the calumnies by which her enemies attempted to injure her; it was necessary for her to proclaim, by her words and acts, that the public interest had nothing to fear from her doctrines. We also see that after the Apostles had inculcated this sacred obligation on several occasions, the Fathers of the earliest times insist again and frequently on the same point. St. Polycarp, quoted by Eusebius, (lib. iv. Hist. cap. 15,) says, when speaking to the proconsul: "It is ordained to render to the magistrates and powers appointed by God the honor which we owe them." St. Justin, in his Apology for the Christians, also recalls the precept of Jesus Christ touching the payment of tributes: Tertullian, in his Apology, chapter third, reproaches the Gentiles with the persecution they directed against the Christians, even at the time when the latter, with their hands raised to heaven, were praying for the safety of the emperors. The zeal of the saints who were charged with the instruction and direction of the faithful succeeded in inculcating this precept so well, that the Christians were everywhere a model of submission and obedience. Thus Pliny, writing to the Emperor Trajan, avowed that, religion excepted, he could not accuse them of being at all wanting in the fulfilment of the laws and imperial edicts.

Nature herself has pointed out the persons in whom resides the paternal power; the wants of the family mark the limits of this power; the feelings of the heart prescribe its object and regulate its conduct. In society it is otherwise: the rights of the civil power are tossed about by the storms of human events; here this right resides in one person, there in several; to-day it belongs to one family, to-morrow to another; one day it is exercised under one form, the next under another very different. The infant who weeps at his mother's bosom reminds her of the obligation of nourishing and watching over it; woman, weak and unsupported, calls unmistakably on man to protect her and her child; youth, without strength to sustain or knowledge to direct itself, shows parents their obligation of care and guardianship. We see clearly the will of God; the order of nature forcibly expresses it; the tenderest feelings are its echo and interpreter; we do not require any thing else to show us what is the will of God; we do not need any refinement to convince us that the parental power is from above. The rights and duties of parents and children are written in characters as distinct as they are beautiful. But where shall we find, with respect to the civil power, an expression as unequivocal? If power comes from God, by what means does he communicate it? In what channel is it conveyed? This leads us to other secondary questions, which all conduce to the explanation and solution of the principal question.

Was there ever a man who by natural right found himself invested with civil power? It is clear that in this case power would have no other origin than paternal authority; that is to say, in that case, the civil power ought to be considered as an amplification of that authority, as a transformation of domestic into civil power. We immediately see the difference between the domestic and the social order, their separate objects, the diversity of rules by which they must be regulated, and we see how different are the means which they both use for their government. I do not deny that the type of society is found in the family, and that society is in the most desirable condition when it most resembles the family in command and in obedience; but mere analogies do not suffice to establish rights, and it always remains indubitable that those of the civil power must not be confounded with those of the paternal.

On the other hand, the nature of things shows that Providence, in ordaining the destinies of the world, did not establish the paternal as the source of the civil. Indeed, we do not see how such a power could have been transmitted, and the legitimacy of its claims have been justified. We can easily understand the limited rule of an old man, governing a society, composed of two or three generations only, who were descended from him; but as soon as this society increased, extended to several countries, and consequently was divided and subdivided, the patriarchal power must have disappeared, its exercise must have become impossible, and we can no longer understand how the pretenders to the throne could come to an understanding with each other and the rest of the people, to justify and legitimize their rule. The theory which acknowledges the paternal as the origin of the civil power may be as promising as you please; it may sustain itself on the example of the patriarchal government, which we observe in the cradle of society; but there are two things against it. First, it asserts, but does not prove; second, it has no means of attaining the end for which it was intended, viz. the consolidation of government, for it cannot establish itself by proving its legitimacy. The greatest of kings and the humblest of subjects equally know that they are the sons of Noe; nothing more. I have not been able to find this theory either in St. Thomas, or in any of the other principal theologians; and to go still higher, I do not know that it can find any authority in the doctrines of the Fathers, in the tradition of the Church, or in Scripture itself. It is consequently a mere philosophical opinion, of which the explanation and proof belong to those who advance it. Catholicity says nothing either for or against it.

It is then demonstrated that the civil power does not reside in any man of natural right, and on the other hand, we know that power comes from God. Who receives this power from God, and how does he receive it? It is necessary first to observe, that the Catholic Church, while acknowledging the divine origin of the civil power, an origin which is expressly stated in Scripture, does not define any thing either as to the form of this power, or the means which God employs in communicating it. So that after the Catholic doctrine is established, there still remains to be examined and discussed, who immediately receives the power, and how it is transmitted? This is acknowledged by theologians when they have treated of this matter; this should be enough to remove the prejudices of those who consider the doctrine of the Church on this point as conducive to popular degradation. The Church teaches the obligation of obeying legitimate authority, and adds that the power which it exercises emanates from God; this doctrine is as applicable to republics as to absolute monarchies, and does not prejudge either the forms of government or the particular claims of legitimacy. As to these latter questions they cannot be answered in general terms; they depend upon a variety of circumstances into which the general principles which are the foundation of the good order and peace of society cannot enter. I think it is so important to give clear ideas on this point, and to state the doctrines of the most distinguished Catholic divines, that I consider it necessary to devote an entire chapter to this subject.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XLIX. THE ORIGIN OF SOCIETY, ACCORDING TO CATHOLIC DIVINES

There is nothing more instructive or more interesting, than the study of public law in those writers who, pretending not to pass for statesmen, and entertaining no views of ambition, express themselves without flattery and without bitterness; and explain these matters with as much calmness and tranquillity as they would theories of rare application and limited extent. At the present time it is almost impossible to open a book without immediately perceiving to which of the two contending parties the author belongs; it seldom happens that his ideas are not affected by passion, or adapted to serve particular designs; and it not unfrequently happens that, without conviction, he speaks according to the dictates of his interest.

It is not so with the old writers, of whom we are speaking. Let us render them at least this justice; that their opinions are conscientious, their language loyal and sincere; and whatever may be the judgment with respect to them, whether we consider them as real sages, or as ignorant men and fanatics, we cannot call in question their sincerity; that they are animated by a religious idea, that they develop a philosophical system, that their pens are the faithful interpreters of their thoughts.

Rousseau attempts to seek the origin of society, and of the civil power; and begins the first chapter of his work with these words: "Man is born free, and he is everywhere in fetters." Do you not immediately perceive the tribune under the mantle of the philosopher? Do you not observe that, instead of addressing himself to the reason, the writer appeals to the passions; and wounds the most susceptible of them--viz. pride. It is in vain for the philosopher to endeavor to make us believe that he does not intend to reduce his doctrines to practice; his language betrays his design. In another place, where he attempts nothing less than to give advice to a great nation, he has hardly begun when he holds over Europe the torch of an incendiary.

"When we read ancient history, we fancy ourselves transported to another world, and among other beings. What have the French, the English, the Russians, in common with the Greeks and Romans? Hardly any thing but the form. The great souls of the latter appear to the others as exaggerations of history. How can they, who feel themselves to be so little, imagine that such great men ever existed? They did exist, however; and they were human like ourselves. What hinders our being men like them? Our prejudices, our low philosophy, and grovelling passions, combined with the egotism of men's hearts, by absurd institutions, directed by men of little minds." (Considerations on the Government of Poland, &c., Chap. 2.) Do you not observe the poison conveyed in these words of the publicist? And is it not palpable that he had something more in view than enlightening the mind? See with what address he attempts to produce a feeling of irritation, by harsh and indecent reproaches.

Let us take the opposite extreme of the comparison, and see in how different a tone St. Thomas of Aquin, in his work De Regimine Principum, begins his explanation on the same subject, and gives directions for good government.[a][A]

[A] This subject is so important, so delicate, that I shall not be satisfied with giving a translation of the passages which I quote, however careful I may be to render them exact and literal, at the risk of irregularity of style and violation of the idiom of our language. I wish, therefore, to set before the reader the original texts themselves, desiring him to judge from them and not from my version. [They will be found in the Appendix.]

"If man," he says, "was intended to live alone, like many animals, he would not require any one to govern him; every man would be his own king, under the supreme command of God; inasmuch as he would govern himself by the light of reason given him by the Creator. But it is in the nature of man to be a social and political animal, living in community, differently from all other animals; a thing which is clearly shown by the necessities of his nature. Nature has provided for other animals food; skins for a covering, means of defence,--as teeth, horns, claws,--or, at least, speed in flight; but she has not endowed man with any of those qualities; and instead she has given him reason, by which, with the assistance of his hands, he can procure what he wants. But to procure this, one man alone is not enough; for he is not in a condition to preserve his own life; it is, therefore, in man's nature to live in society. Moreover, nature has granted to other animals the power of discerning what is useful or injurious to them: thus the sheep has a natural horror of his enemy the wolf. There are also certain animals who know by nature the herbs which are medicinal to them, and other things which are necessary for their preservation. But man has not naturally the knowledge which is requisite for the support of life, except in society; inasmuch as the aid of reason is capable of leading from universal principles to the knowledge of particular things, which are necessary for life. Thus, then, since it is impossible for man alone to obtain all this knowledge, it is necessary that he should live in society, one aiding another; each one applying to his own task; for example, some in medicine; some in one way, and some in another. This is shown with great clearness in that faculty peculiar to man, language--which enables him to communicate his thoughts to others. Indeed, brute animals mutually communicate their feelings; as the dog communicates his anger by barking, and other animals their passions by various ways. But man, with respect to his fellows, is more communicative than any other animal; even than those who are the most inclined to live in union, as cranes, ants, and bees. In this sense, Solomon says, in Ecclesiastes: 'It is better, therefore, that two should be together than one; for they have the advantage of their society.' Thus, if it be natural for man to live in society, it is necessary that some one should direct the multitude; for if many were united, and each one did as he thought proper, they would fall to pieces, unless somebody looked after the public good, as would be the case with the human body, and that of any other animal, if there did not exist a power to watch over the welfare of all the members. Thus Solomon says: 'Thus, where there is no one to govern, the people will be dispersed.' In man himself the soul directs the body; and in the soul, the feelings of anger and concupiscence are governed by the reason. Among the members of the body, there is one principal one, which directs all; as the heart or the head. There ought, then, to be in every multitude some governing power." (St. Thomas, De Regimine Principum, lib. i. cap. 1.)

This passage, so remarkable for profound wisdom, clearness of ideas, solidity of principles, vigor and exactness of deductions, contains, in a few words, all that can be said with respect to the origin of society, and of power; to the rights enjoyed by the latter, and the obligations incumbent upon it: the matter being considered in general, and by the light of reason alone. In the first place, it was required to show, with clearness, the necessity of the existence of society; and this the holy doctor does by this very simple reasoning--man is of such a nature that he cannot live alone, and then he has need of being united to his fellows. If a proof of this fundamental truth be required, it is found in the fact that he is endowed with speech; this is a sign that by nature he is destined to communicate with other men, and consequently to live in society. After having proved this invincible necessity, it remained to demonstrate a necessity not less absolute--viz. the necessity of a power to govern society. In order to make this demonstration, St. Thomas does not invent extravagant systems, or unfounded theories; he does not appeal to absurd suppositions; he is satisfied with a reason founded on the nature of things, dictated by common sense, and supported by daily experience--viz. that in all bodies of men, there is a director requisite; since, without him, disorder, and even dispersion, are inevitable; for in all societies there must be a chief.

It must be allowed that this clear and simple explanation enables us to understand the theory of the origin of society much better than all the subtilties of explicit and implicit pacts; it is enough for a thing to be founded on nature itself, for it to be viewed as demonstrated as a real necessity, in order that its existence may be easily conceived; why then seek, by subtilties and suppositions, what is apparent at the first view?

Let us not, however, suppose that St. Thomas does not acknowledge divine right, or is ignorant that the obligation of obedience to power may be founded on it: far from it; this truth he establishes in many places in his works; but he does not forget the natural and the human law, which, on this point, are combined and allied with the divine, in such a way, that the latter is only a confirmation of, and gives a sanction to, the others. We ought thus to interpret the passages in which the holy doctor attributes the civil power to human law, considering this law with that of grace. For example, when examining whether infidels can have dominion or supremacy over the faithful, he says:[b] "It is necessary here to consider that dominion or supremacy is introduced by virtue of human law; the distinction between the faithful and infidels, is by divine law. Divine law, which emanates from grace, does not take away human law, which is founded on the law of natural reason; therefore the distinction between the faithful and infidels, considered in itself, does not take away the dominion or supremacy of infidels over the faithful."

When inquiring, in another place, if the prince who has apostatized from the faith by this fact loses dominion over his subjects, so that they are no longer called upon to obey him, he expresses himself thus:[c] "As has been said before, infidelity does not destroy dominion itself; for dominion was introduced by the law of nations, which is human right; while the distinction between the faithful and infidels is by a divine, which does not take away the human right." Again; when examining if man is obliged to obey another man, he says:[d] "As natural actions proceed from natural powers, so human operations proceed from the human will. In natural things, it was necessary that inferior things should be brought into their respective operations by the excellence of the natural virtue which God has given to superior things. In the same way, also, it is necessary that in human things, those which are superior should urge on the inferior, by the force of authority ordained by God. To move, by means of reason and the will, is to command; and as, by virtue of the natural order instituted by God, inferior things in nature are necessarily subject to the motion of superior things, so also, in human things, those which are inferior ought, by natural and divine right, to obey those which are superior."

On the same question, St. Thomas examines whether obedience is a special virtue, and he answers,[e] "That to obey a superior is a duty conformable to the divine order communicated to things." In the 6th article, he states the question whether Christians are obliged to obey the secular powers, and says:[f] "The faith of Christ is the principle and cause of justice, according to what is said in the Epistle to the Romans, chap. iii. 'the justice of God by the faith of Jesus Christ.' Thus the faith of Christ does not take away the law of justice, but rather confirms it. This law wills that inferiors should obey their superiors; for without that, human society could not be preserved; and thus the faith of Christ does not exempt the faithful from the obligation of obeying the secular powers." I have quoted at some length these passages from St. Thomas, in order to show that he does not understand the divine right in the sense in which the enemies of Catholicity have made it a reproach to us; but that, properly speaking, while he adheres to a dogma so expressly taught in the sacred text, he considers the Divine law as a confirmation and sanction of the natural and human law. We know that for six centuries Catholic doctors have regarded the authority of St. Thomas as worthy of the highest respect in all that concerns faith and morality.

We have just seen that this angel of the schools establishes, as founded on the natural, human, and divine law, the duty of obeying authority, affirming that the source of all power is found in God, without entering into the question whether God communicates this power directly or indirectly to those who exercise it, and leaving a vast field where human opinions may debate without violating the purity of faith. In the same way, the most eminent doctors who have succeeded him in the Catholic pulpits have contented themselves with establishing and enforcing the doctrine, without rashly making use of the authority of the Church in its application. To prove this I will here insert some passages from distinguished theologians. Cardinal Bellarmin expresses himself in these words:[g] "It is certain that public authority comes from God, from whom alone emanate all things good and lawful, as is proved by St. Augustin throughout almost all the forty-five books of the City of God. Indeed, the Wisdom of God, in the Book of Proverbs, chap. viii., cries out, 'It is by Me that kings reign;' and further on, 'It is by Me that princes rule.' The prophet Daniel, in the second chapter, 'The God of heaven has given thee the kingdom and the empire;' and the same prophet, in the fourth chapter, 'Thy dwelling shall be with cattle and with wild beasts, and thou shalt eat grass as an ox, and shalt be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven years shall pass over thee, till thou know that the Most High ruleth over the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He will.'" After having proved, by the authority of the Holy Scriptures, this dogma, via. that the civil power comes from God, the illustrious writer explains the sense in which it ought to be understood:[h] "But," he says, "it is necessary to make some observations here. In the first place, political power, considered in general, and without descending in particular to monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy, emanates immediately from God alone; for being necessarily annexed to the nature of man, it proceeds from Him who has made that nature. Besides, that power is by natural law, since it does not depend upon men's consent, since they must have a government whether they wish it or not, under pain of desiring the destruction of the human race, which is against the inclination of nature. It is thus that the law of nature is divine law, and government is introduced by divine law; and it is particularly this which the Apostle seems to have had in view when he says to the Romans, chap. xiii., 'He who resists authority, resists the ordinance of God.'"

This doctrine destroys all the theory of Rousseau, who makes the existence of society and the right of the civil power depend on human conventions; it also overturns the absurd systems of some Protestants, and other heretics, their predecessors, who, in the name of Christian liberty, pretended to condemn all authority. No! the existence of society does not depend on the consent of man; society is not his work; it satisfies an imperious necessity, which, if it were not satisfied, would entail the destruction of the human race. God, when he created man, did not deliver him to the mercy of chance; He has given him the right of fulfilling his necessities, and has imposed on him the care of his own preservation as a duty; therefore the existence of the human race includes also the existence of government, and the obligations of obedience. There is no theory so clear, simple, and solid. Shall it be called the enemy and oppressor of human freedom? Is it any disgrace to man to acknowledge himself the creature of God? to confess that he has received from Him what is necessary for his preservation? Is the intervention of God any infringement of human liberty, and cannot man be free without being an Atheist? It is absurd to say there is any thing favorable to servitude in a doctrine which tells us "God wills not that you should live like wild beasts: He commands you to be united in society, and for this purpose He orders you to live in submission to an authority legitimately established." If this be called servitude and oppression, we desire this servitude, we willingly give up the right which is pretended to be granted to us of wandering in the woods like wild beasts: true liberty does not exist in man when he is stripped of the finest attribute of his nature, that of acting in conformity with reason.

Such is the explanation of divine right according to the illustrious commentator whom we have just quoted; let us now see the applications which he makes of it, and learn in what way, according to him, God communicates the civil power to those who are charged with its exercise. After the words quoted above, Bellarmin continues:[i] "In the second place, observe, that this power resides immediately, as in its subject, in all the multitude, for it is by divine right. The divine right has not given this power to any man in particular, for it has given it to the multitude; besides, the positive law being taken away, there is no reason why one should rule rather than another, among a great number of equal men; therefore power belongs to the whole multitude. In fine, society should be a perfect state; it should have the power of self-preservation, and, consequently, that of chastising the disturbers of the peace."

This doctrine has nothing in common with the foolish assertions of Rousseau and his followers; no one who has studied public law will confound things so different. Indeed, what the Cardinal establishes in the passage quoted, viz. that power resides immediately in the multitude, is not in opposition to what he himself taught a little before, when he said that it comes from God, and is not owing to human conventions. His doctrine may be conveyed in this form. Suppose a number of men without any positive law; there is then no reason why any one of them should have a right to rule the rest. Nevertheless, this law exists, nature itself indicates its necessity, God ordains a government; therefore there exists among this number of men the legitimate power of instituting one. To explain more clearly the ideas of this illustrious theologian, let us suppose that a considerable number of families, perfectly equal among themselves and absolutely independent of each other, were thrown by a tempest on a desert island. The vessel being destroyed, they have no hope either of returning home or of pursuing their journey. All communication with the rest of mankind is become impossible: we ask, whether these families could live without government? No. Has any one among them a right of governing the rest? Clearly not. Can any individual among them pretend to such a right? Certainly not. Have they a right to appoint the government of which they stand in need? Certainly they have. Therefore in this multitude, represented by the fathers of families or in some other way, resides the civil power, together with the right of transmitting it to one or more persons, according as they shall judge proper. It is difficult to make any valid objection to the doctrine placed in this point of view. That this is the real meaning of his words is clearly shown by the observations which follow:[k] "In the third place," he says, "observe that the multitude transfers this power to one person or more by natural right; for the republic not being able to exercise it by itself, is obliged to communicate it to one or to a limited number; and it is thus that the power of princes, considered in general, is by natural and divine law; and the whole human race, if assembled together, could not establish the contrary, viz. that princes or governors did not exist."

But the fundamental principle being once established, Bellarmin allows to society an ample right of appointing the form of government which they think proper. This ought to refute the accusations made against the Catholic doctrine, of favoring servitude; for if all forms of government are reconcilable with this doctrine, it is evident that it cannot justly be accused of being incompatible with liberty. Hear how the same author continues on this point:[l] "Observe, in the fourth place," he says, "that particular forms of government are by the law of nations, and not by divine law, since it depends upon the consent of the multitude to place over themselves a king, consuls, or other magistrates, as is clear; and, for a legitimate reason, they can change royalty into aristocracy, or into democracy, or vice versâ, as it was done in Rome.

"Observe, in the fifth place, that it follows, from what we have said, that this power in particular comes from God, but by means of the counsel and election of man, like all other things which belong to the law of nations; for the law of nations is, as it were, a conclusion drawn from the natural law by human reasoning. Thence follows a twofold difference between the political and the ecclesiastical power: first, difference with regard to the subject, since political power is in the multitude, and ecclesiastical in a man immediately, as in its subject; second, difference with respect to the cause, since political power, considered generally, is by divine law, and in particular by the law of nations, while the ecclesiastical power is in every way by divine law, and emanates immediately from God."

These last words show clearly how correct I was in saying that theologians understand the divine law in a very different manner, according as it is applied to the civil or to the ecclesiastical power. It must not be supposed that the doctrine now stated is peculiar to Cardinal Bellarmin; the generality of theologians follow him on this point; but I have preferred quoting his authority, because he, being so strongly attached to the See of Rome, if the latter were imbued with the principles of despotism, as it has been charged with being, no doubt, something of them would appear in the writings of this theologian. It is easy to anticipate the objection that will be made to this explanation; we shall be told that Bellarmin, having for his object the exaltation of the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, with this view attempted to lower the power of kings, in order to take away or diminish all opposition to the authority of the Popes. I will not now enter into an examination of the opinions of Bellarmin with respect to the two powers--this would be foreign to my design; besides, such points of civil and ecclesiastical law excited at that time great interest, on account of circumstances at that period, but now very little, on account of the new course which events have taken, and the great change which has been brought about in ideas. I shall, nevertheless, reply to this supposed difficulty by two very simple observations. The first is, that we have not to inquire the intentions of Bellarmin in explaining his doctrine, but in what that doctrine consists. Whatever his motive may have been, we see an author of vast renown, whose opinion has great weight in Catholic schools, and who wrote at Rome, where, so far from his writings being condemned, he was surrounded with respect and honor: this theologian, I say, explaining the doctrine of the Church on the Divine origin of the civil power, does it in such terms that, while giving sacred guarantees for the good order of society, he does not infringe on the liberty of the people; this is the vindication of Rome against the attacks made upon her. The second is, that Cardinal Bellarmin does not here profess an isolated opinion--the generality of theologians are on his side; therefore, all that can be said against him personally proves nothing against his doctrines. Among the many authors that I could quote, I will select some who will represent many different periods: and as the obligation of being brief confines me within narrow limits, I beg the reader himself to examine the works of Catholic theologians and moralists; he will thus make sure of becoming acquainted with their thoughts on this subject. Hear how Suarez explains the origin of power:[m] "Herein," he says, "the common opinion seems to be, that God, inasmuch as He is the author of nature, gives the power; so that men are, so to speak, the matter and subject capable of this power; while God gives the form by giving the power." (De Leg. lib. iii. c. 3.)

He goes on to develop his doctrine, relying on the reason usually made use of in this matter; and when he comes to draw the conclusions, he explains how society, which, according to him, receives the power immediately from God, communicates it to certain persons. He adds:[n] "In the second place, it follows from what has been said, that the civil power, whenever it is found in a man or a prince, has emanated according to usual and legitimate law, from the people and the community, either directly or remotely, and that it cannot otherwise be justly possessed." (Ibid. cap. 4.)

Perhaps some of my readers may not know that a Spanish Jesuit maintained against the King of England in person, the doctrine that princes receive power mediately from God, and immediately from the people. This Jesuit is Suarez himself, and the book to which I allude is called,[o] "Defence of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith against the errors of the Anglican sect; accompanied by a Reply to the Apology for the Oath of Fidelity, and to the monitory Preface published by the most serene James, King of England. By P. D. François Suarez, Professor at the University of Coimbra; addressed to the most serene Kings and Princes of the Christian world."

In the third book, chapter second, where he discusses the question, Whether the political sovereignty comes immediately from God or from divine institution, Suarez says: "Here the most serene King not only gives a new and singular opinion, but also acrimoniously attacks Cardinal Bellarmin, for having affirmed that Kings have not received authority immediately from God like the Popes. He himself affirms that Kings hold their power not from the people, but immediately from God; and he attempts to support his opinion by arguments and examples the value of which I shall examine in the next chapter.

"Although this controversy does not immediately concern the dogmas of faith (for we have nothing in reference to it either in the Scriptures or in the Fathers), it may nevertheless be well to discuss and explain it carefully; 1. because it might possibly lead to error in other dogmas; 2. because the above opinion of the King, as he maintains and explains it, is new, singular, and apparently invented to exalt the temporal at the expense of the spiritual power; and 3. because we consider the opinion of the illustrious Bellarmin ancient, received, true, and necessary." But we must not attribute these opinions to the circumstances of the times, nor suppose that they disappeared from the schools of theologians as soon as they were advanced. In support of them, a multitude of authors might very easily be cited, who would show that Suarez was correct in saying that the opinion of Bellarmin was received and ancient; they would, moreover, show that this doctrine continued to be admitted as a matter of course, without any doubt of its orthodoxy, or of its containing any thing dangerous to the stability of monarchies. In proof of what is here adduced, I will cite passages from distinguished authors, proving that at Rome this mode of explaining the right divine has never been called in question; and that in France and Spain, where absolute monarchy had taken so deep root, this opinion was no longer regarded as dangerous to the stability of thrones. A long period had already elapsed--the critical position which might more or less influence the direction of ideas had consequently disappeared, yet theologians still maintained the same doctrines. Cardinal Gotti, who wrote in the early part of the last century, gives, in his Treatise upon Laws, the above opinion as previously admitted, without even attempting to confirm it.[p] In the Moral Theology of Herman Busenbaum, enlarged by St. Alphonsus Liguori, book 1st, second Treatise upon Laws, (chap. i. dub. 2, § 104,) it is expressly said: "It is certain that the power of making laws exists among men, but as far as civil laws are concerned, this power belongs naturally to no individual. It belongs to the community, who transfer it to one or to more, that by them the community itself may be governed."

Should any one say that I quote the Jesuits only, or suspect that these doctrines are mere casuistry, I will cite remarkable passages from other theologians, who are neither casuists nor prepossessed in favor of the Jesuits. Father Daniel Concina, who wrote at Rome about the middle of the last century, supports the same doctrine as generally admitted; in his Théologie chrétienne dogmatico-morale, Roman edition, 1768, he expresses himself as follows:[q] "All writers generally assert that the origin of supreme power is of God, as Solomon declares in the Book of Proverbs, c. viii., saying, 'By Me kings reign, and lawgivers decree just things:' as truly as subordinate princes are dependent upon the supreme temporal majesty, so, in like manner, this majesty itself must depend upon the supreme King and Lord of lords. Theologians and jurists dispute whether this supreme power comes immediately from God, or merely in an indirect manner. Many affirm that it emanates immediately from God, because it cannot emanate from men, whether we consider them collectively or individually; for all fathers of families are equal, and each possesses, with regard to his own family, a power merely economical; from which it follows, that they cannot confer upon others that civil and political power which they themselves do not possess. Moreover, if the community, in its superiority, had delegated to one or to more the power here under discussion, it could revoke it at pleasure, for the superior is always at liberty to withdraw the facilities he has delegated to another, and this would be very injurious to society.

"In support of the opposite opinion, many answer, and certainly with more probability and truth, that, in reality, all power proceeds from God, but that it is not delegated to any particular individual directly, unless by consent of civil society. That this power is not vested directly in any individual, but in the entire collection of men, is what St. Thomas expressly teaches (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad 2, et qu. 97, art. 3, ad 3), followed by Dominic Soto (lib. i. qu. 1, art. 3); by Ledesma (2 part. qu. 18, art. 3); and by Covarruvias (in Pract. cap. i.). The reason of this is evident; for as all men are born free with regard to civil society, no one has any civil power over another, since this power exists not in each, nor in any of them in a fixed manner; it follows, therefore, that it is vested in the whole collection of men. God does not confer this power by any special act distinct from creation, but it is a property of right reason, inasmuch as right reason dictates that men, united in one moral whole, shall prescribe, by express or tacit consent, in what manner society shall be governed, preserved, and upheld."

It is proper to remark, that Father Concina, speaking here of tacit or express consent, has not in view the actual existence of society, nor the authority by which it is governed, but merely the mode of exercising this authority for the direction, preservation, and defence of society. Hence, his opinion coincides with that of Bellarmin; society and power are of right divine and natural, but the mode of organizing society, and of transmitting and exercising authority, is human. After having shown in what sense we are to understand that civil power comes from God, Concina resumes the question which he had proposed, viz. in what manner authority exists in kings, princes, and other supreme heads of government. He proceeds as follows:[r] "It is evident, therefore, that the power existing in the prince, the king, or in many persons whether nobles or plebeians, emanates from the community itself, directly or indirectly; for, if it came immediately from God, it would be manifested to us in a particular manner, as in the instances of Saul and David, who were chosen by God. We consider, therefore, erroneous, the doctrine that God confers this power immediately and directly upon the king, the prince, or any other head of supreme government whatever, to the exclusion of the tacit or express consent of the public. This discussion, it is true, is one of words rather than of things, for this power comes from God, the author of nature, inasmuch as He has ordained and appointed that the public itself shall confer upon one or more the power of supreme government, for the preservation and defence of society. The nomination of the person or persons appointed to command being once made, their power is said to come from God, because society itself is bound by natural and divine right to obey him who commands. In fact, it is the will of God that society shall be governed, whether by one individual or by several. In this manner the several opinions of theologians are reconciled with each other, and the oracles of Scripture appear in their true sense: 'He that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.' 'There is no power but from God.' 'Be subject, therefore, to every human creature for God's sake, whether to the king,' &c. 'Thou wouldst not have any power against Me, unless it were given thee from above.' These testimonies, and others of a like nature, ought to convince us that all is ordained and directed by God, the supreme Mediator. This, however, does not exclude the operations of human institutions, as is very justly interpreted by St. Augustin and St. John Chrysostom."

Father Billuart, who lived in the early part of last century, and, consequently, at the same epoch when the highly monarchical traditions of Louis XIV. were in all their vigor, expressed the same ideas on this subject as the theologians above cited. In his work on Moral Theology, which, for almost a century, has been widely circulated, he thus expresses himself:[s] "I maintain, in the first place, that legislative power belongs to the community, or to its representative." After quoting St. Thomas and St. Isidore, he continues: "Reason proves, that to make laws belongs of right to him who is appointed to watch over the public good; for the maintenance of the public good, as has been already said, is the end and aim of the laws. It is the duty of the community, or of its ruler, to watch over the public good; for as the welfare of an individual is a fit object for individual agency, so is the public good for the agency of the community, or of him to whom its functions have been delegated; the power of legislation, therefore, is vested in the community, or in its representative. I will confirm what is here advanced. The law has the power of commanding and of coercing in such a manner that no individual has any authority to command or restrain the multitude. This authority belongs exclusively to the community, or to its representative; to these, therefore, legislative power belongs." Having made these reflections, Billuart starts another difficulty with regard to the extreme extension which he appears to have given to the rights of the multitude. On this occasion he develops his system still further.[t]

"It will be objected," says he, "that the right of commanding and compelling is vested in the superior, and cannot belong to the community, since it is not superior to itself. To this I reply: Society, in one sense, is not superior to itself, but in another it is. The community may be considered collectively as one moral body, and in this sense it is superior to itself as considered distributively in each of its members. Again; it may be considered as acting in the place of God, from whom emanates all legislative power, as it is said in Proverbs: 'By Me kings reign and the lawgivers decree just things;' or as capable of being governed conformably to the public good. In the former case, it is superior and legislative; in the latter, inferior and subject to the law."

