“1.  The tyranny must be excessive—­intolerable.

  “2.  The tyranny must be manifest, manifest to men of good sense and
  right feeling.

  “3.  The evils inflicted by the tyrant must be greater than those which
  would ensue from resisting and deposing him.

  “4.  There must be no other available way of getting rid of the tyranny
  except by recurring to the extreme course.

  “5.  There must be a moral certainty of success.

“6.  The revolution must be one conducted or approved by the community at large ... the refusal of a small party in the State to join with the overwhelming mass of their countrymen would not render the resistance of the latter unlawful.” (Essays, Chiefly Theological; see also Rickaby, Moral Philosophy, Chap. 8, Sec. 7.)

Some of these conditions are drawn out at much length by Dr. Murray.  I give what is outstanding.  How easily they could fit Irish conditions must strike anyone.  I think it might fairly be said that our leaders generally would, if asked to lay down conditions for a rising, have framed some more stringent than these.  It might be said, in truth, of some of them that they seem to wait for more than a moral certainty of success, an absolute certainty, that can never be looked for in war.

IV

When a government through its own iniquity ceases to exist, we must, to establish a new government on a true and just basis, go back to the origin of Civil Authority.  No one argues now for the Divine Right of Kings, but in studying the old controversy we get light on the subject of government that is of all time.  To the conception that kings held their power immediately from God, “Suarez boldly opposed the thesis of the initial sovereignty of the people; from whose consent, therefore, all civil authority immediately sprang.  So also, in opposition to Melanchthon’s theory of governmental omnipotence, Suarez a fortiori admitted the right of the people to depose those princes who would have shown themselves unworthy of the trust reposed in them.” (De Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, Third Edition, p. 495.) Suarez’ refutation of the Anglican theory, described by Hallam as clear, brief, and dispassionate, has won general admiration.  Hallam quotes him to the discredit of the English divines:  “For this power, by its very nature, belongs to no one man but to a multitude of men.  This is a certain conclusion, being common to all our authorities, as we find by St. Thomas, by the Civil laws, and by the great canonists and casuists; all of whom agree that the prince has that power of law-giving which the people have given him.  And the reason is evident, since all men are born equal, and consequently no one has a political jurisdiction over another, nor any dominion; nor can we give any reason from the nature of the thing why one man should