CHAPTER 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."