As this explanation might appear somewhat obscure, Billuart proceeds to investigate more profoundly the origin of society and of civil power. He endeavors to show how the natural, the divine, and the human laws agree on this point, defining what belongs to each. He then continues as follows:[u] "To render this more clear, it must be observed, that man, unlike other animals, is born destitute of many things necessary both for body and soul, and that for these he is indebted to society and the assistance of his fellow-mortals; consequently he is, by his very nature, a social animal. This society, which nature and reason prescribe to him as indispensable, cannot long exist without some power to direct it, according to what is said in Proverbs: 'Where there is no governor, the people will come to ruin.' Whence it follows, that God, who has given this nature, has also given the power of governing and of legislating. He, in fact, who gives the form, gives, at the same time, all that such form necessarily requires. But as it is not possible for this executive and legislative power to be exercised by the entire multitude, since it would be difficult for all and each forming this multitude to assemble on all occasions when the affairs of the commonweal are to be discussed, or laws to be established, it is usual for the multitude to transfer its right or governing power, either to a number of people selected from all classes, and bearing the name of a democracy; or to a select number of the nobles, which takes the name of an aristocracy; or to one alone, for himself only, or for his successors, by virtue of the right of hereditary succession, which is styled a monarchy. From which it is evident that all power comes from God, as the Apostle says, in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii. This power resides in the community, directly and by natural right, but in kings and other rulers merely indirectly and by human right, unless God confers it directly upon certain individuals, as He did upon Moses over the Jews, and as Christ has conferred it upon the Supreme Pontiff over the whole Church." What is still more remarkable, our absolute monarchies were never alarmed at these theological doctrines, not only previous to the French Revolution, but since that Revolution, and up to the time commonly styled with us the fatal decade, (from 1823 to 1833, the latter part of the reign of Ferdinand VII.) It is well known that during that period the Compendium Salmaticense (Compendium of Salamanca) had a most favorable reception in this country, and served as a text-book among the professors of ethics in the colleges and universities. Ye who are continually declaiming against this epoch, imagining, without doubt, that in those days no other doctrines than those in favor of the most arrant despotism could be circulated, listen to what is said in the above book, which was then placed in the hands of every youth destined to the ecclesiastical state. After having established the existence of a civil legislative power, the author thus proceeds:[x] "You will ask me, in the second place, whether the prince receives this civil legislative power immediately from God. I reply, It, is universally admitted that princes receive this power from God; but, at the same time, it is maintained with more truth, that they do not receive it directly, but through the medium of the people's consent; for all men are naturally equal, and there is no natural distinction of superiority or inferiority. Since nature has not given any individual power over another, God has conferred this power upon the community; which, as it may think it more proper to be ruled by one or by many appointed persons, transfers it to one or to many, that by them it may be ruled; according to St. Thomas (1, 2, qu. 90, art. 3, ad 2). From this natural principle arises the variety in the forms of civil government; for if a state transfers all its power to a single individual, this government is termed monarchical; if it confers it upon the nobles of the nation, it takes the name of an aristocracy; if the people or the state retain this power in their own hands, the civil government is styled a democracy. Princes, therefore, receive from God the power of commanding; for supposing the election made by the whole state, God confers upon the prince the power which was vested in the community. Whence it follows, that the prince rules and governs in the name of God, and whoever resists him resists the ordinance of God, according to the words of the Apostle above cited."

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

L. ON THE RIGHT DIVINE, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS

The doctrine of the right divine, considered in its relation to society, presents to our notice two particular points which this doctrine contains: 1. The origin of civil power; 2. The mode in which God communicates this power.

The former point is a question of doctrine. No Catholic can entertain any doubt upon it. The second is open to discussion; and various opinions may be formed upon it, without interfering with faith. With regard to the right divine, considered in itself, true philosophy agrees with Catholicity. In fact, if civil power comes not from God, to what source can we trace its origin? Upon what solid principle can we support it? If the man who exercises it does not rest upon God the legitimacy of his power, no title will avail to uphold his right. It will be radically and irretrievably null. On the contrary, supposing authority to come from God, our duty to submit to it becomes evident, and our dignity is not in the least hurt by the submission; but, in the other supposition, we see only force, craft, tyranny, but no reason or justice; perhaps a necessity for submission, but no obligation. By what title does any man pretend to command us? Because he is possessed of superior intellect? Who had the right of adjudging to him the palm? Besides, this superiority does not constitute a right; in some instances its direction might be useful to us, but it will not be obligatory. Is it because he is stronger than we? In that case the elephant ought to be king of the entire world. Is it because he is more wealthy than we? Reason and justice exist not in metal. The rich man is born naked, and his riches will not descend with him into the tomb. Upon earth they have enabled him to acquire power; but they do not confer upon him any right to exercise it over others. Shall it consist in certain faculties conferred on him by others? who has constituted other men our proxies? where is their consent? who has collected their votes? and how can either we or they flatter ourselves that we possess faculties equal to the exercise of civil power? and if we do not possess them, how can we delegate them?

We must here consider the doctrine which places the origin of civil power in the will of men, supposing that this power is the result of a pact, by which individuals have agreed to submit to the retrenchment of a part of their natural liberty, in order to enjoy the benefits of society. According to this system, the rights of the civil power, as well as the duties of the subject, are alike founded on a pact, differing from other contracts only in the nature and extent of its object; so that, in this case, power would emanate from God merely in a general sense, just as all rights and duties emanate from Him. Those writers who thus explain the origin of power, do not always agree with Rousseau. The Contrat of the philosopher of Geneva has nothing to do with the pact spoken of in other authors. This is not the place to compare the doctrines of Rousseau with those of other writers; suffice it to say, that although they rely upon the pact, they wish, nevertheless, to establish the rights of civil power as they have been hitherto understood by the common consent of mankind, whilst the author of the Contrat Social proposes in his book the following problem, which he considers fundamental. I quote his own words: "To find a form of association which shall defend and protect with all the common strength the person and property of each associate, and by which each one, being united to all, shall nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before."

Such is the fundamental problem, the solution of which is given in the Contrat Social. This nonsense of having none but one's self to obey, making a contract, and remaining as free as before, needs no comment, after what the author himself says in the following line: "The clauses of this contract are so fixed by the very nature of the act, that the least modification would render them vain and of no effect." (Book i. chap. 6.) Rousseau's ideas on this subject do not, therefore, agree with those of many other writers, who also have spoken of pacts, in their explanation of the origin of power; the latter sought a theory in support of power, the former wished to destroy that which existed, and to throw society into a state of excitement. Through a singular idea, Rousseau, in his vault at the Pantheon, is represented to us with the door half open, and a lighted torch in his hand--an emblem, perhaps, more significant than has been imagined. The artist's intention was, to express the idea of Rousseau's enlightening the world even after his death; but it should be remembered, that the torch is also an emblem of the incendiary. La Harpe said of him:

"Sa parole est un feu, mais un feu qui ravage."

To return to the question, I will observe, that the doctrine of a pact is of no avail in accounting for the establishment of power; for it cannot even render legitimate either its origin or its exercise. First, an explicit pact has evidently never existed; and secondly, in the formation of even the most limited society, such a pact never could obtain the consent of every individual member. In any convention for such an object, only the heads of families could take part; and hence, women, children, and servants might protest against it. In assenting to such a pact, what right would fathers have to represent the whole of their families? The will of the latter, it will be said, was virtually included in that of their chief; but this is the very point that wants proof. Supposition here is easy enough; proof is not so easy. When you seek the origin of power in principles of strict right, and attempt to maintain that this is only one of those cases to which ordinary conditions of contracts are applicable, you are met at once by a very serious difficulty; for you are obliged to have recourse to a fiction:--the words "implicit consent" are a mere fiction, and nothing more. Is it not evident, that the consent of families must have been implicit, even supposing that of their heads to be explicit? This explicit consent would, in fact, be impossible in the formation of any society, however limited in extent. And moreover, the consent of succeeding generations will be equally implicit, since it is impossible to be continually renewing the contract, for the purpose of consulting the wishes of the parties interested in its effects. Reason and history teach that society has never been thus organized; our own experience tells us that it is not now upheld or governed by any such principles. Of what use, then, is this inexplicable theory? When a theory has a practical object, the best way of proving its fallacy is, to prove its impracticability.

The faculties with which civil power is, and always has been, considered to be invested, are of such a nature, that they cannot have proceeded from a pact. The right of life and death can have come only from God. Man is not in possession of this right. No pact merely human could invest him with a power which he has not, either in relation to himself or to others. I will endeavor to demonstrate this point with all possible precision. If the right of taking away life emanates not from God, but from a pact, it must have originated in the following manner: every member of society must have said, expressly or tacitly, "I consent to the establishment of laws to decree punishment of death for certain crimes; and if I should at any time transgress them, I am willing from that moment to forfeit my life." In this manner, every individual will have given up his life, supposing that the conditions specified are realized; but no individual having a right over his own life, the resigning of it becomes radically null. The joint consent of all the members of society does not obviate the radical and essential nullity of each one's right to give up his life; the sum of their resignations is therefore equally null, and consequently incapable of producing any right whatever. It will be said, perhaps, that man, properly speaking, has no right over his own life, when an arbitrary right is implied, but that when he chooses to dispose of it for his own advantage, the general principle should be restricted. This reflection, at first sight plausible, would lead to the terrible consequence of authorizing suicide. In reply, it will be said, that suicide is no advantage to him who commits it; but if you once grant to the individual the right of disposing of his life, provided he reap an advantage from so doing, you cannot constitute yourselves judges to decide whether or not this advantage exists in any particular case. According to you, he had a right to sacrifice his life when, for example, to satisfy his wants or his taste, he had stolen the property of another. That is to say, that he had a right of choice between the advantages of life and those of satisfying a desire: what will you answer, if he tell you that he prefers death to misery, to ennui, to grief, or to such and such misfortunes which torment him?

The right of life and death cannot consequently emanate from a pact. Man's life is not his own; he has only the use of it so long as it pleases the Creator to grant it him. He has not, therefore, the right of disposing of it, and all conventions he may make for that purpose are null. In some instances, it is lawful, glorious, it may be even obligatory, to deliver one's self up to certain death; but let us not confound ideas: man does not in that case sacrifice his life as being the master of it, he is a voluntary victim to the salvation of his country, or to the good of mankind. The warrior who scales a wall, the charitable man who confronts the most dangerous contagion in visiting the sick, the missionary who resorts to unknown countries, who resigns himself to live in unhealthy climates, and who penetrates into inaccessible forests, seeking ferocious hordes, do not dispose of their lives as being their own; they sacrifice them to a purpose great, sublime, just, and pleasing to God; for God loves virtue, especially heroic virtue; and it is a heroic virtue to die for one's country, to die in visiting the sick, or in carrying the light of truth to those seated in darkness and in the shadow of death. This right of life and death, with which civil power has ever been considered invested, may by some be considered as founded upon the natural right of self-defence vested in society. Every individual, they will say, has the right of taking away the life of another in self-defence; therefore society also has this right. In the chapter on Intolerance, I have touched slightly upon this point, and made some reflections which may be repeated here. I will endeavor, nevertheless, to extend them and confirm them by arguments of another kind. In the first place, I maintain that the right of self-defence may confer upon society that of taking away life. If one individual attacked by another may lawfully repel him--kill him even, if necessary to save his own life, it is evident that an assemblage of men have the same right. This appears so evident, that demonstration is superfluous. One society attacked by another has incontestably the right of resisting and repelling the attack--it is justified in making war. With more reason, therefore, might it resist an individual, to make war on him, or kill him. This is all perfectly true and obvious; and I grant that there thus exists, from the very nature of things, a title upon which we may found the right of inflicting capital punishment.

These ideas are plausible, and seem at first sight to nullify the reasons on which we have supported the necessity of having recourse to God for the origin of this formidable right. Nevertheless, when we come to examine them thoroughly, they are far from satisfactory; and it may be even said, that in the sense in which they are understood and applied, they are subversive of the acknowledged principles of society. In fact, if such a theory be admitted, if the right of inflicting capital punishment be made to rest exclusively on this principle, the ideas of penalty, chastisement, and of human justice disappear at once. It has always been thought that the criminal dying upon a gibbet suffers a penalty; and although this terrible act is certainly a satisfaction to society, a means of preservation, yet the principal and predominant idea, that which surpasses all others, which best justifies and exculpates society, which gives to the judge his august character, and stamps disgrace upon the criminal, is the idea of chastisement, of penalty, and of justice. All this disappears when once we can assert that society, in taking away life, only acts in self-defence. Such an act is conformable to reason, it is just, but it no longer merits the honorable title of an executive act of justice. A man is justified in killing an assassin; but in so doing he does not administer justice, he does not execute justice, nor inflict a penalty. These things are very different, and of a distinct order; we cannot confound them without shocking the good sense of mankind.

We will render this distinction more apparent by putting the two theories into the mouth of the judge: the contrast is striking. In the former case, the judge says to the criminal: "You are guilty; the law decrees against you the penalty of death; I, the minister of justice, apply it; the executioner is ordered to inflict it." In the second, he says to him: "You have attacked society, which cannot exist if such attacks are tolerated. It defends itself, and for this reason puts you to death; I, its agent, declare, that the time for its defending itself is come, and hence I give you up to the executioner." In the former supposition, the judge is a minister of justice, and the culprit a criminal who undergoes a just penalty; in the latter, the judge is an instrument of force, the culprit a victim. But, it will be said, the criminal is not on this account less criminal, and still merits the penalty which he undergoes. This is true with respect to the guilt, but not with respect to the penalty. The fault exists in the eyes of God, and also in the eyes of man, inasmuch as he possesses a conscience capable of judging of the morality of actions; but it does not exist in the eyes of man, considered as a judge. According to you, the judge does not punish a crime; he restrains an act injurious to society: but if you say that the judge inflicts a penalty, you change the nature of the question, for he then does something more than protect society. It follows from what we have just established, that the right of inflicting capital punishment can only emanate from God, and, consequently, if there existed no other reason for referring to God the origin of power, this alone would suffice. War against an invading nation may be explained by the right of self-defence; invasion also comes under the same principle; for if it be just, it can be entered upon only with a view to enforce some reparation or compensation refused by the enemy. War for the sake of alliance enters into that class of actions which are performed for the assistance of a friend; so that this phenomenon of war, with all its glory, and all its ravages, does not so forcibly oblige us to have recourse to a divine origin as this simple right of condemning a man to the gibbet. The sanction of lawful wars also undoubtedly belongs to God, for in Him exists the sanction of all rights and of all duties; but there is not, in this case at least, any need of particular authorization, as in the case of inflicting capital punishment. It is sufficient to have the general sanction which God, as the author of nature, has given to all natural rights and duties.

How do we know that God has granted such an authorization to man? There are three ways of answering this question. 1. The testimony of the Scriptures is sufficient for all Christians. 2. The right of life and death is a universal tradition of the human race, and does, therefore, exist in reality; and as we have shown that it can have its origin only in God, it is right to suppose that He has communicated it to man in one way or another. 3. This right is essential to the preservation of society; God must, therefore, have granted it; for if He wills the preservation of a being, it is evident that He will have bestowed upon it all things necessary for such preservation. To recapitulate what we have hitherto advanced: the Church teaches that civil power comes from God, and this doctrine, which agrees with the formal texts of Scripture, agrees also with natural reason. The Church contents herself with establishing this dogma, and deducing from it the immediate consequence resulting from it, viz. that obedience to the lawful authorities is of right divine. With regard to the mode in which this right divine is communicated, the Church has not determined any thing: the general opinion of theologians is, that society receives it from God, and that, from society, it is transferred, by lawful means, to the person or persons appointed to exercise it. In order that civil power may exact obedience, and be considered invested with this right divine, it must be legitimate; that is to say, the person or persons in possession of it must have acquired it by lawful means, or this power must have become legitimate in their possession, by means acknowledged to be in accordance with right. With respect to political forms, the Church does not determine any thing; but whatever be the form of government, the civil power must be confined within legitimate bounds, while the subject, on his side, is bound to obey. The fitness and legitimacy of such or such persons, and of such and such forms, are subjects not appertaining to right divine. They are particular questions, depending upon a variety of circumstances, and to which no general theory is applicable.

One example of private right will serve to illustrate what we have just explained. Respect for property is of natural and divine right; but the ownership of property, the respective rights of individuals to the same thing, the restrictions to which property should be subject, are questions appertaining to civil right, which have always been resolved, and are still resolved, in various ways. The main object is to adhere to the protective principle of property, the indispensable basis of all social organization; but the application of this principle is, and must be, subject to a variety of circumstances and events, a variety arising from the course of human affairs. It is the same with power. The Church, intrusted with the great deposit of the most important truths, keeps in this deposit the truth which guaranties a divine origin to civil power, and makes the existence of the law an affair of right divine; but she does not interfere in particular cases, which are always controlled more or less by the fluctuation and uncertainty with which the world is agitated. When thus explained, the Catholic doctrine is not in the least opposed to true liberty; it consolidates power, and does not prejudice the questions that may arise between the governors and the governed. No unlawful power can lay claim to the right divine; for it must be legitimate to merit the application of this right. This legitimacy is determined and declared by the laws of each country, from which it follows that the law is the organ of the right divine. This right, therefore, only consolidates what is just; and certainly that which insures justice in the world cannot be said to lead to despotism, for nothing can be more opposed to the liberty and happiness of the people than the absence of justice and legitimacy.

