authority is no authority at all; the idea of power involves the idea of right, without which it is mere physical power, that is force.”  He writes further:  “The conqueror, who, by mere force of arms, has subdued a nation, does not thereby acquire a right to its possession; the government, which by gross iniquities has despoiled entire classes of citizens, exacted undue contributions, abolished legitimate rights, cannot justify its acts by the simple fact of its having sufficient strength to execute these iniquities.”  There is much that is equally clear and definite.  What extravagant things can be said on the other side by people in high places we know too well.  Balmez in the same book and chapter gives an excellent example and an excellent reply:  “Don Felix Amat, Archbishop of Palmyra, in the posthumous work entitled Idea of the Church Militant, makes use of these words:  ’Jesus Christ, by His plain and expressive answer, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, has sufficiently established that the mere fact of a government’s existence is sufficient for enforcing the obedience of subjects to it....’  His work was forbidden at Rome,” is Balmez’ expressive comment, and he continues, “and whatever may have been the motives for such a prohibition, we may rest assured that, in the case of a book advocating such doctrines, every man who is jealous of his rights might acquiesce in the decree of the Sacred Congregation.”  So much for De Facto Government.  It is usurpation; by being consummated it does not become legitimate.  When its decrees are not resisted, it does not mean we accept them in principle—­nor can we even pretend to accept them—­but that the hour to resist has not yet come.  It is the strategy of war.

III

We stand on the ground that the English Government in Ireland is founded in usurpation and as such deny its authority.  But if it be argued, assuming it as Ireland’s case, that a usurped authority, gradually acquiesced in by the people, ultimately becomes the same as legitimate, the reply is still clear.  For ourselves we meet the assumption with a simple denial, appealing to Irish History for evidence that we never acquiesced in the English Usurpation.  But to those who are not satisfied with this simple denial, we can point out that even an authority, originally founded legitimately, may be resisted when abusing its power to the ruin of the Commonwealth.  We still stand on the ground that the English government is founded in usurpation, but we can dispose of all objections by proving the extremer case.  This is the case Dr. Murray, already quoted, discusses.  “The question,” he writes, “is about resistance to an established and legitimate government which abuses its power.” (Essays, Chiefly Theological, Vol. 4.) He continues:  “The common opinion of a large number of our theologians, then, is that it is lawful to resist by force, and if necessary to depose, the sovereign ruler or rulers, in the extreme—­the very extreme—­case wherein the following conditions are found united: