the american republic-第20章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
bulls； taken in connection with the special relations existing between the Pope and emperor in the Middle Ages； and his relations with other states as their feudal sovereign； explained by the controversies concerning rights growing out of these relations； will be found to give no countenance to the theory in question。
These relations really existed； and they gave the Pope certain temporal rights in certain states； even the temporal supremacy； as he has still in what is left him of the States of the Church； but they were exceptional or accidental relations； not the universal and essential relations between the church and the state。 The rights that grew out of these relations were real rights； sacred and inviolable； but only where and while the relations subsisted。 They； for the most part； grew out of the feudal system introduced into the Roman empire by its barbarian conquerors； and necessarily ceased with the political order in which they originated。 Undoubtedly the church consecrated 111 civil rulers； but this did not imply that they received their power or right to govern from God through her； but implied that their persons were sacred； and that violence to them would be sacrilege； that they held the Christian faith； and acknowledged themselves bound to protect it； and to govern their subjects justly； according to the law of God。
The church； moreover； has always recognized the distinction of the two powers； and although the Pope owes to the fact that he is chief of the spiritual society； his temporal principality； no theologian or canonist of the slightest respectability would argue that he derives his rights as temporal sovereign from his rights as pontiff。 His rights as pontiff depend on the express appointment of God； his rights as temporal prince are derived from the same source from which other princes derive their rights； and are held by the same tenure。 Hence canonists have maintained that the subjects of other states may even engage in war with the Pope as prince； without breach of their fidelity to him as pontiff or supreme visible head of the church。
The church not only distinguishes between the two powers； but recognizes as legitimate； governments that manifestly do not derive from God through her。 St。 Paul enjoins obedience 112 to the Roman emperors for conscience' sake； and the church teaches that infidels and heretics may have legitimate government； and if she has ever denied the right of any infidel or heretical prince； it has been on the ground that the constitution and laws of his principality require him to profess and protect the Catholic faith。 She tolerates resistance in a non…Catholic state no more than in a Catholic state to the prince； and if she has not condemned and cut off from her communion the Catholics who in our struggle have joined the Secessionists and fought in their ranks against the United States； it is because the prevalence of the doctrine of State sovereignty has seemed to leave a reasonable doubt whether they were really rebels fighting against their legitimate sovereign or not。
No doubt； as the authority of the church is derived immediately from God in a supernatural manner； and as she holds that the state derives its authority only mediately from him； in a natural mode； she asserts the superiority of her authority； and that； in case of conflict between the two powers； the civil must yield。 But this is only saying that supernatural is above natural。 Butand this is the important pointshe does not teach； nor permit the faithful to 113 hold； that the supernatural abrogates the natural； or in any way supersedes it。 Grace； say the theologians； supposes nature； gratia supponit naturam。 The church in the matter of government accepts the natural； aids it； elevates it； and is its firmest support。
VII。 St。 Augustine； St。 Gregory Magnus； St。 Thomas； Bellarmin； Suarez； and the theologians generally； hold that princes derive their power from God through the people； or that the people； though not the source； are the medium of all political authority； and therefore rulers are accountable for the use they make of their power to both God and the people。
This doctrine agrees with the democratic theory in vesting sovereignty in the people； instead of the king or the nobility； a particular individual； family； class； or caste； and differs from it； as democracy is commonly explained； in understanding by the people； the people collectively； not individuallythe organic people； or people fixed to a given territory； not the people as a mere populationthe people in the republican sense of the word nation； not in the barbaric or despotic sense； and in deriving the sovereignty from God； from whom is all power； and except from whom there is and can be no power； in… 114 stead of asserting it as the underived and indefeasible right of the people in their 〃own native right and might。〃 The people not being God； and being only what philosophers call a second cause； they are and can be sovereign only in a secondary and relative sense。 It asserts the divine origin of power； while democracy asserts its human origin。 But as； under the law of nature； all men are equal； or have equal rights as men； one man has and can have in himself no right to govern another； and as man is never absolutely his own； but always and everywhere belongs to his Creator； it is clear that no government originating in humanity alone can be a legitimate government。 Every such government is founded on the assumption that man is God； which is a great mistakeis； in fact； the fundamental sophism which underlies every error and every sin。
The divine origin of government； in the sense asserted by Christian theologians； is never found distinctly set forth in the political writings of the ancient Greek and Roman writers。 Gentile philosophy had lost the tradition of creation； as some modern philosophers； in so…called Christian nations； are fast losing it； and were as unable to explain the origin of government as they were the origin of man himself。
115 Even Plato； the profoundest of all ancient philosophers； and the most faithful to the traditionary wisdom of the race； lacks the conception of creation； and never gets above that of generation and formation。 Things are produced by the Divine Being impressing his own ideas； eternal in his own mind； on a pre…existing matter； as a seal on wax。 Aristotle teaches substantially the same doctrine。 Things eternally exist as matter and form； and all the Divine Intelligence does； is to unite the form to the matter； and change it； as the schoolmen say； from materia informis to materia formata。 Even the Christian Platonists and Peripatetics never as philosophers assert creation； they assert it； indeed； but as theologians； as a fact of revelation； not as a fact of science； and hence it is that their theology and their philosophy never thoroughly harmonize； or at least are not shown to harmonize throughout。
Speaking generally； the ancient Gentile philosophers were pantheists； and represented the universe either as God or as an emanation from God。 They had no proper conception of Providence； or the action of God in nature through natural agencies； or as modern physicists say； natural laws。 If they recognized the action of divinity at all； it was a supernatural 116 or miraculous intervention of some god。 They saw no divine intervention in any thing naturally explicable； or explicable by natural laws。 Having no conception of the creative act； they could have none of its immanence； or the active and efficacious presence of the Creator in all his works； even in the action of second causes themselves。 Hence they could not assert the divine origin of government； or civil authority； without supposing it supernaturally founded； and excluding all human and natural agencies from its institution。 Their writings may be studied with advantage on the cons