Popular liberties are not endangered by the strong safeguards surrounding the legitimacy of the governing power. On the contrary, reason, history, and experience teach that all illegitimate powers are tyrannical. Their illegitimacy necessarily carries weakness along with it; and it is not the strong, but the weak powers that oppress the people. Real tyranny consists in the person governing taking care of his own instead of the public interest. Now this is precisely what takes place when, feeling himself weak and tottering, he is forced to guard and protect himself. His object is then, no longer society, but himself. Instead of thinking how he may benefit those over whom he rules, he only studies and calculates beforehand the utility he may derive from his own measures. I have said in another place, and I repeat, that, in looking over history, we find continually this important truth written in letters of blood: Wo to the people governed by a power which is obliged to think of its own preservation! A fundamental truth in political science, and which has, nevertheless, been lamentably overlooked in modern times. Much labor has been and is still spent to produce guarantees for liberty. To this end a multitude of governments have been overturned, and attempts have been made to weaken them all, without thinking that this was the most certain means of introducing oppression. What signify the veils under which despotism is concealed, and the forms by which it seeks to disguise its existence? History, which has recorded the outrages committed in Europe during the last century; true history, not that written by the authors of those outrages, by their accomplices, or by interested parties, will relate to posterity the injustices and crimes committed in the midst of civil discord by governments foreseeing their end, and feeling in themselves extreme weakness caused by their tyrannical conduct and the illegality of their origin.

How is it, then, that such a violent warfare has been declared against doctrines tending to consolidate civil authority by rendering it legitimate, and to prove this legitimacy by declaring that power descends from Heaven? How has it been overlooked that the legitimacy of power is an essential element of its strength, and that this strength is the safest guarantee of true liberty? Let it not be said that these are paradoxes. What is the object of societies and governments? Is it not the substitution of public for private force, of the rule of right for the rule of the strong? But when once you begin to undermine power, to make it an object of popular aversion or defiance; when once you represent it to the people as their natural enemy, and vilify the sacred titles on which obedience due to it is founded, you attack at once the very object of the institution of society; and by weakening the action of public force, you provoke a development of private force, which is the very thing that governments were instituted to prevent. The secret of that mildness for which European monarchies were remarkable, consisted chiefly in their security and strength, founded upon the loftiness and legality of the titles of their power; whilst you will find in the perils with which the thrones of the Roman emperors and Eastern monarchs were beset, one reason for their monstrous despotism. I do not hesitate to assert, and in the course of this work I shall prove more and more, that one cause of the evils to which Europe has been exposed during the laborious solution of the problem of the alliance between order and liberty, is the oblivion of Catholic doctrines on this point. These doctrines have been condemned without being heard or examined into, and the enemies of the Church have copied each other without ever having recourse to the real sources, where they might easily have found out the truth.

Protestantism, departing from the teaching of Catholicity, has been thrown alternately upon two opposite rocks; wishing to establish order, it has done so to the prejudice of true liberty; and in its desire to maintain liberty, it has become an enemy to order. From the bosom of false reform have arisen the insane doctrines, which, preaching up Christian liberty, discharged the subject from his obedience to the lawful authorities; from the bosom of the same reform has likewise arisen the theory of Hobbes, which sets up despotism in the midst of society as a monstrous idol, to which all should be sacrificed, without regard for the eternal principles of morality, with no other rule than the caprice of him who rules, with no other bounds to his power than those marked out by the extent of his strength. Such is the necessary result of banishing from the world the authority of God. Man, left to himself, can only succeed in producing slavery or anarchy; the same thing under two forms; the reign of force.

In explaining the origin of society and power, divers modern writers have said a great deal about a certain state of nature anterior to all societies, and have supposed that these societies were formed by a gradual transition from a barbarous to a civilized state. This erroneous doctrine lies deeper than some persons imagine. If we pay particular attention to the subject, we shall find that the erroneous ideas entertained on this subject may be traced to the forgetfulness of Christian teaching. Hobbes derives every kind of right from a pact. According to him, when men live in a state of nature, they have a right to every thing; which means, in other terms, that there is no difference between good and evil. From which it follows that society was organized without any regard to morality, and ought to be considered merely as a means to an end. Puffendorf and some others, admitting the principle of sociality, that is, deriving from society the rules of morality, arrive at last at the principle of Hobbes, and trample under foot both the natural and eternal laws. Investigating the causes of these grave errors, I find them in the deplorable contempt which writers on philosophy and morality in modern times have so eagerly evinced for the treasures of light afforded us by religion. This light, religion affords us on all questions, fixing by its dogmas the cardinal points of all true philosophy, and offering us in its narrations the only thread that can guide us through the labyrinth of the first ages. Read the Protestant writers, compare them with the Catholic, and you will find a remarkable difference between them. The latter reason, give their minds free scope, and allow them a wide range; but they ever leave untouched certain fundamental principles, and every theory which they cannot reconcile with these principles is inexorably rejected by them as erroneous. The former roam without guide or compass in the boundless space of human opinions, presenting to us a lively image of that pagan philosophy which had not the light of faith to guide its inquiries into the principles of things. Instead of finding a God, the Creator and Director, occupied without ceasing, like a tender father, with the happiness of beings whom He has drawn from nothing, this philosophy never discovered any thing but chaos, either in the physical or in the social world. This degraded and brutalized state, disguised under the name of nature, is in reality nothing but the chaos of society. This chaos will be found in a great number of modern writers who are not Catholics; and by a surprising coincidence, worthy of the most serious reflection, it will also be found in the principal writers on pagan science.

From the moment that we lose sight of the great traditions of mankind, traditions in which man is represented to us receiving from God himself intelligence, speech, and rules for his conduct in this life; from the moment that we forget the narration of Moses, that simple, sublime, and only true explanation of the origin of man and of society; our ideas become confused, the facts are jumbled, one absurdity creates another, and, like the builders of the tower of Babel, we suffer the just punishment of our pride. How wonderful! that antiquity, which, deprived of the light of Christianity, and lost in the labyrinth of human inventions, had almost forgotten the primitive tradition of the origin of society, and had recourse to the absurd transition from the barbarous to the civilized state, should nevertheless, whenever a society was to be formed, have invoked this right divine, which certain philosophers have treated with so much disdain. The most renowned legislators sought to establish upon Divine authority, the laws they were giving to the people, thus rendering a solemn homage to that truth logically established by Catholics, viz. that all power, to be regarded as legitimate and to exercise its due ascendency, must receive its titles from God. If you desire that the legislator should not be placed under the sad necessity of feigning revelations which he has never received, or bringing forward the intervention of God at every moment in an extraordinary manner in human affairs, establish the general principle that all power proceeds from God, that the author of nature is likewise the author of society, that the existence of society is a precept imposed upon mankind for their own preservation. Let submission and obedience be so regulated as not to wound man's pride; let those who rule over him be invested with superior authority, to which he can submit without a shadow of self-abasement. In short, establish the Catholic doctrine. Whatever be the form of government, you will then have found a solid basis on which to support the respect due to the authorities; you will have placed the social edifice upon a foundation far more secure than human conventions.

Examine the right divine such as I have represented it, supported by the interpretations of illustrious doctors, and I am certain that you cannot refuse to admit its perfect conformity to the lights of true philosophy; but if you persist in giving to this right a strange sense which it does not possess, pretending that it ought to have a different explanation, I shall insist upon one thing which you cannot refuse me: produce me a text of Scripture, a monument of the traditions acknowledged as articles of faith in the Catholic Church, a decision of the Councils or of the Pontiffs, showing your interpretation to be well founded. Until you have done this, I have a right to tell you, that, possessed with the desire of rendering Catholicity odious, you impute to it doctrines which it does not profess, you attribute to it dogmas which it does not acknowledge; that you are adversaries without candor or honesty, and employ weapons disallowed by the laws of combat.[28]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

LI. TRANSMISSION OF POWER, ACCORDING TO THE CATHOLIC DOCTORS

The difference of opinion concerning the mode in which God communicates civil power, however grave in theory, does not appear to be of great importance in practice. We have already observed, that, among those who assert that this power comes from God, some maintain that it proceeds from Him directly, others indirectly. In the opinion of the former, when once the nomination of the persons appointed to exercise authority is made, society not only lays down the necessary conditions for the communication of power, but actually communicates it, having first received it from God. The latter maintain that society merely makes the appointment, and, by means of this act, God confers the power upon the person appointed. I repeat, that, in practice, the result is the same, and the difference therefore vanishes. Nay, even in theory, the divergence may not be so great as it appears at first sight. I shall endeavor to demonstrate this by submitting the two opinions to rigorous investigation.

The explanation given of the origin of power by both parties may be set forth in the following terms: In the opinion of some, God says, "Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest a government; choose, therefore, under what form this government shall be exercised, and appoint the persons who are to take charge of it; I, on my part, will confer upon them the faculties necessary for the fulfilment of their mission." In the opinion of others, God says, "Society, for thy preservation and well-being, thou requirest a government: I confer upon thee the faculties necessary for the fulfilment of this object; choose thyself the form under which this government shall be exercised, and, appointing the persons who are to take charge of it, transmit to them the faculties which I have communicated to thee."

In order to be convinced of the identity of the results of these two formulas, we must examine them in their relations: 1. to the sanctity of their origin; 2. to the rights and duties of power; 3. to the rights and duties of the subject. Whether God has communicated power to society, to be transmitted by it to the persons appointed to exercise it, or has merely conferred upon it the right of determining the form and appointing such persons, that, by means of this determination and appointment, the rights annexed to supreme power may be directly communicated to the persons intrusted with the exercise of it, it follows, in either case, that this supreme power, wherever it exists, emanates from God; and is not less sacred because it passes through an intermediate means appointed by Him. I will illustrate these ideas by a very simple and obvious example. Suppose there exists in a state some particular community, instituted by the sovereign, and having no rights but those granted by him; no duties but those which he imposes upon it; in fine, a community indebted to the sovereign for all that it is and has. This community, however small it may be, will require a government: this government may be formed in two ways; either the sovereign who has given it its laws has conferred upon it the right of governing itself, and of transmitting this right to the person or persons whom it may think proper to elect; or he has left to the community itself the determination of the form and the appointment of the persons, adding that such determination and appointment being once made, it shall be understood that, by this simple act, the sovereign grants to the persons appointed the right of exercising their functions within lawful bounds. It is evident that the parity is complete; and now I ask, Is it not true that, in this case, as in the other, the faculties of him who governs should be considered and respected as an emanation from the sovereign? Is it not true that it would be difficult to discover any difference between these two kinds of investiture? In both suppositions, the community would have the right of determining the form and appointing the person; in both cases, he who governs could only obtain his powers by virtue of the previous determination and appointment; in neither case would there need any new manifestation on the part of the sovereign, that the person nominated might be understood to be invested with faculties corresponding to the exercise of his functions. In practice, therefore, there would be no difference; further, I will assert that, in theory even, it would be difficult to trace the point of separation between the two cases.

Certainly, if we view the matter with the eye of an acute metaphysician, we may very easily discover this difference, by considering the moral entity which we call power; not as it is in itself, and in its effects, but as an abstract being, passing from one hand to another, in the manner of corporeal objects. But, instead of examining the question for the curiosity of knowing whether this moral entity, before arriving at one person, has not first passed through another, let us first seek to verify from whence it emanates, and what are the faculties it confers, the rights it imposes: we shall then find that, in saying, "I confer this faculty upon you, transmit it to whomsoever you think proper, and in whatever way you think proper," the sovereign expresses no more than if he should say: "Such or such a faculty shall be conferred by me upon the person you wish, and in the manner you wish, by the simple fact of the election you have made." It follows hence, that whether we adopt the opinion of direct communication, or the contrary one, the supreme rights of hereditary monarchies, of elective monarchies, and in general of all supreme powers, whatever be their forms of government, will not on this account be less sacred, less certainly sealed with divine authority. Difference in the forms of government does not in the least diminish the obligations of submitting to civil power, lawfully established; so that the refusing of obedience to the president of a republic, in a country in which republicanism is the legal form of government, is no less a criminal resistance to the ordinance of God, than the refusing of the same obedience to the most absolute monarch. Bossuet, so strongly attached to monarchy, and writing in a country and at a period in which the king might exclaim, "I am the state;" and in a work, in which he proposed nothing less than to offer a complete treatise on Politics, taken from the words of Holy Scripture; established, nevertheless, in a manner the most explicit and conclusive, the truth which I have just pointed out. "We ought to be subject," says he, "to the form of government established in our country." And he afterwards quotes these words of St. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, chap. xiii.: "Let every soul be subject to higher powers; for there is no power but from God; and those that are, are ordained of God; therefore he that resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God." "There is no form of government," continues Bossuet, "nor any human institution, without its inconveniences; so that it is necessary to remain in the state to which length of time has inured the people. For this reason, God takes under His protection all legitimate governments, in whatever form they may be established; whoever undertakes to overturn them, is not only an enemy to the public, but also to God." (Liv. ii. prop. 12.)

It is of little consequence whether power be communicated directly or indirectly; the respect and obedience due to it are not in the least changed, and consequently the sacredness of the origin of power remains the same, whichever opinion be adopted; neither do the rights and duties of government, and those of the subject, remain less sacred. These rights and duties suffer no change, whether there be or not an intermediate means for the communication of power; their nature and limits are founded upon the very object of the institution of society; but this object is totally independent of the mode in which God communicates power to man. Against what I have advanced upon the small amount of difference existing between these various opinions, the authority of the theologians, whose texts I have cited in the preceding chapter, will be objected. "These theologians," it will be said, "certainly understood these affairs; and as they placed so much importance upon the distinction here under discussion, they undoubtedly saw in it some great truth proper to be taken into account." This objection acquires the more force, when we consider that the distinction made upon this point by these theologians does not proceed from a spirit of subtilty, as it might be suspected in the case of those scholastic theologians, whose writings are replete with dialectic arguments, rather than with reasoning founded upon Scripture, upon the apostolical traditions and other theological resources, from which we ought principally to take our arguments in controversies of this nature; but the theologians whom I have quoted are certainly not of this class. We need only name Bellarmin, to recognise a grave and extremely solid author, who opposed the Protestants with Scripture, with traditions, with the authority of the holy Fathers, the decisions of the universal Church and of the Sovereign Pontiffs: Bellarmin was not one of those theologians who excited the lamentations of Melchior Cano, and of whom he said, that in the hour of combat against heresy, instead of wielding well-tempered weapons, they wielded only long reeds: arundines longas. Such was the importance given to this distinction, that James, King of England, complained loudly that Cardinal Bellarmin taught that the power of kings came from God only indirectly; and the Catholic schools were so far from looking upon this distinction as insignificant, that they defended it against the attacks of King James; and that one of their most illustrious doctors, Suarez, entered the lists to contend for the doctrines of Bellarmin.

It appears, then, at first sight, that I am wrong in what I have said upon the slight importance of the distinction here mentioned. I believe, nevertheless, that the difficulty may be easily removed, and that it will suffice for this purpose to distinguish the different aspects under which the question presents itself. First of all, I will observe, that the Catholic theologians proceeded upon this point with admirable prudence and foresight; and truly the question, such as it was then proposed, comprehended more than a subtilty; I am inclined to think that it included one of the most serious points of public right. In order to examine deeply these doctrines of Catholic theologians, and to lay hold of their true sense, we must fix our attention upon the tendencies which the religious reform of the sixteenth century communicated to European monarchy. Even before this reform, thrones had acquired a great deal of force and solidity, through the decline in the power of the feudal lords, and the development of the democratic element. That element, which in due time was destined to acquire the power of which it is now possessed, was not then in sufficiently favorable circumstances to exert its action on the vast scale which it embraces in our days. On this account, it was obliged to take refuge under the shadow of the throne--an emblem of order and justice elevated in the midst of society--a sort of universal regulator and leveller, destined gradually to destroy the extreme inequalities so harassing and obnoxious to the people. Thus, democracy itself, which, in after ages, was to overturn so many thrones, served them, at that time, as a firm support, sheltering them from the attacks of a turbulent and formidable aristocracy, unwilling to be transformed into mere courtiers. There was nothing in this state of things very mischievous, so long as matters remained within the limits prescribed by reason and justice; but, unfortunately, good principles were exaggerated, regal authority was gradually converted into an absorbent force, which would have concentrated in itself all other forces. European monarchy lost thus its true character, which consists in monarchy having just limits, even when these limits are not marked out and guarded by political institutions.

