by the advocates of blind submission epoch usurpations were frequent, the to any power that happens to be es- imperial throne was established by tablished. "The Scriptures," they force, its occupants one after another will say, "prescribe to us obedience owed their elevation to military insurto the authorities, without any distinc-rection, and to the assassination of tion; the Christian, therefore, ought their predecessors. We find, nevernot to make any distinction, but sub-theless, that Christians never meddled mit with resignation to such as he with the question of legitimacy; they finds established." In reply to this respected the established power, and objection, I see the following very de- this power failing, they submitted cisive answers. 1. Illegitimate au- without murmuring to the new tyrant thority is no authority at all; the idea who had usurped the throne." This of power involves the idea of right, argument, it cannot be denied, is very without which it is mere physical plausible, and presents at first sight a power, that is force. When, there- serious difficulty; a few reflections, fore, the Scriptures prescribe obe- however, suffice to show its extreme dience to the authorities, it is the futility. In order that an insurreclawful authorities that are implied. tion against an unlawful power may 2. The sacred text, in enjoining us be legitimate and prudent, those who obedience to the civil power, tells us undertake to overturn it should be that it is ordained by God Himself, sure of its illegitimacy, should have that it is the minister of God Himself; in view the substitution of a lawful and it is evident that usurpation is power, and should count besides on never invested with so high a charac- the probability of the success of their ter. The usurper is perhaps the in- enterprise. If these conditions are not strument of Providence, the scourge of fulfilled, the insurrection has no obHeaven, as Attila designated himself, ject; it is a mere fruitless attempt, an but not the minister of God. 3. The impotent revenge, which, instead of sacred Scriptures prescribe obedience being useful to society, only causes to the subject in relation to the civil bloodshed, only irritates the power power, in the same way as they pre- attacked, and can have in consequence scribe it to the slave in relation to his no other effect than to increase opmaster. But what sort of masters are pression and tyranny. here implied? Evidently such as exercised a legitimate dominion, such as it was understood at the time, conformable to the prevailing laws and customs; otherwise the Scriptures would require obedience from such slaves as were reduced to slavery by an abuse of power. Hence, as the obedience to masters prescribed by the Scriptures does not deprive the slave unjustly retained in servitude of his right, so also the obedience due to the established authorities should be restricted to the lawful authorities, and to cases in which prudence would dictate it in order to avoid commotion and scandal.

In confirmation of the doctrine of mere de facto government, the conduct of the first Christians has been sometimes alleged. “They submitted," it is said, "to the constituted authorities without even inquiring whether they were legitimate or not. At this

None of the conditions here mentioned were in existence at the time we are speaking of; all that upright men could do was quietly to resign themselves to the calamitous circumstances of the times, and by fervent prayer to implore the Almighty to take compassion on mankind.

When every thing was decided by force of arms, who could say whether such or such an emperor was lawfully established? Upon what rules was the imperial succession established? Where was the legitimacy to be substituted for illegitimacy? Amongst the Romans,-those vile, degraded beings, kissing the chains of the first tyrant who offered them food and games? In the worthless posterity of those illustrious patricians who formerly gave laws to the universe? Was it vested in the sons or in the family of some assassinated emperor, when the laws had not established hereditary succes

made a rule for the Spaniards, for instance, at the time they resisted the usurpation of Bonaparte? Or could it be imitated by any other people in similar circumstances? Or will it be received as an argument in favour of every kind of usurpation? No; man, by becoming a Christian, does not cease to be a citizen, to be a man, to have his rights, or to act in a praiseworthy manner whenever, within the bounds of reason and justice, he attempts to maintain his rights with fearless intrepidity.

