Protestantism and Catholicity

"There was a time," says Cicero, "when men wandered in the fields like the brutes, feeding on prey like wild beasts, deciding nothing by reason, but every thing by force. No religion was then professed, no morality observed; there were no laws of marriage; the father could not distinguish his own children, and the possession of property by virtue of principles of equity was unknown. Hence the blind, unrestrained passions ruled tyrannically in the midst of error and ignorance, and used the powers of the body for their gratification as their most injurious satellites."

"Nam fuit quoddam tempus cum in agris homines passim bestiarum more vagabantur, et sibi victu ferino vitam propagabant; nec ratione animi quidquam, sed pleraque viribus corporis administrabant. Nondum divinæ religionis, non humani officii ratio colebatur; nemo nuptias viderat legitimas, non certos quisquam inspexerat liberos; non jus æquabile quid utilitatis haberet, acceperat. Ita propter errorem atque inscitiam, cæca ac temeraria dominatrix animi cupiditas ad se explendam viribus corporis abutebatur, perniciosissimis satellitibus." (De Inv. 1.)

The same doctrine is to be found in Horace:

"Cum prorepserunt primis animalia terris,Mutum et turpe pecus, glandem atque cubilia propterUnguibus et pugnis, dein fustibus, atque ita porroPugnabant armis, quæ post fabricaverat usus:Donec verba, quibus voces sensusque notarent,Nominaque invenere: dehinc absistere bello,Oppida cœperunt munire et ponere leges,Neu quis fur esset, neu latro, neu quis adulter.Nam fuit ante Helenam mulier teterrima belliCausa: sed ignotis perierunt mortibus illi,Quos Venerem incertam rapientes, more ferarum,Viribus editior cædebat, ut in grege taurus.Jura inventa metu injusti fateare necesse est,Tempora si fastosque velis evolvere mundi,Nec natura potest justo secernere iniquum,Dividit ut bona diversis, fugienda petendis." Satir. lib. i. sat. 3.

"When men first began to crawl upon the earth, they were only like a herd of brute and speechless animals, contending with their nails or their fists for a few acorns or for a den. They afterwards contended with sticks and such arms as experience taught them to invent. At length they discovered the use of words to express their thoughts; gradually they became weary of fighting, and built cities, and made laws to prevent theft, robbery, and adultery; for, before Helen, women had been the cause of terrible wars. He who was the strongest, abusing his power, after the manner of brutes, attacked the weak, like a bull among a subject herd; they thus contended for the favors of inconstant Venus; but their end was inglorious. If you consult the origin of things, you will acknowledge that laws have been made in apprehension of injustice. Nature enables us to discern good from evil, what is to be sought after from what is to be avoided, but she is incapable of distinguishing justice from injustice."

Note 29, p. 311

Concerning this question, as to the direct or indirect origin of civil power, it is remarkable, that, in the time of Louis of Bavaria, the imperial princes solemnly sanctioned the opinion that power emanates directly from God. In an imperial Constitution, published against the Roman Pontiff, they established the following proposition: "In order to avoid so great an evil, we declare that imperial dignity and power proceed directly from God. – Ad tantum malum evitandum, declaramus, quod imperialis dignitas et potestas est immediate a Deo solo." That we may form an idea of the spirit and tendency of this doctrine, let us see what kind of man this Louis of Bavaria was. Excommunicated by John XXII., and at a later period by Clement VI., he went so far as to depose this latter Pontiff, in order to exalt to the Pontifical Chair the antipope Peter, for which reason the Pope, after repeated admonitions, divested him of his imperial dignity, substituting Charles IV. in his stead.

Ziegler the Lutheran, a zealous supporter of direct communication, in order to explain his doctrine, compares the election of a prince to that of a minister of the Church. The latter, says he, does not receive his spiritual authority from the people, but immediately from God. From this explanation it is evident with how much reason I have said, that such a doctrine tended to place the temporal and spiritual powers on a level, by making it appear that the latter could not claim, by reason of its origin, any superiority over the former. I do not mean, however, to assert, that this declaration, made in the time of Louis of Bavaria, had directly this aim, since it may rather be regarded as a sort of weapon employed against the pontifical authority, the ascendency of which was dreaded. But it is well known that doctrines, besides the influence resulting immediately from them, possess a peculiar force, which continues to develop itself as opportunities occur. Some time after, we see the kings of England defenders of the religious supremacy which they had just usurped, supporting the proposition advanced in the imperial Constitution.

