question of the violent seizure of that princedom which by a special decree of Divine Providence has been given to the Roman Pontiff, in order to enable him to exercise his apostolic ministry with perfect freedom over the whole Church. All princes ought therefore to be convinced that our interest is the same as theirs, and that in giving us their assistance they are providing for their own rights as well as for ours.'

Wide as the poles asunder are these two things, assistance rendered to a weaker State with its own consent, and an unjust invasion of the territory of a weaker power in order to crush it. The censured assertion, that it is not permitted to one government to give assistance to another when unjustly attacked, would shake the security of States, and render impossible every offensive and defensive alliance, and even every international union. Carried into private life, it would altogether annul the command of loving our neighbour. Christian morality requires that every one should help his neighbour to the utmost in case of need: and the rule of morality for nations is the same as for individuals. To proclaim the universal principle of non-intervention is to extirpate the last remains of Christian international law, and to inflict a greater calamity on mankind than even those ill-advised and ill-conducted interventions between 1820 and 1850.

§ 16.

It might have been expected that rulers of modern States would at least have welcomed the condemnation of prop. 63, and have been thereby in some degree reconciled to the Syllabus. This proposition declares that it is allowable to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, even to rebel against them. But instead of being welcomed, the condemnation of this proposition has been held idle, on the ground that 'whether a prince is legitimate or no rests, according to Boniface VIII., on the Pope's decision alone; so that if the Pope, on account of some violation of Church law, declares a prince to be unlawful, the condemnation of prop. 63 does not make it contrary to Catholic faith that subjects are bound to no obedience, but may rebel."

4

But we have seen already that the Holy See by no means attributes to itself exclusive judgment on the subject of the rightfulness of princes, but rather negotiates and treats with existing governments; and also we have seen that the suppositions just quoted are entirely false. Pius IX. in the Encyclical of Nov. 9, 1846, in the Allocution of Oct. 4, 1847, and in the Briefs of Dec. 8, 1849, and March 26, 1860, has expressly quoted the following passages of Scripture, Rom. xiii. 1 seq., 1 Peter ii. 13 seq.3 Nevertheless the objection has been raised that the Pope has made an exception to these decrees, viz. in the case of anything being commanded contrary to the law of God and of the Church. But although in this case, according to Pius IX. and the whole teaching of the Church, subjects are released from the duty of obedience, they are by no means authorised to make active resistance, and still less is rebellion either sanctioned or enforced. Passive resistance is sufficient. Rebellion is entirely forbidden. Therefore it was never a matter of faith that the Church had been invested with any divine authority to depose princes. This authority she only exercised at a certain period and under special circumstances. The real meaning of prop. 63 is more fully exemplified by the following (64): The violation of a solemn oath, nay, any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable, but quite lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done for the love of one's country.' This proposition is taken from the Allocution of April 20, 1849, given at Gaeta against the Italian and particularly the Roman revolution; it especially condemns the fact of palliating the violation of the sacred oath of allegiance rendered to rightful sovereigns under the pretext of patriotism. Why is this proposition passed over in complete silence?

1 Berchtold, pp. 31, 32.

2 Suprà, Essay i. pt. iii. § 3 seq. p. 59 seq.

* Vide Recueil des Allocutions, &c. pp. 184, 196, 250, 402.

How often we are obliged to repeat the simplest truths! The civil power has no right to command anything contrary to the law of God and of religion. By doing so it would violate liberty of conscience; reject Scripture (Acts iv. 19; v. 29) and universal tradition (Martyr. S. Ignatii, n. 1, Ep. Eccl. Smyrn. de Morte S. Polyc.; Acta Mart. S. Just. n. 1; Acta

SS. MM. Epimachil et Alex.; Acta Symphor. et Scill. Cf. Ruinart, Acta Martyr. sincera, pp. 14, 35, 49, 64, 69, 74 seq. Justin. Apol. i. n. 17, 68. Iren. v. xxiv. 2. Theophil. ad Ant. iii. 30. Athenag. Leg. n. 1. Clem. Strom. iv. p. 505, ed. Paris, 1641. Tertull. Apol. c. ii. 28, 30, 32 seq. Orig. c. Cels. VIII. 65. Minuc. Felix in Octavio, c. xxxvii. Arnob. 1. ii. c. Gent. p. 44 seq. ed. 1651. Lactant. Inst. iv. 8, 10). With regard to faith, sacraments, worship, and religious life, the civil power has no authority, for it only has authority within its own sphere.

§ 17.