sion, when the sceptre of the empire was at the disposal of the legions, when it frequently happened that the emperor, the victim of usurpation, had been himself merely a usurper, who had mounted to the throne over the corpse of his rival? Did it exist in the ancient rights of those conquered nations now reduced to simple dependencies of the empire, divested of all national spirit, having even lost the recollection of their former condition, without a thought capable of conducting them in the work of their emancipation, and destitute of resources Don Felix Amat, Archbishop of against the colossal force of their mas- Palmyra, in his posthumous work enters? What object could any one have, titled Idea of the Church Militant, under such circumstances, in making makes use of these words: "Jesus attempts against the established go- Christ, by his plain and expressive vernment? When the legions decided answer, Render to Cæsar the things the fate of the world, alternately ele- that are Cæsar's, has sufficiently esvating and assassinating their mas-tablished, that the mere fact of a goters, what could or what ought the Christian to have done? The disciple of a God of peace and love, he could not take part in criminal scenes of bloodshed and tumult; authority was tottering and uncertain; it was not for him to decide whether it was legitimate or not; it only remained for him to submit to the power generally acknowledged, and at the arrival of one of those changes, at that time of so frequent occurrence, to yield the same obedience to the newly-established government.

The interference of Christians in political disputes would only have served to bring into disrepute the holy religion they professed; it would have given to philosophers and idolaters a pretext for increasing the catalogue of black calumnies which they every where brought against the faith. Public report accused Catholicism of being subversive of governments; Christians would have furnished a pretext for extending and accrediting this unfounded report, the hatred of governments would have been redoubled, and the rigour of persecution so cruelly exercised against the disciples of the Cross would have been increased. Has this state of things ever existed but once, either in ancient or modern times? And could the conduct of the first Christians in this respect be

vernment's existence is sufficient for enforcing the obedience of subjects to it." What I have already advanced is enough, in my opinion, to show the fallacy of such an assertion; and, as I intend to revert to this subject, and investigate more attentively this author's opinion, and the reasons upon which he supports it, I shall not now attempt to enter upon its refutation. I will, nevertheless, make one observation, which occurred to me on reading the passages in which the Archbishop of Palmyra develops it. His work was forbidden at Rome; and whatever may have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may rest assured that, in the case of a book advocating such doctrines, every man who is jealous of his rights might acquiesce in the decree of the Sacred Congregation.

As the opportunity is favourable, we may make a few remarks upon consummated facts, which are so closely connected with the doctrine under discussion. Consummated implies something perfect in its kind; hence an act is consummated when it has attained its completion. This word, applied to crimes, is opposed to an attempt. We say an attempt at robbery, murder, or arson, when the undertaking to commit these crimes has been manifested by some act; for instance, the lock of

a door has been broken, an attack | hope of restitution left to the victims, has been made with a murderous and a gag put upon their mouths, to weapon, combustible matter has been stifle their complaints. Others, I am ignited, but the crime is not said aware, have no such design in making to be consummated till the robbery, use of these words, but are the dupes murder, or arson have actually been of a confusion of ideas, arising from committed. Hence, in a political and their not having distinguished between social sense, we designate consum- moral principles and public expedimated facts an usurpation completely ency. On this point, therefore, we overthrowing the legitimate power, must distinguish and define, which I and by means of which the usurper will do in a few words. is already substituted in its place; a measure executed in all its points; such as the suppression of the regular clergy in Spain, and the confiscation of their property to the treasury; a revolution which has been triumphant, and which has entirely disposed of a country, as was the case with our American possessions.

From this explanation, we see clearly that a fact does not, by being consummated, change its nature; it still remains a simple fact-just or unjust, legal or illegal-as it was before. The most horrible outrages may also be termed consummated facts; yet, for all that, they do not cease to deserve disgrace and punishment.