I know not with what foundation it can be said that Ziegler's opinion was general before the time of Puffendorf; in consulting ecclesiastical and secular writers, we do not find the least support for such an assertion. Let us be just even to our adversaries. Ziegler's opinion, defended by Boecler and others, was attacked by certain Lutherans, amongst others by Boehmer, who observes, that this opinion is not favorable, as its partisans pretend, to the security of states and princes. To repeat what I have already explained in the text, I do not consider that the opinion of direct communication, rightly understood, is so inadmissible and dangerous as some have imagined; but as it lay open to an evil interpretation, Catholic theologians have done well to combat its tendency to encroach upon the divine origin of ecclesiastical power.

Note 30, p. 317

I might quote a thousand remarkable passages showing the reader how unjust it is in the enemies of the clergy to accuse them of being favorable to despotism. But, to be brief, and to spare him the fatigue of perusing so many texts and quotations, I shall merely present to him a specimen of the current opinions on this point in Spain at the beginning of the 17th century, a few years after the death of Philip II., the monarch who is represented to us as the personification of religious fanaticism and political tyranny. Among the numerous books published at that time on these delicate points, there is a very singular one, which does not appear to be very well known; its title is as follows:

A Treatise on the State and Christian Politics, for the use of Kings and Princes, and those holding government appointments, by Brother John de Ste. – Marie, a religious in the province of St. Joseph, of the order of our glorious Father St. Francis.

This book, printed at Madrid in 1615, furnished with all the privileges, approbations, and other formalities in use, must have been well received at that epoch, since it was reprinted at Barcelona in 1616, by Sebastian de Cormellas. Who shall say whether this work did not inspire Bossuet with the idea of that intituled Politics derived from the very words of Scripture? The title is certainly analogous, and the idea is in fact the same, although differently carried out. "I think," says Brother John de Ste. – Marie, "I shall escape all difficulty, by laying before kings in this work, not my own reasonings, nor those afforded by eminent philosophers and the records of profane history, but the words of God and His saints, and the divine and canonical histories, whose teaching commands respect, and whose authority cannot be prejudicial to any one, however powerful a sovereign he may be; in fact, to these a Christian cannot but submit, since every thing in them is dictated by the Holy Ghost, the author of these divine maxims. If I cite examples of Gentile kings, if I appeal to antiquity, and adduce passages from philosophers unconnected with the people of God, I shall do so incidentally only, and as we resume possession of what of right belongs to us, and has been unjustly usurped by others." (Chap. 2.)

The work is dedicated to the king. Addressing him, and praying him to read it, and not to allow himself to be imposed upon by those who would dissuade him from its perusal, the good religious says, with a pleasing candor, "Let no one tell you that these things are metaphysical, impracticable, and all but impossible."

The following inscription is placed at the head of the 1st chapter: "Ad vos (O Reges) sunt hi sermones mei, ut discatis sapientiam et non excidatis: qui enim custodierint justa juste, justificabuntur: et qui didiscerint ista, invenient quid respondeant." (Sap. 6, v. 10.)

In the first chapter, the title of which is, "A treatise in which the import and definition of this word commonwealth are briefly discussed," we read these remarkable words: "So that monarchy must degenerate if it be absolute and without restraint (for power and authority thus become unreasonable); in all things falling under the cognizance of law, it should be bound by the law; and in special and incidental matters it should be subject to advice, from the connection which it ought to have with the aristocracy, which is its assistant, and forms a council of learned and powerful men. Without this wise modification, monarchy will create great errors of government, will give but little satisfaction, but, on the contrary, will cause great discontent among the governed. The wisest and most enlightened men of every age have invariably considered this form of government the best; and without such a modification no city or kingdom has ever been considered well governed. Good kings and the wisest statesmen have always been in favor of this system; bad kings, on the contrary, elated by their power, have pursued the opposite course. Hence, if a monarch, whoever he be, decides by himself, without taking advice, or against the advice of his councillors, he passes the legitimate bounds of monarchy, and even when his decisions are fortunate, he is a tyrant. History is full of these examples and of their disastrous consequences; it will be enough to adduce one only, that of Tarquin the Proud, as related in the 1st book of Livy, a king whose pride was unbounded, and who, to render himself absolute, and to put every thing under his feet, strove to weaken the authority of the Roman Senate by diminishing the number of Senators, thus arrogating to himself an absolute right of decision in all the affairs of the empire."