Revolutionary principles have been most distinctly condemned by Pius IX. for the good of the State. Thus, for instance, 'The will of the people' (which, according to art. 3 of the declaration of the rights of man' in 1789, is the only sovereign) 'constitutes a supreme law, independent of all divine and human right, whether it be acknowledged by so-called public opinion or by other means." How much have monarchies already suffered from this phantom of the sovereignty of the people! How greatly have nations been deceived by it! Does not the Pope deserve all thanks from governments in having decidedly opposed this error?―as, for example, in the censure of prop. 60: Authority is nothing but the result of numerical superiority and material force,' which so entirely corresponds to Rousseau's teaching, that sovereignty is not a power derived from God, but only arises from the sum of the personal rights of the separate parties to the social contract. The same may be said of the proposition: 'In politics accomplished facts merely from being accomplished have the force of law."3 Such a political science is not merely irreligious but immoral; it is unprincipled, and therefore senseless, totally subversive of the State and fatal to society when applied, as no power can at last prevent, to the private life of individuals. With it the following assertions are closely connected: Right consists in material fact; all human duties are vain words, and all human acts have the force of right. An unjust act being successful inflicts no injury upon the sanctity of right."5

1 Encycl. Quanta cura, § Et quoniam: Voluntatem populi, publica, quam dicunt, opinione vel alia ratione manifestatam constituere supremam legem ab omni divino humanoque jure solutam.'

* Syll. Prop. 60. Several translations have taken numeri' to be nominative plural, whilst really it is genitive singular. For the Allocution of June 9, 1862, to which this belongs, has: Auctoritatem nihil aliud esse, nisi numeri et materialium virium summam.'

Enc. Quanta cura, 1.c.

Syll. Prop. 59.

Alloc. Maxima quidem, 9 June 1862.

Syll. Prop. 61.

Alloc. Jamdudum, 18 Mar. 1861.

$ 18.

A society governed by such principles as these acknowledges nothing but material power, and makes the accumulation and increase of riches and the enjoyment of sensual pleasures the object of all moral teaching and excellence. When all the ties of religion are cast off, self-seeking and the search for riches and pleasures become the sole aim of individuals and of the mass. The social condition is to mankind not an end, but a means; for otherwise man, ethically considered, would not be a person, but only a thing, existing merely for the use of others. Man has a natural tendency to society, because he finds in it for himself and others protection and assistance; it assures to him the free exercise of his rights and the completion of his being. But civil society began on the earth, and does not extend beyond it, whilst man himself is immortal. If society is to fulfil its whole duty towards man it must treat him as a being with an eternal destiny; to do this it needs religion, both to show him this higher destiny and to give him the means of attaining it. But if society does not treat man as an immortal being, merely looking upon him as bound to it and with no destiny beyond the earth, it cannot prevent him from pusuing temporal possessions, riches, and pleasures as his highest good, and from endeavouring at all costs to possess them. The immaterial goods of earthly nature do not suffice, they are not equally accessible to all, and not satisfying in themselves; from this point of view virtue itself would be only a means of enjoyment, and would therefore only have a relative and not an absolute value. When earth is substituted for heaven the fruits and treasures of earth become the highest aims of life, and every means is justified which enables them most completely to be enjoyed; so much attention is paid to

the animal part of man that intellectual interests naturally grow weaker. Political economy stript of all morality must be fatal to philosophy, and an unrestrained egotism must bring about the war of all against all-an unfathomable abyss of misery and ruin.

1 Syll. Prop. 58. Alloc. of June 9, 1862. Enc. of Aug. 10, 1863. 2 Liberatore, 1.c. c. ii. a. 6, § 2, p. 190 seq.

$ 19.

Proposition 80 of the Syllabus, which has been so much. questioned, is by no means to be understood as condemning all modern progress. It is true that it condemns the church-hating Liberalism of modern times, which was described in the Allocution Jamdudum' of March 18, 1861, from which the proposition is derived, as a system specially formed to weaken and, as far as possible, destroy the Church of Christ. Huber pretends that in this Allocution the Pope entirely rejects the demand that he should reconcile himself to modern civilisation, because it favours forms of worship not Catholic, opens public offices to those outside the Church and Catholic schools to their children. But it must be remembered-(1) that the Pope's words refer to Italy, a Catholic country, and civilisation as there understood; (2) that those were not the sole, not even the principal reasons of the Pope's rejection of the demand; indeed the favour shown to non-Catholics was only mentioned in contrast with the ill-treatment of the Catholic institutions. Pius IX. expressly condemns the acts of violence practised in Italy against the Church under the name of progress and civilisation, and also expressly declares that true civilisation has ever found a protector and guardian in the Holy See. He distinguishes this true civilisation from the system which under false names strives to extirpate the Church, and to which it is impossible that the Apostolic See can ever be reconciled; for according to the words of the Apostle (2 Cor. vi. 14, 15), light and darkness, Christ and Belial can never agree together. The Syllabus has protected true Christian civilisation, which shrinks from seeing the Church despoiled and maltreated,

3