What, then, is the meaning of certain phrases continually uttered by some men? "We must respect consummated facts; we must always accept consummated facts; it is folly to resist consummated facts; it is a wise policy that yields to consummated facts." Far be it from me to assert that all those who establish these maxims, profess the fatal doctrines to which they give rise. We often admit principles, the consequences of which we reject; and point out a certain line of conduct as right, without attending to the abominable maxims in which it originates. In human affairs, good and evil, error and truth are so narrowly separated, and prudence so closely borders on culpable timidity, that in theory, as well as in practice, it is not always easy to remain within the bounds prescribed by reason and the eternal principles of sound morality. If respect for consummated facts is mentioned, perverse men immediately include in it the sanctioning of crime, the spoils of plunder secured to the robber, no

The simple consummation of a fact does not render it legitimate; and consequently it is not on this account alone worthy of being respected. The robber who has stolen does not acquire a right to the thing stolen; the incendiary who reduces a house to ashes is no less deserving of punishment, of being forced to make reparation, than if he had been arrested in the attempt. This is so evident and clear, that it cannot be called in question. To assert the contrary, is to become the enemy to all morality, to all justice, to all right; and to proclaim the exclusive rule of force and cunning. Consummated facts, appertaining to social and political order, do not change their nature; the usurper, who seizes upon the crown of his lawful predecessor; the conqueror, who, by mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not thereby acquire a right to its possession; the government, which by gross iniquities has despoiled entire classes of citizens, exacted undue contributions, abolished legitimate rights, cannot justify its acts by the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute these iniquities. That is equally evident; and if there is here any difference at all, the crime is only the greater, from the greater gravity and extent of the wrongs committed, and of the scandal given to the public. Such are the principles of sound morality-individual morality, social morality; morality of the whole human race; immutable, eternal morality.

Let us now examine the question of public expediency. In some instances, a consummated fact, in spite of all its injustice, all its immorality and atrocity, acquires such an ascendency, that by not accepting it, or by being de

and uncertain for the future, just means must be adopted, which, without occasioning complicity in the evil, may prevent the dangers of a doubtful situation, resulting from injustice itself. A just policy does not sanction injustice; but a wise policy never despises the importance of established facts. If such facts exist, and appear indestructible, it tolerates them; but without affording them the sanction of its participation or approval. Acting with dignity, it makes the best of

termined to destroy it, we should let impracticable reparation. As it is loose a train of troubles and com- particularly injurious to society for motions, and perhaps without effect. great interests to remain insecure, Every government is bound to respect justice, and to act in such a manner that its subjects may also respect it; but it should not command what will not be obeyed, when it is deprived of the means of enforcing obedience. In such a case, we should not commit an injustice by not attacking the illegal interests, or by not endeavouring to obtain redress for the victims; the government, in such a case, may be compared to a man who, beholding robbers loaded with the fruit of their theft, is without the means of forcing difficulties; and in some sort allies them to make restitution. If you suppose an impossibility, what does it avail to say that the government is not a single individual, but a defender of all legitimate interests? No one is bound to impossibilities.

No one.

the principles of eternal justice with the views of public expediency. We have a very striking case in point, which will place this matter in the clearest possible light. After the great evils, and the enormous acts Observe, also, that this remark ap- of injustice perpetrated during the plies not only to a physical impossi- French Revolution, what possibility bility, but also to a moral one. When was there of making a complete reever, therefore, the government pos- paration? In 1814, could every thing sesses the material means of obtain- be restored to the position in which ing reparation, a moral impossibility it stood in 1789? The throne overwill be constituted, when the employ-turned, all social distinctions levelled, ing of those means would cause se- and property broken up; who could rious difficulties to the state, endan- reconstruct the ancient social edifice? ger the public peace, or sow the seeds of future insurrection. Order and public interest require the preference, for these are the primary objects of all government; consequently, that which cannot be accomplished without endangering them, ought to be considered as impossible. The application of these doctrines will always be a question of prudence, that cannot be subjected to any general rule. Depending as it does upon a thousand circumstances, it cannot be decided upon abstract principles; but by the consideration of existing facts, duly appreciated and considered by political tact. Such is the case of the respect due to consummated facts; the injustice of these facts is apparent; but we must not overlook their force. Not to attack them is not, necessarily, to sanction them. The legislator is bound to diminish the evil as far as possible; but not to risk an aggravation of it by attempting an