In chapter 2, in which the author treats of "the meaning of the word king," we read as follows: "We meet here very opportunely with the third meaning of the word king, which is the same as that of father; as we find in Genesis, when the Sichemites gave to their king the name of Abimelech, which means 'Father and Lord.' Kings were formerly styled the fathers of their states. Whence King Theodoric, defining royal majesty (as Cassiodorus relates), makes use of these words: 'Princeps et Pastor publicus et communis.– The king is the public and common father of the state.' From the extreme resemblance between the office of a king and that of a father, Plato was induced to call the king the father of a family; and the philosopher Xenophon says: Bonus Princeps nihil differt a bono Patre. The difference solely consists in one having few and the other a great number of persons under his dominion. And it is certainly very reasonable to give kings this title of father; for they ought to be the fathers of their subjects and of their kingdoms, watching over their welfare and preservation with the love and solicitude of a Father. Royalty, says Homer, is nothing else than a paternal government, like that of a father over his children: 'Ipsum namque regnum imperium est suapte natura paternum.' The best manner of governing well is, for the king to be possessed with the love of a father, and to regard his subjects at his own children. The love of a father for his children, his solicitude that they should want for nothing, his devotedness to each of them, all this bears the greatest resemblance to the love of a king for his subjects. He is called father, and this name lays him under the obligation of acting in accordance with the meaning it conveys. This name, so well adapted to kings, and which, when well considered, is the greatest of all titles and epithets of majesty and power, since it embraces all, the genus and the species, the father being alone the lord, the master, or the chief; this name, I say, is above all human names for expressing authority and solicitude. Antiquity, with a view to confer upon an emperor an extraordinary degree of honor, called him the Father of the State, which was greater than Cæsar, Augustus, or any other glorious name; it decreed him this title, either to flatter him, or to lay him under the weighty obligations required by the name of father. In fine, to give kings this name is to remind them of their duty, viz. to direct, govern, and maintain their states and kingdoms in justice; like good pastors, to feed their rational sheep; like physicians, to care for them and heal them; to take care of their subjects, as a father does of his children, with prudence, love, and solicitude; for the king is for them, rather than for himself. 'Kings are under greater obligations to their kingdoms and states than to themselves;' in fact, if we consider the institution of kings and monarchs, we shall find that the king was appointed for the good of the kingdom, and not the kingdom for the good of the king."