Protestantism exalts to an incredible degree the pretensions of kings, by attacking the spiritual power of the Pope, by painting in the darkest colors the dangers of his temporal power, and especially by establishing the fatal doctrine, that the supreme civil power has ecclesiastical affairs totally under its direction; and by accusing of abuse, of usurpation, of unbounded ambition, the independence which the Church claims by virtue of the sacred canons, of the guarantee afforded by the civil law, of the traditions of fifteen centuries, and above all, of the institution of her Divine Founder. He had no need of the permission, of any civil power to send His apostles to preach the Gospel, and to baptize in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. A glance at the history of Europe at the epoch here mentioned will convince us of the evil consequences of such a doctrine, and show us how agreeable it must have been to the ears of power, which it invested with unbounded faculties, even in matters purely religious. This exaggeration of the rights of civil power, coinciding with the efforts made on the other hand to repress the pontifical authority, must have favored the doctrine which attempted to place the power of kings upon a level, in every respect, with that of Popes; and consequently, it was very natural that its authors should wish to establish, that sovereigns received their power from God, in the same manner as the Popes, without any difference whatever. The doctrine of direct communication, although very susceptible, as we have seen, of a reasonable explanation, might involve a more extensive meaning, which would have made the people oblivious of the special and characteristic manner in which the supreme power of the Church was instituted by God himself. What I have just advanced cannot be considered as merely conjectural; the whole is supported by facts which cannot have been forgotten. The reigns of Henry VIII. and of Elizabeth of England, and the usurpations and violence in which Protestant powers indulged against the Catholic Church, are a sufficient confirmation of these sad truths. But, unfortunately, even in countries where Catholicity remained triumphant, attempts were then, have since been, and still are witnessed, that show clearly enough how strong was the impulse given in this sense to the civil power; for even now it is but too prone to transgress its legitimate bounds.

The circumstances under which the two illustrious theologians above cited, Bellarmin and Suarez, wrote, are another reason in support of what I have just adduced. I have quoted remarkable passages from a work by Suarez, written in refutation of a publication of King James of England. This King could not bear the idea of Cardinal Bellarmin's having established that the power of kings does not emanate directly from God, but is communicated through the medium of society, which receives it in a direct manner. Possessed, as is well known, with the mania for theological debates and decisions, King James did not confine himself to simple theory; he reduced his theory to practice, and said to his Parliament: "that God had appointed him absolute master; and that all privileges which co-legislative bodies enjoyed were pure concessions proceeding from the bounty of kings." His courtiers, in their adulations, decreed him the title of the modern Solomon; he might well, therefore, feel displeased with the Italian and Spanish theologians for endeavoring to humble the pride of his presumptuous wisdom, and restrain his despotism. If we reflect upon the words of Bellarmin, and especially on those of Suarez, we shall find that the aim of these eminent theologians was to point out the difference between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, with respect to the mode of their origin. They admit that both powers come from God; that it is an indispensable duty to be subject to them; and that to resist them is to resist the ordinance of God; but not finding, either in the Scripture or in tradition, the least foundation for establishing that civil power, like that of the Sovereign Pontiffs, has been instituted in a special and extraordinary manner, they are anxious that this difference should remain obvious, and seek to avoid the introduction, in a point of such import, of a confusion of ideas, from which dangerous errors might arise. "This opinion," says Suarez, "is new, singular, and apparently invented to exalt the temporal over the spiritual power." (See above.) Hence, in discussing the question of the origin of civil power, they require you to bear in mind the influence of society. "By means of man's counsel and election," says Bellarmin; thus reminding the King, that how sacred soever his authority might be, it had been very differently instituted from that of the Sovereign Pontiff. The distinction between direct and indirect communication served, in a particular manner, to prove the difference in question; for this very distinction recalled to mind that civil power, although established by God, owed its existence to no extraordinary measure, and could not be considered as supernatural, but was to be looked upon as dependent upon human and natural right, sanctioned, nevertheless, in an express manner, by right divine.

These theologians would not, perhaps, have forcibly insisted upon this distinction, had it not been for the efforts made by others to efface it. It was a matter of consequence with them to humble the pride of power, to prevent it from assuming, whether in respect to its origin or its rights, titles not appertaining to it; to prevent its ascribing to itself an unlawful supremacy, even in religious affairs, and thus causing monarchy to degenerate into a sort of Oriental despotism, in which the governing power is every thing, the people and their affairs nothing. If we weigh their words attentively, we shall find that the predominating idea with them was that which I have just stated. At first sight, their language appears exceedingly democratical, from their frequent use of the words community, state, society, people; but on examining closely their system of doctrine, and paying attention to the expressions they use, we perceive that they had no subversive design, and that anarchical theories never once entered their minds. They advocated on the one hand the rights of authority, whilst they protected on the other those of the subject, thus endeavoring to resolve the problem which formed the continual occupation of all honest political writers; to limit power without destroying it, or placing it under too great restraint; to protect society against the disorder of despotism, without rendering it at the same time refractory or turbulent. From the above reasoning we see that the distinction between direct and indirect communication may be of great or of little importance, according to the view we take of it. It is of great importance when serving to remind the civil power that the establishment of governments and the regulation of their forms has in some way been dependent upon society itself, and that no individual, no family, can presume upon having received from God the government of the people without regard to the laws of the country, as if those laws, in whatever form, were a free offering made by them to the people. This same distinction serves, in short, to establish the origin of civil power as an emanation from the Deity, the Author of nature, but not as instituted in an extraordinary manner, as something supernatural, as in the case of the supreme ecclesiastical power. From this latter consideration two consequences follow, one of which is of more importance than the other to the legitimate liberties of mankind and the independence of the Church. To call in the intervention, express or tacit, of society for the establishment of governments and the regulation of their forms, is to prevent the concealment of their origin under any veil of mystery; it is simply and plainly to define their object, consequently to explain their duties, as well as to point out their faculties. By these means a restraint is put upon the disorders and abuses of authority, which it is thenceforth clearly seen are not to find support in enigmatical theories.

The independence of the Church is thus established upon a solid basis. Whenever the civil power attempts to offer it violence, the Church may say: "My authority is established directly and immediately by God in a special, extraordinary, and miraculous manner; yours likewise emanates from God, but through the intervention of man, through the intermediary of the laws, in the ordinary course pointed out by nature and determined by human prudence; but neither man nor the civil power has a right to destroy or change what God Himself, deviating from the course of nature and making use of ineffable prodigies, has thought proper to institute." So long as the ideas here set forth are respected, so long as direct communication is not received in too extensive a sense, and care taken not to confound things whose limits so gravely affect religion and society, the distinction here spoken of is of little importance. We have seen, even, that the two opinions may be reconciled with each other. At all events, this distinction will have served to illustrate with what exalted views Catholic theologians have discussed the grave questions of public right. Guided by sound philosophy, and without ever losing sight of the beacon of revelation, they have given equal satisfaction to the desires of both schools. They have not fallen into the errors of either; democratical without being anarchists, monarchical without being base adulators. In establishing the rights of the people, they were not, like modern demagogues, under the necessity of destroying religion, but made her the guardian of the rights of the people, as well as of those of kings. Liberty was not with them a synonyme for license and irreligion; in their opinion, men might be free without being rebellious or impious; liberty consisted in being subject to the law; and, as they could not conceive that law was possible without religion and without God; in like manner also they believed that liberty was not possible without God and religion. What reason, revelation, and history taught them has become evident to us by experience. Shall we be told of the dangers, grave or slight, in which theologians could involve governments? But people now-a-days are not led astray by affected and insidious declamations; and kings well know whether the schools of theologians have exiled royalty, and led it to the scaffold.[29]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

LII. FREEDOM OF SPEECH UNDER THE SPANISH MONARCHY

Extreme doctrines neither insure the liberty of the people, nor the force and stability of governments; both require truth and justice, the only foundations upon which we can build with any hope of the durability of the edifice. In general, maxims favorable to liberty are never carried to a higher pitch than on the eve of the establishment of despotism; and it is to be feared that the overthrow and ruin of governments are very near when undue adulations are lavished upon their power. When was the power of kings more extolled than about the middle of last century? Who is not aware of the exaggerations given to the prerogatives of royal power, when the Jesuits were to be expelled, and the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff impugned? In Portugal, Spain, Italy, Austria, and in France, the unanimous voice of the purest and most fervent royalism was heard; and yet what became of this great love, this lively zeal for monarchy, from the moment that the revolutionary storm had placed it in danger? Observe what, generally speaking, has been the conduct of men opposed to the ecclesiastical authority; they have united themselves to demagogues for destroying, at the same time, the authority of the Church and that of kings; they have forgotten their base adulations, and abandoned themselves to insults and violence. People and governments should never lose sight of this rule of conduct, so useful to men of sense, to mistrust flatterers, and to confide in those who warn and correct them. Let them beware whenever they are caressed with an affected tenderness, and their cause is maintained with especial warmth; it is a sure sign of an attempt to make use of them as tools for the furtherance of interests very different from their own. In France, at certain times, monarchical zeal was carried to such an extent as to call forth, in the assembly of the States-General, a motion for establishing, as a sacred principle, that kings receive their supreme authority immediately from God: this was not carried into effect, but the proposal shows how ardently the cause of the throne was then maintained. Now, what did all this ardor mean? Simply an antipathy against the Court of Rome, a dread of the extension of papal power; it was an obstacle to be opposed to the phantom of a universal monarchy. Louis XIV., so tenacious of the royal prerogative, assuredly did not foresee the misfortunes of Louis XVI.; and Charles III., in listening to the Count of Aranda and Campomanes, little thought that the constituent Cortes of Cadiz was so near.

In the midst of their splendor, monarchs forgot one principle predominating in the whole modern history of Europe, viz. that social organization is an emanation of religion, and, consequently, that the two powers to which the defence and preservation of society appertain ought to co-exist in perfect harmony.

The power of the Church cannot be diminished without injury to the civil power; he who sows schism will reap rebellion. During the last three centuries the most liberal and popular doctrines upon the origin of power have been circulated amongst us. What did it matter to the Spanish monarchy, since those very persons who advocated these doctrines were the first to condemn resistance to the lawful authorities, to inculcate the obligation of obedience to them, and to establish in all hearts, respect, love, and veneration for the sovereign? The disturbances of our epoch, and the dangers constantly besetting thrones, are not exactly attributable to the propagation of doctrines more or less democratical, but to the absence of moral and religious principles. What will be gained by asserting that power comes from God, if people believe not in God? Point out the sacred character of the duty of obedience, and what effect will it produce upon those who admit not the existence of moral order, and to whom duty is merely a chimerical idea? Suppose, on the contrary, that you have to deal with men penetrated with moral and religious principles, who bow to the will of God, and believe themselves bound to submit to it, so soon as it is manifested to them. What does it matter then whether civil power proceeds from God directly or indirectly? it is enough to convince them, in one way or another, that, whatever be its origin, God approves of it, and wills that it should be obeyed; they will immediately submit with pleasure, for they will see in this submission the accomplishment of a duty.

These considerations serve to explain the reason why certain doctrines appear more dangerous now than formerly: incredulity and immorality give them perverse interpretations, and apply them so as to create nothing but excesses and disorders. From the manner in which the despotism of Philip II. and his successors is now spoken of, we might be led to suppose that in their time no other doctrines than those in favor of the most rigid absolutism could be circulated; and yet we find that there were circulated, without the least apprehension on the part of power, works maintaining theories which, even in our days, would be esteemed too bold. Is it not, therefore, remarkable, that the famous book of Father Mariana, intituled De Rege et Regis institutione, which was burned at Paris by the hand of the public executioner, had been published in Spain eleven years before, without the least obstacle to its publication, either on the part of the ecclesiastical or civil authority? Mariana undertook his task at the instigation and request of D. Garcia de Loaisa, tutor to Philip III., and subsequently Bishop of Toledo; so that the work, strange to say, was intended for the instruction of the heir-apparent. Never was more freedom used in speaking to kings; never was tyranny condemned in a louder voice; never were more popular doctrines proclaimed; and the work was, nevertheless, published at Toledo, in 1599, in the printing-office of Pedro Rodrigo, printer to the king, with the approbation of P. Fr. Pedro de Ona, provincial of the Mercenaries of Madrid, with the permission of Stephen Hojeda, visitor of the Society of Jesus in the province of Toledo, under the generalship of Claude Aquaviva; and, what is still more forcible, with the royal sanction, and a dedication to the king himself. We should also observe, that Mariana was not satisfied with this dedication placed at the commencement of the book, but he makes the very title itself serve to show to whom it was addressed: De Rege et Regis institutione. Libri 3, ad Philippum 3, Hispaniæ Regem Catholicum; and, as if this were not sufficient, in dedicating his Spanish version of the History of Spain to Philip III., he says to him: "I last year dedicated to your majesty a work of my own composition, upon the virtues which ought to exist in a good king, my desire being that all princes should read it carefully and understand it." "El año pasado presenté á V. M. un libro que compuse de las virtudes que debe tener un buen Rey, que deseo lean y entiendan todos los principes con cuidado."

We will pass over his doctrine upon tyrannicide, which was the principal cause of its condemnation in France, where there existed, without doubt, motives of alarm, since kings were perishing there by the hand of the assassin. On examining his theory upon power, we find it as popular and liberal as those of modern democrats could be. Mariana ventures to express his opinions without evasion or disguise. For example, drawing a parallel between the king and the tyrant, he says: "The king exercises with great moderation the power which he has received from his subjects.... Hence, he does not, like the tyrant, oppress his subjects as slaves, but governs them as free men; and having received his power from the people, he takes particular care that during his life, the people shall voluntarily yield him submission." "Rex quam a subditis accepit potestatem singulari modestia exercet.... Sic fit, ut subditis non tanquam servis dominetur, quod faciunt tyranni, sed tanquam liberis præsit, et qui a populo potestatem accepit, id in primis curæ habet ut per totam vitam volentibus imperet." (Lib. 1, cap. 4, p. 57.) This was said in Spain by a simple religious, was sanctioned by his superiors, and attentively listened to by kings. To what grave reflections does this simple fact lead us! Where is that strict and indissoluble alliance which the enemies of the Church have imagined to exist between her dogmas and those of slavery? If such expressions as the above were tolerated in a country in which Catholicity predominated so extensively, how can it be maintained that such a religion tends to enslave the human race, and that its doctrines are favorable to despotism? Nothing would be easier than to fill whole volumes with remarkable passages of our writers, both lay and clerical, showing the extreme liberty granted upon this point, as well by the Church as by the civil government. What absolute monarch in Europe would approve of one of his high functionaries expressing the origin of power after the manner of our immortal Saavedra? "It is from the centre of justice," says he, "that the circumference of the crown has been drawn. The latter would not be necessary, if we could dispense with the former.

Hac una reges olim sunt fine creati, Dicere jus populis, injustaque tollere facta.

In the first age, there was no necessity for penalties, because the law did not take cognisance of transgressions; rewards were equally unnecessary, because integrity and honor were loved for their own sakes. But vice, growing with the age of the world, intimidated virtue; simple and confiding, the latter, till then, dwelt in the country. Equality was despised, modesty and chastity lost, ambition and force introduced, and after them domination. Prudence, forced by necessity, and aroused by the light of nature, reduced men to a state of civil society, to exercise therein those virtues to which reason inclines them. By means of the articulate voice with which nature had gifted them, they could explain to each other their mutual thoughts, manifest to each other their sentiments, and explain their wants, instruct, counsel, and protect each other. Society once formed, a power was created by common consent, in the whole of this community, enlightened by the law of nature, for preserving its different parts, for maintaining them in justice and peace, by punishing vice and rewarding virtue. As this power could not remain spread through the whole body of the people, on account of the confusion which would have arisen from the resolutions and their execution, and as it was absolutely necessary that there should be some to command, and others to obey, one portion divested itself of this power, and vested it in one member, or in a small, or in a great, number of members, that is to say, in one of the three forms of every state government--monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy. Monarchy was the first; because men selected for their government, out of their families, and afterwards even from among the whole people, some one who excelled the rest in goodness: his greatness increasing, they honored his hand with the sceptre, and encircled his head with a crown as an emblem of majesty, and as a badge of the supreme power which they had conferred upon him. This power, however, consists chiefly in that justice which ought to maintain the people in peace; this justice failing, the order of the state fails, and the office of king ceases, as was the case in Castile, when the government by judges was substituted for that by kings, on account of the injustice of D. Ordona and of D. Fruela." (Character of a Christian Prince's Policy, set forth in a hundred Devices, by D. Diego de Saavedra Fajardo, Knight of the Order of St. James, Member of his Majesty's Supreme Council for the Indies, device 22.)