Such is the respect to be entertained for consummated facts, which might be more properly termed indestructible ones. To illustrate my idea still further, I will give it a very simple exemplification. A proprietor, driven from his possessions by a powerful neighbour, has not the means of repossessing himself of them. He has neither wealth nor influence; and his spoliator abounds in both. If he have recourse to force, he will be vanquished; if to the tribunal, he will lose his cause; what, therefore, is he to do? To negotiate for an accommodation, to obtain what he can, and be resigned to his fate. This is all that can be said; and it is remarkable, that such are the principles adopted by governments. History and experience teach us, that consummated facts are respected when they are indestructible; that is, when they possess in themselves sufficient force to

make them respected; in any other case they are not so. And nothing is more natural. Whatever is not founded upon right, can only be maintained by force. (32.)

CHAPTER LVI.

tion of every kind of insurrection ? No; it speaks of the murder of a tyrant by any particular individual; but every case of resistance is not maintained by a single individual; neither is it the aim of every insurrection to destroy a tyrant. This doctrine only serves to prevent murder, and a train of evils which would

WHETHER THE CIVIL POWER MAY BE Overwhelm society if it were esta

LAWFULLY RESISTED.

blished that any individual had a right of his own authority to kill the FROM what has been said in the fore- supreme ruler. Who will venture to going chapters it follows, that it is accuse this doctrine of being favourallowable to resist illegitimate power able to tyranny? The liberty of the by force. The Catholic religion does people should not be based upon the not enjoin obedience to governments horrid right of assassination; the deexisting merely de facto; for morality fence of the rights of society should does not admit a mere fact, unsup- not be confided to the dagger of a ported by right and justice. How-fanatic. The attributes of public ever, when power is in itself lawful, power are so extensive and various, but in its exercise tyrannical, does that their exercise must necessarily our religion prohibit, in every in- and frequently inconvenience some stance, resistance by physical force; individuals. Man, inclined to exagso that not to resist at all, forms ageration and revenge, easily enlarges part of her dogmas? Is insurrection never allowable, in any supposition, for any motive? Although I have already eliminated many questions, it is necessary to draw here a fresh distinction, in order to fix exactly the point at which dogma ends, and opinions begin. It is evident, in the first place, that an individual has no right to kill a tyrant on his own authority. The Council of Constance, in its 15th session, condemned the following proposition as heretical: "Any vassal or subject may and ought, lawfully and meritoriously, to kill any tyrant. He may even, for this purpose, avail himself of ambushes, and wily expressions of affection or of adulation; notwithstanding any oath or pact imposed upon him by the tyrant; and without waiting for the sentence or order of any judge." Quilibet tyrannus potest et debet licite et meritorie occidi per quemcumque vassallum suum vel subditum, etiam per clanculares insidias, et subtiles blanditias vel adulationes, non obstante quocumque præstito juramento, seu confœderatione factis cum eo, non expectata sententia vel mandato judicis cujuscumque."

66

But does this decision of the Council of Constance constitute a prohibi

upon the grievances which he suffers; passing from a particular to a general, he is inclined to look upon those who injure or oppose him as villains. At the slightest shock which he receives from government, he cries out that tyranny is insupportable; the act of arbitrary power, real or imaginary, committed against him, becomes, in his mouth, one of the many iniquities perpetrated, or the commencement of those that are to be. Grant, therefore, to the individual the right of killing a tyrant; proclaim to the people that, to render such an act lawful and meritorious, there is no need of a sentence, or any judicial condemnation; and from that time this horrible crime will become frequent. The wisest, the justest kings will fall victims to the parricidal dagger, or the poisoned cup. You will have furnished no guarantee to the liberty of the people, and you will have exposed the dearest interest of society to dreadful hazards.

The Catholic Church, by this solemn declaration, has conferred an immense service on humanity. The violent death of him who holds the supreme power seldom happens without causing bloodshed and great com