In his 3d chapter, of which the following is the title, "Whether the name of king necessarily implies an office," he thus expresses himself: – "Besides what we have advanced, it may be proved that the name of a king is the name of an office, by the common maxim, 'the benefice is the reward of the office.' Since, therefore, kings receive such great benefices, not only from the considerable tributes they receive from the State, but also from the advantage they derive from benefices and ecclesiastical rents, they certainly do hold an office, and that the greatest of all, for which reason the entire kingdom so bountifully assists them. This is what St. Paul says in his Epistle to the Romans: Ideo et tributa præstatis, &c. Kingdoms do not contribute for nothing; all those states, taxes, and great revenues, that name, that high authority and eminent dignity, are not given gratuitously. They would have their title of king for nothing if they had no subjects to rule and govern, and if they were freed from this obligation: In multitudine populi dignitas regis. This great dignity, wealth, rank, majesty, and honor, are possessed by them with the perpetual obligation of ruling and governing their states, so as to preserve them in peace and justice. Let kings bear in mind, therefore, that they are only invested with this title to serve their kingdoms; and the latter, that kings ought to be paid. They hold an office requiring them to labor: Qui præest in sollicitudine, says St. Paul. Such is the title and the name of king, and of him who rules: one who is the first not only as regards honors and enjoyments, but also as regards cares and solicitude. Let them not imagine that they are kings merely in name and representation, and appointed only to make themselves honored; merely to exhibit their royal person and sovereign dignity in a pompous manner, like some of the kings of the Persians and Medes, who were mere shadows of kings, forgetful of their office, as though they had never received it. Nothing is more destitute of life and substance than the shadowy image which stirs its arm or its head only when some one acts upon it. God forbade the Israelites to have statues or painted images, representing a hand where there was none, and a face that did not exist, exhibiting to the eye an imaginary body, and feigning by apparently living actions to see and to speak; for God loves not feigned images, painted men, or sculptured kings, like those spoken of by David: Os habent et non loquentur, oculos habent et non videbunt. What does it avail to have a tongue that speaks not, eyes that see not, ears that hear not, or hands which do not work? Is it any thing more than an idol of stone, bearing only the external representation of a king? To bear the supreme name and all authority, and not to be capable of any thing, sounds badly. The names which God has given to things are like the title of a book, which, in a few words, contains every thing that is included in the book. This name of king was given to kings by God himself, and contains every thing to which they are obliged by virtue of their office. If their actions are not in accordance with the name, it is as if the mouth should affirm what the head denies, like a buffoon, whom no one believes in earnest. Every one would regard as a mockery and a delusion a signboard bearing the inscription, 'Pure gold sold here,' if, in reality, nothing but tinsel was sold. The name of king should not be an empty thing, a mere superfluity in the royal person – it should be what it implies and gives itself out for. Your name indicates that you rule and govern; rule and govern, therefore, in reality. Do not be mere pasteboard kings, to use a common expression, that is, kings in name only. In France, there was a time when kings had nothing but the name, and the government was entirely in the hands of their generals, whilst they, like animals, were occupied only with gluttony and luxurious living. That it might be known they were living, for they never went out, they used to appear in public once a year, on the 1st of May, in the squares of Paris, seated on a throne, as kings in a dramatic representation, and there they were saluted, gifts were presented to them, and they, on their part, granted certain favors to whomsoever they thought proper. In order to show to what a degree of degradation they had fallen, Eginard tells us, in the beginning of his Life of Charlemagne, that they were devoid of courage and incapable of great actions; they merely held the empty name of king; for, in reality they were not kings, neither had they any participation in the government or riches of the kingdom; every thing was entrusted to the mayors of the palace, styled majors-domo of the royal household; and the latter usurped every thing to such a degree, that they left the wretched king nothing but his title. Seated on his throne, with his long hair and beard, the monarch played his part, pretending to give audiences to ambassadors arriving from all parts, and to furnish them with answers to convey to their masters; whilst in reality they merely answered according to the instructions they had received, either by word or writing, although they appeared to answer on their own responsibility. So that royal power for such a king was reduced to the mere name, to this throne and this ridiculous majesty; the real kings and masters were those favorites by whom the monarch was oppressed. God said of one of the kings of Samaria, that he was merely to be compared to a little vapor, which, seen from afar, appeared something, but when touched was no longer any thing. Simia in tecto rex fatuus in solio suo. (St. Bernard, de Consider ad Eug. cap. 7.) A monkey on a housetop, which, presenting the appearance of a man, is taken for such by those who know not what it is; such is a useless king upon a throne. Monkeys also serve to amuse children, and the king is a laughing-stock to him who looks upon him apart from any royal act, invested with authority, and making no use of it. A king dressed in purple, seated on a throne with great majesty, suited to his grandeur, grave, severe, and terrible in appearance, but in reality an absolute nonentity. Like a painting de la main du Greco, which, placed in an elevated position, and seen from a distance, looks very beautiful, and produces a great effect, but when nearly approached is but a rough sketch. All pomp and majesty, properly considered, are a mere sketch and shadow of a king. Simulacra gentium, says David, speaking of kings who have nothing but the name; and according to the Hebrew text: Imago fictilis et contrita. A figure of pounded earth, crumbling on all sides; an empty phantom, great in appearance, but a mere piece of deception. The name which Elifaz unjustly applied to Job is perfectly applicable here, when he designated this good and just king, a man void of foundation and substance, bearing only external appearances; he styled him Myrmicoleon, that is, the name of the animal which, in Latin, is called Formica-leo, because it is a monstrous conformation, one half of its body, in fact, representing a fearful lion, an animal always used as an emblem of a king, and the other half an ant, that is, a most feeble and insignificant thing. Such are the authority, the name, throne, and majesty of a fierce lion and of a powerful monarch; but as regards the essence, you will find only that of an ant. There have been kings whose very name filled the world with terror; but these kings were void of substance in themselves, in their kingdoms they were as mere ants; their names and offices were very great, but without effect. Let the king, therefore, bear in mind that he has an office to fulfill, and not only an office, but that he is obliged to speak and labor on all offices, of which he is the general superintendent. St. Augustine and St. Thomas, explaining that passage of St. Paul which treats of episcopal dignity, say, that the word bishop, in Greek, is composed of two roots signifying the same thing as superintendent. The name of bishop, king, and every other superior, are names signifying superintendence over, and co-operation with, every office. This is what is expressed by the sceptre used by kings in public acts, a ceremony used by the Egyptians, who borrowed it from the Israelites. The latter, in order to point out the duty of a good king, painted an open eye placed in an elevated position on the point of a rod in the form of a sceptre, representing, on the one hand, the great power of the king, the solicitude and vigilance which he ought to exercise; on the other, that he ought not to be satisfied with holding the supreme power, with occupying the most exalted and most eminent position, and, in possession of these, passing his life in sleep and repose; on the contrary, he should be the first in commanding and counselling, he should appear in every office, incessantly watching and inspecting, like a man doing the business in which he is engaged. Jeremiah also understands it in this sense, for when God asked him what he saw, he answered: Virgam vigilantem ego video. Thou hast seen well; and verily I tell thee, that I who am supreme, will watch over my flock; I who am a shepherd, will watch over my sheep; I who am a king and a monarch, will watch without ceasing over all my inferiors. Regem festinantem, says the Chaldean, a king who is in haste; for, although he has eyes and sees, if he remains in repose, in his pleasures and amusements, if he does not go about from place to place, if he does not act so as to become acquainted with all the good and evil that is going on in his kingdom, he is as though he did not exist. Let him consider that he is the head, and even the head of the lion, which even in its sleep keeps its eyes open; that he is the rod with eyes, that he is the torch; let him open his eyes, therefore, and sleep no longer, trusting to those who are blinded, and see no better than moles; who, if they have eyes, only employ them to see their own interest, and to distinguish at a greater distance what may conduce to their own profit and aggrandizement. Such persons have eyes for themselves, and it would be better if they had them not, for their eyes are those of birds of prey – of vultures."