The words people, pact, consent, have ended in becoming the dread of men of sound ideas and upright intentions, on account of the deplorable abuses which have been made of them in those immoral schools which ought rather to be qualified with the epithet of irreligious than with that of democratical. No, it was not the desire of ameliorating the condition of the people which led them to overthrow the world, by overturning thrones and shedding torrents of blood in civil discord; the real cause was a blind rage for reducing to ashes the work of ages, by especially attacking religion, the main support of every thing wise, just, and salutary, that European civilization had acquired. And, in fact, have we not seen impious schools, whilst boasting of their liberty, bend under the hand of despotism, whenever they thought it useful to their designs? Previous to the French Revolution, were they not the basest adulators of kings, whose prerogatives they extended immeasurably, with the intention of making regal power the means of oppressing the Church? After the revolutionary epoch, did we not see them assembled round Napoleon; and even yet, do they not almost deify him? And why? Because Napoleon was revolution personified, the representative and executor of the new ideas sought to be substituted for the old ones. In the same manner Protestantism extols its Queen Elizabeth; because it was she who placed the Establishment upon a solid foundation. Revolutionary doctrines, besides the evils they inflict upon society, produce indirectly another effect, which may, at first sight, appear salutary, but which, in reality, is not so. They occasion dangerous reactions in the order of events, and check the progress of knowledge, by narrowing and debasing men's ideas, leading them to condemn as erroneous and pernicious, or to view with mistrust, principles which would previously have been looked upon as sound, or that would, at all events, have been regarded as mere harmless errors. The reason of all this is, simply, that liberty has no worse enemy than licentiousness.

In support of this last observation, it may be well to show, that the most rigorous doctrines in political matters have originated in countries in which anarchy had made the greatest ravages, and precisely at the time when the evil, still present, or very recent, was most keenly felt. The religious revolution of the sixteenth century, and the political commotions consequent upon it, were principally felt in the north of Europe; the south, and especially Italy and Spain, were almost entirely preserved from them. Now, these last two countries are precisely those in which the dignities and prerogatives of civil power have been the least exaggerated, as well as those in which they were not disparaged in theory, and were respected in practice. Of all modern nations, England was the first in which a revolution, properly so called, was realized; for I do not consider as such the insurrection of the German peasantry, which, in spite of the terrible catastrophe which it caused, never effected any change in the state of society; or that of the United Provinces, which may be considered a war of independence. Now, it was precisely in England that the most erroneous doctrines in favor of the supreme authority of civil power appeared. Hobbes, who, whilst he refused to allow the rights of the Creator, attributed unbounded authority to the monarchs of the earth, lived at the most agitated and turbulent epoch in the annals of Great Britain. He was born in 1588, and died in 1679.

In Spain, where the impious and anarchical doctrines, which had troubled Europe since the schism of Luther, did not penetrate until the latter part of the eighteenth century, we have seen that the greatest license of expression was permitted upon the most important points of public right, and that doctrines were maintained which, in any other country, would have been looked upon as dangerous. Error gave rise to exaggeration; the rights of monarchs were never so much extolled as under the reign of Charles III.; that is, at the time when the modern epoch was inaugurated among us.

Religion, which predominated in all consciences, maintained them in the obedience due to the sovereign, without there being any need of giving this obedience any extraordinary titles, when its real ones were sufficient, as they certainly were. For him who knows that God has prescribed obedience to lawful authority, it matters little whether this authority emanate from Heaven directly or indirectly, or whether society has more or less taken part in the determination of political forms, or in the election of the persons or families who are to exercise the supreme command. Hence we find that in Spain, although the words people, consent, pacts, were spoken of, monarchs were held in the most profound veneration, so much so that modern history does not mention a single attempt upon their persons. Popular tumults were also of rare occurrence; and those which did happen are not attributable to either of the two above-mentioned doctrines. How does it happen that, at the end of the sixteenth century, the Council of Castile was not alarmed at the bold principles of Mariana, in his book De Rege et Regis institutione, whilst those of the Abbé Spedalieri, at the end of the eighteenth century, were such a terror to it? The reason of this lies not so much in the contents of the works, as in the epoch of their publication. The former appeared at a time when the Spanish nation, confirmed in religious and moral principles, might be compared to those robust constitutions capable of bearing food difficult of digestion. The latter was introduced among us when the doctrines and deeds of the French Revolution were shaking all the thrones of Europe, and when the propagandism of Paris was beginning to pervert us by its emissaries and books. In a nation in which reason and virtue prevail, in which evil passions are never excited, in which the well-being and prosperity of the country are the only aim of every citizen, the most popular and liberal forms of government may exist without danger; for in such a nation numerous assemblies produce no disorder, merit is not obscured by intrigue, nor are worthless persons raised to the government, and the names of public liberty and felicity do not serve as means to raise the fortunes or satisfy the ambition of individuals. So also in a country in which religion and morality rule in every breast, in which duty is not looked upon as an empty word, in which it is considered really criminal to disturb the tranquillity of the state, to revolt against the lawful authorities: in such a country, I say, it is less dangerous to discuss, with more or less freedom, questions arising from theories on the formation of society and the origin of the civil power, and to establish principles favorable to popular rights. But when these conditions do not exist, it is of little use to proclaim rigorous doctrines. To abstain from pronouncing the name of people, as a sacrilegious word, is a useless precaution. How can it be expected, that he who respects not Divine Majesty, should respect human? The conservative schools of our age, proposing to place a restraint upon the revolutionary torrent, and to tranquillize agitated nations, have almost always been infected with a certain failing, which consists in forgetting the truth which I have just noticed: royal majesty, authority of the government, supremacy of the law, parliamentary sovereignty, respect for established forms, and order: such are the terms they are constantly making use of. This is their palladium of society; and they condemn with all their might the state, insubordination, disobedience to the laws, insurrection, riot, anarchy; but they forget that these doctrines will not suffice, unless there be some fixed point to which the first link of the chain may be riveted. These schools, generally speaking, originate in the bosom of revolution; they are directed by men who have figured in revolutions, who have contributed to prepare them, who have given them their force, and who, in order to attain the object of their ardent desires, feared not to ruin the edifice at its foundation, by diminishing the ascendency of religion and opening the way to moral relaxation. Hence they become powerless when prudence, or their own interests, bid them say, "We have gone far enough;" and, hurried on like the rest by the furious whirlwind, they have neither the means of stopping the movement nor of giving it a proper direction.

We are continually hearing the Contrat Social of Rousseau condemned on account of its anarchical doctrines, whilst at the same time doctrines are circulated tending visibly to weaken religion. Can we possibly believe that the Contrat Social has alone caused all the commotions of Europe? It has doubtless produced serious evils, but still more serious ones have been caused by that irreligion which so deeply undermines the foundations of society, which loosens family bonds, and delivers up the individual to the caprice of his passions, with no other restraint or guide than the promptings of his own low egotism. Men of upright and reflecting minds begin to penetrate these truths. We find, nevertheless, in the political sphere, this error, which attributes to the action of civil government sufficient creative power to form, organize, and preserve society, independently of all moral and religious influences. It is of little consequence what be maintained in theory, if this error be acted upon in practice; and what avails the proclaiming of certain sound principles, if our conduct is not guided by them? These philosophico-political schools, which are desirous of ruling the destinies of the world, proceed in a way diametrically opposite to that of Christianity. The latter, whose principal object was heaven, did not, however, neglect the happiness of man upon earth; it addressed itself directly to the understanding and the heart, considering that the community is regulated by the conduct of individuals, and that, in order to have a well-regulated society, it was necessary to have good citizens. To proclaim certain political principles, to institute particular forms--such is the panacea of some schools, who deem it possible to govern society without exercising a due influence over the intelligence and heart of man; reason and experience agree in teaching us what we may expect from such a system.

Profoundly to impress the minds of men with religion and morality,--this is the first step towards the prevention of revolutions and disorganization. When these sacred objects have acquired their full influence over the hearts of men, there is no longer any thing to be apprehended from a greater or less latitude in political opinions. What confidence can a government repose in a man professing highly monarchical opinions, if he join impiety to them? Will he who refuses to give to God his rights, respect those of temporal kings? "The first thing," says Seneca, "is the worship of the gods, and faith in their existence; we are next to acknowledge their majesty, and bounty, without which there is no majesty." "Primum est Deorum cultus, Deos credere; deinde reddere illis majestatem suam, reddere bonitatem, sine qua nulla majestas est." (Seneca, Epist. 95.) Observe how Cicero, the first orator and perhaps the greatest philosopher of Rome, expresses himself: "It is necessary," says he, "that the citizens should be first persuaded of the existence of gods, the directors and rulers of all things, in whose hands are all events, who are ever conferring on mankind immense benefits, who search the heart of man, who see his actions, the spirit of piety which he carries into the practice of religion, and who distinguish the life of the pious from that of the ungodly man." "Sit igitur jam hoc a principio persuasum civibus, dominos esse omnium rerum, ac moderatores deos; eaque quæ gerantur, eorum geri ditione ac numine, eosdemque optime de genere hominum mereri, et qualis quisque sit, quid agat, quid inde admittat, qua mente, qua pietate colat religiones intueri: piorumque et impiorum habere rationem." (Cic. de Nat. Deor. 2.)

These truths should be profoundly impressed upon the mind: the evils of society do not principally emanate from political ideas or systems; the root of the evil lies in religion; and if a check is not put upon irreligion, it is vain to proclaim the most rigid monarchical principles. Hobbes did certainly flatter kings a little more than Bellarmin; and yet, when these two writers are compared, what sensible monarch would not prefer as a subject the learned and pious controvertist?[30]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

LIII. ON THE FACULTIES OF THE CIVIL POWER

Having shown that the Catholic doctrine upon the origin of the civil power does not include any thing but what is perfectly reasonable and reconcilable with the true interests of the people, let us discuss the second of the proposed questions. Let us inquire into the nature of the faculties of this power, and see whether under this aspect the Church teaches any thing favorable to despotism--to that oppression of which she is so calumniously accused of being a supporter. We invite our opponents to demonstrate the contrary, fully confident that they will find it more difficult to succeed in so doing, than to accumulate vague accusations, which serve only to lead too confiding minds astray. To sustain these charges properly, recourse should be had to texts of Scripture, to tradition, to the decisions of Councils, or to those of Supreme Pontiffs, to passages of the Fathers; and it should be shown that these immoderately extend the bounds of power, with the design of placing undue restraint upon the liberty of the people, or of destroying it. But it will be said, if the sources retained their purity, the streams have been polluted by commentators; in other terms, theologians of latter ages, becoming the adulators of civil power, have powerfully labored to extend its faculties, and, consequently, to establish despotism. As many persons too readily claim the right of criticizing the doctors of what is termed the period of decline, flippantly censuring those illustrious men, without having ever taken the trouble to open their works, it is necessary for us to enter into some details on this subject, and to dispel prejudices and errors which are seriously injurious to religion, and not less so to science.

The declamations and invectives of Protestants have induced certain minds to imagine that every idea of liberty would have disappeared from the heart of Europe, had it not been for the timely intervention of the pretended Reformation of the sixteenth century. According to this idea, Catholic theologians are represented as a crowd of ignorant monks, capable only of writing, in bad language and in still worse style, a heap of nonsense, the ultimate and only aim of which was to exalt the authority of Popes and kings, and to support intellectual and political oppression, obscurantism, and tyranny. That a portion should become the victim of illusion in matters the investigation of which is difficult and arduous; that the reader should suffer himself to be deceived by a writer on whose word he must either rely or remain in complete ignorance,--as, for example, in the description of a country or a phenomenon examined only by the narrator,--is nothing strange; but that any one should adhere to errors which a few moments spent in the most obscure library would eradicate, that the authors of the brilliant volumes of Paris should have the privilege of disfiguring with impunity the opinions of a writer lying covered with dust and forgotten in the same library, and perhaps on the same shelf upon which the former glitter; that the reader should peruse with avidity the glossy pages of the newly-published work, filling his mind with the writer's notions, without even so much as putting forth his hand to the voluminous tome within his reach, and which needs only to be opened to furnish at every page a refutation of the censures in which levity, if not bad faith, is so ready to indulge; is difficult to be conceived or excused in any man professing to be a lover of science, and a conscientious investigator of truth. A great number of writers would assuredly not be so ready and free to speak of what they have never studied, to analyze books which they have never read, if they did not reckon upon the docility and levity of their readers; they would certainly refrain from pronouncing magisterially upon an opinion, a system, or a school, in fine, upon the labors of many ages, from deciding the gravest questions by a sally of wit, if they found that the reader, seized in his turn with distrust, and particularly with the skepticism of the period, would not place implicit faith in their assertions, but would take the trouble to confront them with the facts to which they relate.

Our ancestors did not consider themselves justified, I will not say in making an assertion, but even a single allusion, without giving careful references to the source of their information. Their delicacy on this point was carried to excess; but we have done wrong by going to the opposite extreme, and judging that we might dispense with all formality, even in the most important matters which imperiously demand the testimony of facts. But the opinions of ancient writers are facts, facts averred in their writings. By judging them hastily, without entering into details, without imposing upon ourselves the obligation of quoting authorities, we incur the suspicion of falsifying history, and history, I repeat, the most precious, that of the human mind. The levity observable in certain writers proceeds, in a great measure, from the character which science has assumed in our days. There is no longer any particular science, but only a general one, embracing them all, and including in its immense circle all branches of knowledge. Consequently, minds of ordinary capacity are obliged to remain satisfied with vague notions, unfortunately only serving to stimulate abstraction and universality. Never was knowledge so much generalized as now, and never was it more difficult to obtain deserved renown for wisdom. In every aspirant to scientific excellence the state of science requires a laborious activity in the acquisition of knowledge, profound reflection to regulate and direct it, a comprehensive and penetrating view to simplify and concentrate it, an intellect of a high order, elevating him to the regions in which science has established her abode. How many men are endowed with these qualifications? But let us revert to the subject.

Catholic theologians are so far from favoring despotism, that I doubt much whether it would be possible to find better books than theirs for enabling us to form clear and just ideas of the faculties of power. I will even add that, generally speaking, they incline, in a very remarkable manner, to the development of true liberty. The great type of theological schools, the model to the contemplation of which they have constantly turned during several centuries, are the works of St. Thomas of Aquin; and we may with full confidence defy our opponents to find us a jurist or philosopher who expounds with more lucidity, wisdom, noble independence, and generous dignity, the principles to which civil power ought to adhere. His Treatise upon Laws is immortal, and whoever has fully comprehended it has no further information to acquire respecting the great principles which ought to guide the legislator. You think lightly of past times, imagining that till now nothing was known of politics or public right; and in your imagination you invent an incestuous alliance between religion and despotism, fancying you have discovered in the distant obscurity of the cloister, the plot contrived by this infamous pact. But have you heard the opinion of a religious of the thirteenth century upon the nature of law? You already imagine that you see in his ideas force dominating over all, and constantly invoking religion the better to disguise his rude snares with a few falsehoods. Learn, then, that you could not yourself have given a milder definition of law. You would never have thought, as he has done, of excluding from it the idea of force; you could never have conceived how, in so few words, he has managed to say all, and with such exactitude, such lucidity, in terms so favorable to the true liberty of the people and to the dignity of man. The definition here spoken of being the summary of his entire doctrine, and at the same time the guide which has directed theologians, may be considered as an abridgment of theological doctrines in their relation to the faculties of civil power. It presents to us at a single glance what were, in this point of view, the predominating principles among Catholics.

Civil power acts upon society through the medium of the law; and, according to St. Thomas, the law is, "a rule dictated by reason, the aim of which is the public good, and promulgated by him who has the care of society." "Quædam rationis ordinatio ad bonum commune, et ab eo qui curam communitatis habet promulgata." (1, 2, quæst. 90, art. 4.) A rule dictated by reason, rationis ordinatio. Here by one word despotism and force are banished; here is the principle that the law is not a pure effect of the will. The celebrated maxim, Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem, is here corrected. Although capable of a reasonable and just interpretation, this maxim was, nevertheless, incorrect, and inclined to flattery. A celebrated writer of our days has devoted numerous pages to proving that legitimacy has not its origin in the will of man, but in reason, inferring from this that what ought to command men is not in the will of another man, but reason. With much less pomp, but not less solidity and conciseness, the holy Doctor expresses this idea in the words above quoted, rationis ordinatio. On reflection we find that despotism, arbitrary power, and tyranny are nothing else than the absence of reason in power, the domination of the will. When reason commands, there is legitimacy, justice, liberty; when the will alone commands, there is illegitimacy, injustice, despotism. Hence the fundamental idea of all law is, that it be in accordance with reason, that it be an emanation from reason, an application of reason to society; and the will, in giving its sanction to law and carrying it into execution, should be merely auxiliary to reason, its instrument, its arm.

