past； or taking their place with nations on whom the light of civilization has never yet dawned。 All is not gold that glisters。
The characteristic of barbarism is； that it makes all authority a private or personal right； and the characteristic of civilization is； that it makes it a public trust。 Barbarism knows only persons； civilization asserts and maintains the state。 With barbarians the authority of the patriarch is developed simply by way of explication； in civilized states it is developed by way of transformation。 Keeping in mind this distinction； it may be maintained that all systems of government； as a simple historical fact； have been developed from the patriarchal。 The patriarchal has preceded them all； and it is with the patriarchal that the human race has begun its career。 The family or household is not a state； a civil polity； but it is a government； and； historically considered； is the initial or inchoate state as well as the initial or inchoate nation。 But its simple direct development gives us barbarism； or what is called Oriental despotism； and which nowhere exists； or can exist； in Christendom。 It is found only in pagan and Mohammedan nations； Christianity in the secular order is republican； and continues 39 and completes the work of Greece and Rome。 It meets with little permanent success in any patriarchal or despotic nation； and must either find or create civilization； which has been developed from the patriarchal system by way of transformation。
But； though the patriarchal system is the earliest form of government； and all governments have been developed or modified from it； the right of government to govern cannot be deduced from the right of the father to govern his children； for the parental right itself is not ultimate or complete。 All governments that assume it to be so； and rest on it as the foundation of their authority； are barbaric or despotic； and； therefore ； without any legitimate authority。 The right to govern rests on ownership or dominion。 Where there is no proprietorship； there is no dominion； and where there is no dominion； there is no right to govern。 Only he who is sovereign proprietor is sovereign lord。
Property； ownership； dominion rests on creation。 The maker has the right to the thing made。 He； so far as he is sole creator； is sole proprietor； and may do what he will with it。 God is sovereign lord and proprietor of the universe because He is its sole creator。 He 40 hath the absolute dominion； because He is absolute maker。 He has made it； He owns it； and one may do what he will with his own。 His dominion is absolute； because He is absolute creator； and He rightly governs as absolute and universal lord； yet is He no despot； because He exercises only His sovereign right； and His own essential wisdom； goodness； justness； rectitude； and immutability； are the highest of all conceivable guaranties that His exercise of His power will always be right； wise； just； and good。 The despot is a man attempting to be God upon earth； and to exercise a usurped power。 Despotism is based on； the parental right； and the parental right is assumed to be absolute。 Hence； your despotic rulers claim to reign； and to be loved and worshipped as gods。 Even the Roman emperors； in the fourth and fifth centuries； were addressed as divinities； and Theodosius the Great； a Christian ； was addressed as 〃Your Eternity；〃 Eternitas vestrasso far did barbarism encroach on civilization； even under Christian emperors。
The right of the father over his child is an imperfect right； for he is the generator； not the creator of his child。 Generation is in the order of second causes； and is simply the development or explication of the race。 The 41 early Roman law； founded on the confusion of generation with creation； gave the father absolute authority over the childthe right of life and death； as over his servants or slaves； but this was restricted under the Empire； and in all Christian nations the authority of the father is treated； like all power； as a trust。 The child； like the father himself； belongs to the state； and to the state the father is answerable for the use he makes of his authority。 The law fixes the age of majority； when the child is completely emancipated； and even during his nonage； takes him from the father and places him under guardians； in case the father is incompetent to fulfil or grossly abuses his trust。 This is proper； because society contributes to the life of the child； and has a right as well as an interest in him。 Society； again； must suffer if the child is allowed to grow up a worthless vagabond or a criminal； and has a right to intervene； both in behalf of itself and of the child； in case his parents neglect to train him up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord； or are training him up to be a liar； a thief； a drunkard； a murderer； a pest to the community。 How； then； base the right of society on the right of the father； since； in point of fact； the 42 right of society is paramount to the right of the parent？
But even waiving this； and granting what is not the fact that the authority of the father is absolute； unlimited； it cannot be the ground of the right of society to govern。 Assume the parental right to be perfect and inseparable from the parental relation； it is no right to govern where no such relation exists。 Nothing true； real； solid in government can be founded on what Carlyle calls a 〃sham。〃 The statesman； if worthy of the name； ascertains and conforms to the realities； the verities of things； and all jurisprudence that accepts legal fictions is imperfect； and even censurable。 The presumptions or assumptions of law or politics must have a real and solid basis； or they are inadmissible。 How； from the right of the father to govern his own child； born from his loins； conclude his right to govern one not his child？ Or how； from my right to govern my child； conclude the right of society to found the state； institute government； and exercise political authority over its members？
CHAPTER IV。
ORIGIN OF GOVERNMENTCONTINUED。
II。 Rejecting the patriarchal theory as untenable； and shrinking from asserting the divine origin of government； lest they should favor theocracy； and place secular society under the control of the clergy； and thus disfranchise the laity； modern political writers have sought to render government purely human； and maintain that its origin is conventional； and that it is founded in compact or agreement。 Their theory originated in the seventeenth century； and was predominant in the last century and the first third of the present。 It has been； and perhaps is yet； generally accepted by American politicians and statesmen； at least so far as they ever trouble their heads with the question at all； which it must be confessed is not far。
The moral theologians of the Church have generally spoken of government as a social pact or compact； and explained the reciprocal rights and obligations of subjects and rulers by the 44 general law of contracts； but they have never held that government originates in a voluntary agreement between the people and their rulers； or between the several individuals composing the community。 They have never held that government has only a conventional origin or authority。 They have simply meant； by the social compact； the mutual relations and reciprocal rights and duties of princes and their subjects； as implied in the very existence and nature of civil society。 Where there are rights and duties on each side； they treat the fact； not as an agreement voluntarily entered into； and which creates them； but as a compact which binds alike sovereign and subject； and in determining whether either side has sinned or not； they inquire whether either has broken the terms of the social compact。 They were engaged； not with the question whence does government derive its authority； but with its nature； and the reciprocal rights and duties of governors and the governed。 The compact itself they held was not voluntarily formed by the people themselves； either individually or collectively； but was imposed by God； either immediately； or mediately； through the law of nature。 〃Every man；〃 says Cicero； 〃is born in society； and remains there。〃 They held the 45 same； and maintained that every one born into society contracts by that fact certain obligations to society； and society certain obligations to him； for under the natural law； every one has certain rights； as life； liberty； and the pursuit of happiness； and owes certain duties to society for the protection and assistance it affords him。
But modern political theorists have abused the phrase borrowed from the theologians； and made it cover a political doctrine which they would have been the last to accept。 These theorists or political speculators have imagined a state of nature antecedently to civil society； in which men lived without government； law； or manners； out of which they finally came by entering into a voluntary agreement with some one of their number to be king and to govern them； or with one another to submit to the rule of the majority。 Hobbes； the English materialist； is among the earliest and most distinguished of the advocates of this theory。 He held that men lived； prior to the creation of civil society； in a state of nature； in which all were equal； and every one had an equal right to every thing； and to take any thing on which he could lay his hands and was strong enough to hold。 There was no law but the will of the strongest。 Hence； the state of nature was a state of con… 46 tinual war。 At length； wearied and disgusted； men sighed for peace； and； with one accord； said to the tallest； bravest； or ablest among them： Come； be our king； our master； our sovereign lord； and govern us； we surrender our natural rights and our natural independence to you； with no other reserve or condition than that you maintain peace among us； keep