In his fourth chapter, the title of which is, "On the office of kings," the author thus explains the origin of royal power and its obligations: – "From this it follows," says he, "that the institution of the state of royalty, or king, represented by the head, was not merely for the use and profit of the king himself, but for that of his whole kingdom. Hence he ought to see, hear, feel, and understand, not only by himself and for himself, but by all and for all. He ought not merely to fix his regards upon his own greatness, but on the good of his subjects, since it is for them, and not for himself, that he was born a king. Adverte, said Seneca to the Emperor Nero, rempublicam non esse tuam, sed te reipublicæ. – When men first issued from solitude, and united to live in common, they knew that every one would naturally labor for himself or his own family, and that no one would take an interest in all; they agreed to select a man of great merit, that all might have recourse to him; a man who, distinguished above all the rest by his virtue, his prudence, and courage, should be the chief over all, should govern all, watch over all, and should exert himself for the advantage of all – for the common weal – like a father for his children, or a shepherd for his sheep. Now, considering that this man, abandoning his own affairs to look after those of others, could not maintain himself and his family (every one was then maintained by the labor of his hands), it was agreed that all should contribute to his support, in order that he might not be distracted by any other occupations than those of the common weal and the public government. Such was the end for which kings were instituted – such was their beginning. The good king ought to be more solicitous for the public than for his own private interest. He possesses his grandeur at the expense of great solicitude; the anxiety, the disquietude of mind and body, which is fatigue for him, is repose, support, and protection for others. Thus smiling flowers and fruits, whilst they adorn the tree, exist not so much for the tree, nor on account of the tree, as for the sake of others. Do not imagine that all happiness is in the beauty and grace of the flower, and in those who are the flowers of the world: powerful kings and princes may be termed the flowers of the world, but flowers who consume their lives, who are full of solicitude, and whose fruit will rather contribute to the enjoyment of others than to their own. 'For,' says the Jew Philo, 'the king is to the kingdom what the wise is to the ignorant man, what the shepherd is to his sheep, the father to his children, light to darkness, and what God is upon earth to all his creatures.' The investiture he gave to Moses, when he appointed him the chief and king over his people, was to tell him that he ought to be as God, the common father of all; for the office and dignity of a king require all this. Omnium domos illius vigila defendit, omnium otium illius industria, omnium vacationem illius occupatio. (Seneca, Lib. de Consol.) This is what the prophet Samuel says to Saul, recently elected king, when he expounds to him the obligations of his office: 'Consider, Saul, that God has this day constituted thee king over all this kingdom; thou art bound by the office to govern the whole of it. Thou hast not been made a king to enjoy repose, to become proud, and to glory in the dignity of a king; but to govern thy kingdom, to maintain it in peace and justice, to defend and protect it against its enemies.' Rex eligitur, non, ut sui ipsius curam habeat, says Socrates, et sese molliter curet, sed ut per ipsum ii, qui elegerunt, bene beateque vivant. They were not created and introduced into the world for their own convenience and pleasure or to be fed upon every dainty morsel of food (if such were the case, no one would willingly submit to them); but they were appointed for the advantage and common good of all their subjects, to govern them, protect them, enrich them, preserve and serve them. All this is perfectly admissible; for although the sceptre and crown appear to be the emblems of domination, the office of a king is, strictly speaking, that of a slave. Servus communis, sive servus honoratus, are words which have sometimes been applied to a king, quia a tota republica stipendia accipit ut serviat omnibus. And the Supreme Pontiff glories in this title, Servus servorum Dei. In ancient times this name of slave was one of infamy; but since Christ bore it it has become a name full of honor. Now, since it is neither repugnant nor derogatory to the essence nor nature of the Son of God, neither can it be derogatory to the nature and grandeur of the king.