It is evident that, without the action of the will, there is no law; for acts of pure reason, without the co-operation of the will, are thoughts and not commands. They enlighten the mind, but do not produce action. It is, therefore, impossible to conceive the existence of law without the combined operation of the will and of reason. But this is no reason why we should not consider all law to have a rational foundation and to be conformable to reason, that it may merit the name of law. These observations have not escaped the penetration of the holy Doctor; he examines them, and dispels the error of believing that the law consists in the mere will of the prince. He expresses himself as follows: "Reason receives its motive power from the will, as we have observed above (quæst. 17, art. 1;) for whilst the will seeks the end, reason enjoins the means of its attainment; but the will, to have the force of law, must be guided by reason. In this sense only can the will of a sovereign be said to have the force of law; in any other sense it would not be law, but injustice." "Ratio habet vim movendi a voluntate, ut supra dictum est. (Quæst. 17, art. 1.) Ex hoc enim quod aliquis vult finem, ratio imperat de his quæ sunt ad finem, sed voluntas de his quæ imperantur, ad hoc quod legis rationem habeat, oportet quod sit aliqua ratione regulata; et hoc modo intelligitur quod voluntas principis habet vigorem legis; alioquin voluntas principis magis esset iniquitas quam lex." (Quæst. 90, art. 1.)

These doctrines of St. Thomas are the same as those of all theologians. Impartiality and good sense will tell us whether they are favorable to absolutism and despotism, whether they are in any way opposed to true liberty, whether they are not eminently conformable to the dignity of man. These doctrines form the most explicit and conclusive proclamation of the limits of civil power, and they certainly have in this respect more weight than the declarations of imprescriptible rights. That which humbles man, wounds in him the feeling of a just independence, and introduces despotism into the world, is the will of man commanding and exacting submission merely because it is his will; but by submitting to reason, being guided by her dictates, we are not degraded; on the contrary, we are elevated, we are dignified, for we live conformably to eternal order and to the divine will. The obligation of being subject to the law does not originate in the will of another, but in reason. Theologians, however, have not considered the latter of itself sufficient to command. They derive the sanction of the law from a higher source; when the conscience of man was to be acted upon, to be bound by duty, they could find nothing in the sphere of created things capable of attaining so high an object. "Human laws, if they are just," says the holy Doctor, "are binding in conscience, and they derive their power from the eternal law, from which they are formed, according to what is said in Proverbs, chap. viii., 'By Me kings reign, and the lawgivers decree just things.'" "Si quidem justæ sunt, habent vim obligandi in foro conscientiæ a lege eterna, a qua derivantur, secundum illud Proverb. cap. 8, per me reges regnant, et legum conditores justa decernunt." (1, 2, quæst. 96, art. 3.) This proves, according to St. Thomas, that just law is derived not exactly from human reason, but from the eternal law; and that this is what makes it binding upon conscience.

This is doubtless more philosophical than to seek the obligatory force of laws in private reason, in pacts, or in the general will. In this manner the titles, the true titles of humanity are explained, a reasonable limit is placed upon civil power, and obedience is easily obtained; the rights and duties of governments, as well as those of subjects, are established upon solid and indestructible foundations; the nature of power, society, command, and obedience become perfectly comprehensible. It is no longer the will of one man predominating over that of his fellow-man; it is not his reason, but reason emanating from God, or more properly speaking the reason of God, the eternal law, God Himself. A sublime theory, in which power finds its rights, its duties, its force, its authority, its prestige, and in which society possesses its safest guarantee of order, well-being, and true liberty; a theory which divests authority of the will of man, since it changes this will into an instrument of the eternal law, into a divine ministry, whose aim is the public good, ad bonum commune. This, according to St. Thomas, is also one of the essential conditions of law. It has been asked, Whether kings are made for the people, or the people for kings? Such a question could only arise from a want of due reflection upon the nature of society, its object, and its origin, and upon the intent of power. The concise expression above cited, ad bonum commune, is a fitting answer to this question. "Laws," says the holy Doctor, "may be unjust in two ways; either by being opposed to the commonweal, or by having an improper aim, as when a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, which do not serve the common interest, but rather cupidity and ambition. Such laws are rather injustices than laws." "Injustæ autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per contrarietatem ad bonum commune, e contrario prædictis; vel ex fine, sicut cum aliquis præsidens leges imponit, onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam: ...... Et hujusmodi magis sunt violentiæ quam leges." (1, 2, q. 96, art. 4.) From this doctrine it follows, that command must be exercised for the well-being of all; and, failing in this condition, it is unjust: governors are invested with it only for the advantage of the governed. Kings are not, as some philosophers, regardless of the most palpable inconsistencies, have absurdly maintained, the slaves of their people; neither is their power a simple commission without any real authority, and continually subject to the caprice of their people; but, at the same time, the people are not the property of their kings. The latter can, by no means, consider their subjects as slaves, to be disposed of at their free-will: governments are not, by any means, the absolute arbiters of the lives and fortunes of the governed; they are bound to watch over them, not as a master over slaves from whom he derives profit, but as a father over the son whom he loves and whose happiness he has at heart.

"The kingdom is not made for the king, but the king for the kingdom," says the holy Doctor, from whom I continue to quote; and, in a style remarkable for its force and freedom, he continues as follows: "for God has constituted kings to rule and govern, and to secure to every one the possession of his rights; such is the aim of their institution; but if kings, turning things to their own profit, should act otherwise, they are no longer kings, but tyrants." (D. Th. de Reg. Princ. cap. 11.) From this doctrine it is evident, that the people are not made for kings; that the subject is not made for the ruler; but that all governments have been established for the good of society, and that this alone should be the compass to guide those who are in command, whatever be the form of government. From the president of the most insignificant republic to the most powerful monarch, none are exempt from this law; for it is a law anterior to society,--a law which presided at the formation of society, and which is superior to human law, inasmuch as it emanates from the Author of all society, from the source of all law.

No, the people are not made for kings; kings are all appointed for the good of the people: and if this object is not accomplished, the government is useless; and this affects the republic as well as the monarchy. To flatter kings with opposite maxims is to ruin them. Religion has not, at any time, done this; this was not the language of those illustrious men who, clothed in the sacerdotal habit, delivered to the powerful ones of the earth the messages of Heaven. "Kings, princes, magistrates," cries out the venerable Palafox, "all jurisdiction is ordained by God for the preservation of His people, not for their destruction; for defence, not for offence; for man's right, and not for his injury. They who maintain that kings can do as they please, and who establish their power upon their will, open the way to tyranny. Those who maintain that kings have power to do as they ought, and what is necessary for the preservation of their subjects and of their crowns, for the exaltation of faith and religion, for the just and right administration of justice, the preservation of peace and the support of just war, for the due and becoming éclat of regal dignity, the honorable maintenance of their houses and families, speak the truth without flattery, throw open the gates to justice, and to magnanimous and royal virtues." (Hist. Real. Sagrada, lib. i. cap. 11.) When Louis XIV. said, "I am the state," he had not learned this maxim either from Bossuet, Bourdaloue, or Masillon. Pride, exalted by so much grandeur and power, and infatuated by base adulators, was here speaking by his mouth. How unsearchable are the ways of Providence! The corpse of this man, who said he was the state, was insulted at his funeral; and, before the lapse of a century, his grandson suffered death on the scaffold! Thus the crimes of families are expiated, as well as those of nations. When the measure of His indignation is filled up, the Lord reminds terrified man that the God of mercy is likewise a God of vengeance, and that, as He opened upon the world the floodgates of heaven, so also He lets loose upon kings and nations the tempests of revolution. When once the rights and duties of power are founded upon a base as solid as that of their divine origin, when once they become established by a rule as exalted as that of the eternal law, there is no longer any necessity for extolling or exaggerating power, nor of attributing to it faculties to which it has no claim; and, on the other hand, it is no longer necessary to exact from it the fulfilment of its obligations with that imperious haughtiness which enervates by humiliating it. Flattery and menace become alike needless when there are other resources for exciting it to action, and other barriers for restraining it within due bounds. The statue of the king, it is true, is not set up in the public squares as an object for the people's adoration; but, on the other hand, the king is no longer placed at the mercy of democrats, soon to become an object of mockery and derision, the contemptible laughing-stock of demagogues.

Observe the moderation and mildness of the definition we have just analysed! It does not contain a single word which can wound the most delicate susceptibility of the most ardent partisans of public liberty. The law, according to this definition, consists in the rule of reason; the common weal is its only aim; and when the authority of him who promulgates and executes it is spoken of, there is no mention made of any sovereignty, no expression is used indicative of slavish subjection, the most measured term which it was possible to select is made use of--care: Qui CURAM communitatis habet. Bear in mind, that the author here quoted is accustomed to weigh his words like precious metal, and to employ them with the most scrupulous delicacy, pausing a long time, when necessary, to explain any that may present the least ambiguity, and you will then understand what ideas this great man entertained upon power; you will discover whether the spirit of oppressive doctrines could have prevailed in the Catholic schools, in which this Doctor was, and is still, acknowledged as an almost infallible oracle.

Compare the definition given by St. Thomas, and adopted by all theologians, with that which Rousseau has given. In that of St. Thomas, law is the expression of reason; in that of Rousseau, the expression of will: in the former, it is an application of the eternal law; in the latter, the product of general will. On which side are wisdom and good sense? Law was understood among the nations of Europe as it is explained by St. Thomas and all the Catholic schools; and tyranny was banished from Europe, Asiatic despotism was impossible, the admirable institution of European monarchy was established. At a later period, Rousseau's explanation was adopted, and then came the Convention, with its scaffolds and its horrors.

Publicists have already nearly abandoned the theory of "a general will;" and even those who contend for the sovereignty of the people, do not maintain that the will of all the citizens should constitute the law. The law, say they, is not the expression of general will, but of general reason. The philosopher of Geneva would have the will of individuals collected, the aggregate of which he termed the general will. In like manner, the publicists of whom we are speaking are of opinion that it is necessary to collect, amongst the governed, the greatest amount of reason, and to give this to the government for its guidance, the governing body being merely an instrument for the application of it. It is not men who command, say they, but the law; and the law is nothing else than reason and justice.

This theory, so far as it is correct, and apart from the applications which might be made of it, is not a discovery of modern science; it is a traditional principle of all Europe, which presided at the formation of society, and has given to civil power an organisation differing widely from those of antiquity, and equally so from those of modern times that have not participated in our civilisation. This, on close examination, appears to be the reason why European monarchies, even the most absolute, have been so very different from the Asiatic. A singular phenomenon: at the very time when society among us had no legal guarantees against the power of kings, it still had other very forcible ones which were purely moral. Modern science cannot, therefore, claim the discovery of a new principle of government; it has unknowingly resuscitated the ancient one. By rejecting the doctrine of Rousseau, instead of making, according to the vulgar expression, a step in advance, it retrograded; but to retrograde is not always to lose an advantage. What is or can be lost by receding from the brink of a precipice to enter upon a safe road? Rousseau complains, and with reason, that certain writers have so far exaggerated the prerogatives of civil power, as to convert mankind into a common herd, of which rulers could dispose to serve their interest or caprice. Such reproaches, however, cannot be applied to the Catholic Church, nor to any of the illustrious schools sheltered in her bosom. The philosopher of Geneva makes a severe attack upon Hobbes and Grotius for having maintained this servile doctrine. Catholics have nothing to do with the cause of these two writers. I will observe, however, that it would not be just to place the latter upon a parallel with the former. Grotius has certainly afforded reason for the accusation. He maintains that there are cases in which governments are not for the benefit of the governed, but for that of the governing powers. "Sic imperia quædam esse possunt comparata ad regum utilitatem." (De Jure Belli et Pacis, lib. i. cap. 3.) But, whilst we acknowledge that this principle has a dangerous tendency, we grant that the doctrines of the Dutch writer do not upon the whole tend to the total ruin of morality.

By rendering Grotius his due share of justice, we prevent any exaggeration of the evil which may exist on the side of our opponents; it must now be permitted to Catholic hearts to remark with noble satisfaction, that such doctrines could never be established amongst the professors of the true faith, and that the fatal maxims which lead to oppression have originated precisely among those who have deviated from the teaching of the Chair of St. Peter. No; Catholics have never brought under discussion whether kings have an unlimited power over the lives and fortunes of their subjects, to such a degree as to admit of no opposition, whatever be the excess of the absolutism and despotism exercised over them. Whenever flattery raised its voice to exaggerate the royal prerogative, this voice was immediately silenced by the unanimous outcry of the supporters of sound doctrine. Witness the remarkable example of a solemn retractation imposed by the tribunal of the Inquisition upon a preacher who had exceeded his bounds. Not so in England, a country proverbial for its hatred of Catholicity. Whilst here, in Spain, it was forbidden under a severe penalty to circulate maxims so degrading, in England the question was proposed with the greatest gravity, and writers upon law were divided in their sentiments. (See end of chapter 39.)

Every impartial reader has already been able to form an opinion on the value of declamations against the right divine, and on that pretended affinity of Catholic doctrines with despotism and slavery. The exposition of these doctrines which I have just given is certainly not founded upon vain reasoning, sought out on purpose to darken the question. I have not in any way shunned the difficulty.

The question was, to know in what these doctrines consisted. I have shown clearly, that those who calumniate them do not understand them, and that we may even be allowed to suppose that they have never taken the trouble to examine them, such is the levity and ignorance with which they express themselves. Perhaps I have adduced too many facts and quotations; but let the reader bear in mind, that my object is not to present him with a code of doctrines, but to give to this point of doctrine an historical investigation. Now, history does not call for discourses, but facts; and in matters of doctrine, the sentiments of authors are facts. Whilst beholding the salutary reaction now taking place in favour of sound principles, let us avoid giving an incomplete statement of the truth. For the cause of religion it is highly important that its advocates should be free from even the most remote suspicion of dishonesty or dissimulation. On this account, I have, without hesitation, given in their integrity the doctrines laid down by Catholic writers, just as I find them in their works. By misrepresenting and confounding facts, Protestants and unbelievers have succeeded in deceiving; let me hope that, by explaining and elucidating them, I shall not be unsuccessful in removing the deception.

I purpose examining, in the remaining part of this work, some other questions relating to the same subject--questions perhaps not more important, but certainly more delicate. And for this reason, I was obliged to smooth the way, that I might proceed with more liberty and ease. I have hitherto made the cause of religion defend itself with its own weapons, without borrowing the support of auxiliaries which were superfluous. I shall proceed in the same course, fully convinced that Catholicity can only lose by any line of vindication that identifies it with political interests, and confines it within a circle too limited for its immensity. Empires appear and disappear; the Church of Christ will last till the end of time. Political opinions undergo changes and modifications; the august dogmas of our religion remain immutable. Thrones rise and fall; and the rock upon which Jesus Christ has built His Church stands unshaken throughout the course of time, ever defying the powers of hell. When we take up arms in her defence, let us be impressed with the importance of our mission; let there be no exaggeration, no flattery--the pure truth in measured, but accurate and firm language. In addressing ourselves to the people, in proclaiming the truth to kings, let us bear in mind that religion is above politics, and God above kings and people.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

LIV. ON RESISTANCE TO THE CIVIL POWER

The doctrines of Catholicity, therefore, in reference both to the origin and the exercise of civil power, are unobjectionable. Let us now proceed to another point--one of greater delicacy and difficulty, if not of more importance. To state the question frankly, without any subterfuge or evasion: "Is it allowable in any case to resist the civil power?" It is impossible to speak more distinctly, or to employ more precise and simple terms in stating this question, which is the most important, the most difficult, and the most startling of any that the subject we have in hand presents for our investigation. We know that Protestantism from its commencement proclaimed the right of insurrection against civil power; and no one is ignorant of the fact that Catholicity has ever preached up obedience to this power; so that if the former has been from its infancy an element of revolution and of overthrow, the latter has been an element of tranquillity and good order. This distinction might induce us to believe that Catholicity favors oppression, since it leaves the people without arms to defend their liberty. "You preach up obedience to the civil powers," our adversaries will say; "you pronounce, in all cases, an anathema upon any insurrection which attacks them; should tyranny prevail, therefore, you become its most powerful auxiliaries; for, by your doctrine, you arrest the arm ready to be raised in defence of liberty; you stifle with the cry of conscience the indignation awakened in generous hearts." This is a serious charge, which compels us to elucidate, as far as possible, this important point, and to distinguish in it truth from error, certainty from doubt.

