_... they cannot sufficiently denounce all institutions based on
liberty and discussion._
Note that the novelty here lies in the passion, the fury with which
they condemn liberty of discussion. Otherwise, we see most of the
so-called liberal thinkers in history themselves recognize the
necessity for submission to the sovereign’s judgment. Spinoza declares
that ‘there is no possible government if every man makes himself the
defender of his own rights and the rights of others.’ The _Letters of
Descartes_ contain passages in favour of the ‘reason of State.’
It is perhaps not sufficiently noticed how frequently the old French
absolute monarchists say that justice is the chief function of the
sovereign. ‘The most important of the King’s rights,’ says one of
these theorists (Guy Coquille, _Institution du droit des Français_,
1608) ‘is to make _the laws and general statutes for the good order of
his Kingdom_.’ Another (Loyseau, _Des Seigneuries_, 1608) says: ‘The
usage of public _lordship must be regulated by justice_ ...’ Bossuet
(_Instruction à Louis XIV_) says: ‘When the King administers justice or
has it exactly administered in accordance with the laws, _which is his
principal function_ ...’ The modern absolute monarchists, even French,
seem to be inspired by the German theorist, who says: ‘The State has
two functions to perform: the administration of justice and the waging
of war. _But war is by far the principal._’ (Treitschke.)
Note this famous passage from Bossuet (_Pol._, Book VIII, art. II, par.
I):
‘It is one thing for it (the government) to be absolute, another for
it to be arbitrary. It is absolute in relation to constraint, there
being no power which is capable of compelling the sovereign, who in
this sense is independent of all human authority. But it does not
follow that government is arbitrary; because, apart from the fact that
all things are subject to God’s judgment (which applies also to the
government we have called arbitrary), there are laws in empires, and
everything which is done contrary to them is void of right.’
It will be seen that the defence of arbitrary government is a new thing
among French teachers, even in regard to Bossuet. (I am speaking of
Bossuet’s _doctrines_, not of his practical advice.)