Some men would shrink from the investigation of such questions, and prefer drawing a veil over them--a veil which they venture not to raise, lest they should find an abyss. And assuredly their timidity is not inexcusable; for there are abysses unfathomable, and dangers that strike the mind with awe. One false step may lead to destruction; one move in a wrong direction may let loose tempests that would lay society in ruins. Whilst, however, I willingly admit the pure intentions of such persons, I may be permitted to observe, that their prudence is quite thrown away, that their foresight and precaution are of no avail. Whether they investigate these questions or not, they are investigated, agitated, and decided, in a manner that we must deplore; and, worse still, the theories thence arising have been reduced to practice. Revolutions are no longer confined to books, they have become realities; quitting the quiet path of mere speculative philosophy, they are to be seen in the streets and in the public squares. Since, then, things have come to such a pass, why seek palliatives, make use of restrictions, or invoke silence? Let us tell the truth, just as it is, without concealment; since it is the truth, it will neither shrink before abundance of knowledge, nor the attacks of error. It is truth; its manifestation, its diffusion can have no injurious effect. In a word, God, who is the Author of societies, had no need of establishing them upon falsehood. This candor is the more necessary, because political changes may have led some persons to disavow the truths we are discussing, or no longer to understand them aright; whilst others imagine that obedience to legitimate authority has been taught only by a party anxious to make this doctrine the foundation of their tyranny. Men of erroneous opinions and evil intentions have their own codes, to which they have recourse whenever it will forward their designs: their fatal errors or their sordid interests form the rule of their conduct; this is the source of their knowledge and of their inspirations. Men, therefore, endowed with a pure heart and with upright intentions, should know what to hold by in political oscillations; it is no longer sufficient for them to have a general knowledge of the principle of obedience to the legitimate authorities; they must also be acquainted with their applications.

It is true that, in conflicts arising from civil discord, many men throw aside their own convictions to accommodate themselves to the exigencies of their interests; but it is no less certain, that there is still to be found a great number of conscientious men who adhere to them. We may also add, that the generality of the individuals composing a nation, not being usually in the urgent necessity of choosing between the sacrifice of their convictions and the risk of grave and imminent peril, those who entertain them usually find means to make their influence felt in preventing great evils or in remedying them. According to certain pessimistes, reason and justice are for ever banished from the earth, leaving it a prey to self-interest, and substituting for the dictates of conscience the designs of egotism. In their estimation, it is labor in vain to discuss and decide questions which may guide us in practice; for, according to them, whatever a man's conviction may be in theory, his practical decision will always be the same. It is my happiness, or misfortune, to take a different view of the case, and to believe that there still exist in the world, and particularly in Spain, men of profound convictions, and possessed of sufficient strength of mind to regulate their conduct by those convictions. The strongest proof that the inutility of doctrines is exaggerated, is the zeal evinced by all parties to lay hold of them. Whether from interest or from delicacy, all appeal to doctrines; and this interest or delicacy would not exist, if doctrines did not possess a powerful ascendency in society. Nothing, in discussion, is more perplexing than the introduction of several questions at the same time; and for this reason, I shall proceed in such a manner as to distinguish those which present themselves here. I will resolve, one by one, those which relate to our object, and pass over those which are foreign to it. Above all, we must bear in mind the general principle at all times inculcated by Catholicity, viz. the obligation of obeying legitimate authority. Let us now see how this principle is to be applied. In the first place, Are we to obey the civil power when it commands something that is evil in itself? No, we are not; for the simple reason that what is evil in itself is forbidden by God; now, we must obey God rather than men.

In the second place, Are we to obey the civil power when it interferes in matters not included in the circle of its faculties? No; for, with regard to these matters, it is not a power. From the very supposition that its faculties do not extend so far, we affirm that, in this point of view, it is not a real power. Besides, what I have advanced does not exactly and exclusively concern spiritual matters, to which I appear to allude. I apply this restriction of civil power also to matters purely temporal. It is necessary to refer here to what I have said in another part of this work, viz., that whilst we grant to civil power sufficient force and attributes for the maintenance of order and unity in the social body, it is just nevertheless, that we should not allow it to absorb the individual and the family, so as to destroy their individuality, to deprive them of their own sphere, and leave them only the means of acting as an integral part of society. This is one of the distinguishing features between Christian and pagan civilisation: the latter, in its zeal for the preservation of social unity, excluded every individual and family right; the former, on the contrary, has amalgamated the interests of the individual with those of families and society, so that they neither destroy nor embarrass each other. Thus, besides the sphere within which the action of the civil power is properly confined, there are others into which it has no right to enter, and in which individuals and families live without clashing with the colossal force of the government.

It is just to observe here, that Catholicity has done much for the maintenance of this principle, which is a strong guarantee of the liberty of the people. The separation of the two powers temporal and spiritual, the independence of the latter with respect to the former, the distinction of the persons in whom it is vested: such has been one of the principal causes of this liberty, which, under different forms of government, is the common inheritance of European nations. Ever since the foundation of the Church, this principle of the independence of the spiritual power has at all times served, by the mere fact of its existence, to remind men that the rights of civil power are limited, that there are things beyond its province, cases in which a man may say, and ought to say, I will not obey.

This is another of those cases in which Protestantism has given a wrong direction to the civilisation of Europe, and in which, far from opening the way to liberty, it has riveted the chains of slavery. Its first step was the abolition of the Pontifical authority, the overthrow of the hierarchy, the refusal to grant to the Church any kind of power whatever, and the placing of spiritual supremacy in the hands of princes; that is to say, it has retrograded towards pagan civilisation, in which we find the sceptre united with the pontificate. The grand political problem was precisely the separation of these two powers, in order to save society from subjection to one sole unlimited authority, exercising its faculties without restraint, and from which might consequently be expected vexation and oppression. This separation was effected without any political views, any fixed design on the part of men, wherever Catholicity was established; for her discipline required and her dogmas inculcated it. Is it not strange that the advocates of theories of equilibrium and counterpoise, who have so loudly extolled the utility of separating powers, and of dividing authority among them with a view to prevent it from being converted into tyranny, should not have noticed the profound wisdom of this Catholic doctrine, even when considered merely in a social and political point of view? But no; it is remarkable, on the contrary, that all modern revolutions have manifested a decided tendency towards the amalgamation of the civil and ecclesiastical powers--a convincing proof that these revolutions have proceeded from an origin contrary to the generative principle of European civilisation, and that instead of guiding it towards perfection, they have rather served to lead it astray. The union of Church and State in England, under the reigns of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, produced the most cruel despotism; and if that country at a later period acquired a higher degree of liberty, it was not assuredly owing to that religious authority given by Protestantism to the head of the state, but in spite of it. It is worthy of remark, that in later times, when England entered upon a more extensive sphere of liberty, it was owing to the diminution of the civil power on all matters appertaining to religion, and to a greater development of Catholicity, opposed in its very principles to this monstrous supremacy. In the North of Europe, where the Protestant system has also prevailed, civil authority has been unlimited; and even at the present time, we find the Emperor of Russia indulging in the most barbarous persecutions against Catholics; more distrustful of those who defend the independence of spiritual power, than of the revolutionary clubs. The autocrat is devoured with a thirst for unlimited authority, and a decided instinct urges him to attack in particular the Catholic religion, which forms his principal obstacle.

It is remarkable with what uniformity all power, in this respect, tends to despotism, whether under a revolutionary or monarchical form. Impatient of the restraint laid upon him by the spiritual power, Louis XIV. attempted to crush the power of Rome. He was urged to it by the same motives as the Constituent Assembly; the monarch rested his cause upon the rights of royalty, and the liberties of the Gallican Church--the Constituent Assembly invoked the rights of the nation, and the principles of philosophy; but in the main they were actuated by one and the same motive, that of ascertaining whether or not civil power should be restricted: in the former case, it was monarchy tending to despotism; in the latter, democracy advancing to the terrors of the Convention. When Napoleon wished to bruise the head of the revolutionary hydra, to reorganize society, to create a power, he made use of religion as the most potent element. Catholicity was the only predominating religion in France; to this he had recourse, and signed the Concordat. But, observe, that no sooner did he imagine his work of reparation complete, and the critical moment of the establishment of his power passed, than he began to think of extending it, of freeing himself from all restraint. He began to look upon that pontiff, whose presence at his coronation had so much gratified him, with a more supercilious eye. At first he had some serious disputes with him, and ended by becoming his most inveterate enemy.

These observations, to which I invite the attention of every reflecting mind, acquire more importance from the consideration of what has taken place in our own religious and most Catholic monarchy. In spite of the preponderating influence of the Catholic religion in Spain, the principle of resistance to the court of Rome has ever been preserved in a particular and remarkable manner; thus, whilst the Austrian dynasty and the Bourbons endeavoured to lay aside our old laws, so far as they were favourable to political liberty, they preserved as a sacred deposit the traditional resistance of Ferdinand the Catholic, of Charles V., and of Philip II. The deep root which Catholicity had taken in Spain doubtless prevented matters from being carried to extremes; but it is no less true that the germ existed, and was handed down from generation to generation, as if its complete development was expected at some more favourable period. This fact was placed in peculiarly strong relief at the time of the Bourbon accession, when the monarchy of Louis XIV. was introduced amongst us, and the last vestiges of the ancient liberties of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia disappeared; the mania for kingly rights was at its height in the reigns of Charles III. and Charles IV. Strange coincidence! The epoch in which the greatest jealousy was entertained against the Court of Rome and the independence of Church authority, was exactly that in which ministerial despotism was in its greatest force, and in which there was seen something still worse--the despotism of a favorite, with all its pitiful show. True, the ideas of the French schools were at that time influencing Spain; and of this neither the King, nor, probably, some of his ministers, were aware: but this does not militate against the reflections we are making; on the contrary, it comes in support of them, by showing their applicability to circumstances quite dissimilar, and consequently their soundness and importance. The object here aimed at was the overthrow of the established authority, to make way for another equally unlimited; to effect this, it was necessary to urge on the former to abuse its prerogatives, and, at the same time, to establish precedents to fall back upon, so soon as the revolution should have displaced the absolute monarchy. What important reflections are here presented to us! What strange analogies rise to view between circumstances apparently most antagonistic! In our times, we have seen bishops brought to trial from the same motives that were alleged in a celebrated cause in the reign of Charles III.; and the Supreme Tribunals of our own days have heard from the lips of their fiscals[B] the same doctrines formerly propounded by those of the Council. Thus do doctrines meet, and thus, by different ways, do we arrive at the same end. According to the ancient fiscals, the authority of the king was every thing; the rights of the crown, like the ark of old, were held so sacred, that to touch, or even to look upon them, was accounted a sacrilege. Well, the ancient monarchy has disappeared--the throne is no longer any thing more than a shadow of what it once was--the Revolution has triumphed over it; and yet, despite a change so profound, it is not long since a fiscal of the Supreme Tribunal, charging a bishop with an offence against the rights of the civil power, made use of these words: "In the state, a leaf cannot be plucked without the permission of government." These words need no comment; the writer of these lines heard them uttered; and this plain, unequivocal declaration of arbitrary power seemed to him to throw a new ray of light upon history.

[B] Crown attorneys, charged with the prosecution of criminal and other causes.

The gravity and importance of this subject required this digression; it was incumbent on me to show how far the Catholic principle of the independence of spiritual power may serve the cause of true liberty. This principle, in fact, eminently teaches that the faculties of civil power are limited, and it is, consequently, a perpetual condemnation of despotism. To revert to the original question. It remains, then, established, that we are to be subject to the civil power so long as it does not go beyond its proper limits; but that the Catholic doctrine never enjoins obedience when civil power oversteps the limits of its faculties.

It will not be uninteresting to the reader to learn how the principle of obedience was understood by one of the most illustrious interpreters of Catholic doctrine--by the holy Doctor so often cited. According to him, whenever laws are unjust (and observe, that, in his opinion, they may be so in many ways), they are not binding on conscience, unless for fear of creating scandal, or causing greater evils; that is to say, that, in certain cases, an unjust law may become obligatory, not by virtue of any duty which it imposes, but from motives of prudence. These are his words, to which I crave the reader's particular attention: "Laws are unjust in two ways; either because they are opposed to the common weal; or on account of their aim, as is the case when a government imposes upon its subjects onerous laws, not for the good of the commonweal, but for the sake of self-interest or ambition; or on account of their author, as when any one makes a law without being invested with proper faculties; again, they may be unjust in form, as when the taxes are unequally divided among the multitude, although in other respects tending to the public good. Such laws are rather outrages than laws; since, as St. Augustin observes (lib. i. de Lib. Arb. cap. 5), 'An unjust law does not appear to be a law.' Such laws, therefore, are not binding in conscience, unless, perhaps, for the avoiding of scandal and trouble--a motive which ought to induce man to give up his right, as St. Matthew observes: 'And whosoever shall force thee to go one mile, go with him other two; and if any man will go to law with thee, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also.' Laws may also be unjust in another point of view, when they are contrary to the will of God; as the laws of tyrants enforcing idolatry, or anything else contrary to divine law. With respect to such laws, it is not allowable, under any circumstances, to obey them; for, as it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'We must obey God rather than man.'" "Injustæ autem sunt leges dupliciter; uno modo per contrarietatem ad bonum commune e contrario prædictis, vel ex fine, sicut cum aliquis præsidens leges imponit onerosas subditis non pertinentes ad utilitatem communem, sed magis ad propriam cupiditatem vel gloriam; vel etiam ex auctore, sicut cum aliquis legem fert ultra sibi commissam potestatem; vel etiam ex forma cum inæqualiter onera multitudinis dispensantur, etiamsi ordinentur ad bonum commune; et hujusmodi magis sunt violentiæ quam leges, quia sicut Augustinus dicit (lib. i. de Lib. Arb. cap. 5, parum a princ.) lex esse non videtur quæ justa non fuerit, unde tales leges in foro conscientiæ non obligant, nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem, propter quod etiam homo juri suo cedere debet secundum illud Math. cap. v. 'Qui te angariaverit mille passus, vade cum eo alia duo, et qui abstulerit tibi tunicam da ei et pallium.' Alio modo leges possunt esse injustæ per contrarietatem ad bonum divinum, sicut leges tyrannorum inducentes ad idololatriam, vel ad quodcumque aliud quod sit contra legem divinam, et tales leges nullo modo licet observare, quia sicut dicitur Act. cap. v.: 'Obedire oportet Deo magis quam hominibus.'" (D. Th. 1, 2, quæst. 90, art. 1.)

This doctrine furnishes us with the following rules:

1. We cannot, under any circumstances, obey the civil power when its commands are opposed to the divine law.

2. When laws are unjust, they are not binding in conscience.

3. It may become necessary to obey these laws from motives of prudence; that is, in order to avoid scandal and commotions.

4. Laws are unjust from some one of the following causes:

When they are opposed to the common weal--when their aim is not the good of the commonweal--when the legislator outsteps the limits of his faculties--when, although in other respects tending to the good of the commonweal, and proceeding from competent authority, they do not observe suitable equity; for instance, when they divide unequally the public imposts.

We have quoted and copied the venerable text whence these rules are derived: their illustrious author has been the guide of all the theological schools during the last six centuries; his authority has never been called in question in these schools on points of dogma or morality; these rules may, therefore, be regarded as the recapitulation of the doctrines of Catholic theologians with reference to the obedience due to authority. We may now, without doubt, appeal with entire confidence to every man of good sense. Let him judge whether these doctrines are in the least inclined to despotism, whether they have the least tendency to tyranny, in fine, whether they aim the slightest blow at liberty. It is vain to seek in them the slightest appearance of flattery to the civil power, whose limits are marked out with rigorous severity; if it outsteps them, it is openly told, "Thy laws are not laws, but outrages; they are not binding in conscience; and if, in some instances, thou art obeyed, it is not owing to any obligation, but to prudence, in order to avoid scandal and commotion; it is thenceforth such a dishonor to thee, that thy triumph, far from entitling thee to renown, assimilates thee to the robber who despoils the peaceable man of his garment, and to whom the latter, for the sake of peace, gives up his cloak also." If these are doctrines of oppression and despotism, we also are advocates for such oppression and despotism; for we cannot conceive doctrines more favorable to liberty.

Upon these principles the admirable institution of European monarchy was founded. This teaching has created the moral defences by which that monarchy is surrounded; defences restraining it within the limits of its duties, even where political guarantees do not exist. The mind, wearied with foolish declamations against the tyranny of kings, and, on the other hand, not less tired of the boisterous adulations lavished upon power in modern times, expands and rejoices on meeting with this pure, disinterested, and sincere expression of the rights and duties of governments and of people, on hearing this language, impressed with as much of wisdom as of upright intention and generous freedom. What books were consulted by men making use of such language? The Scriptures, the Fathers, the collections of ecclesiastical documents. Could they have received their inspirations from the society which surrounded them? No; for in that same society disorder and confusion prevailed; sometimes a turbulent disobedience, at others despotism was predominant. And yet they speak with as much discretion, tact, and calmness as if they were living in the midst of well-regulated society. They were guided by divine revelation, which taught them truth. How often did they see it forgotten and trampled under foot! But uninfluenced by circumstances, however unfavorable, they wrote in a region far above the atmosphere of human passions. Truth is of all times; proclaim it ever, and God will effect the rest.[31]

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us