histofthought1

116 Economic thought before Adam Smithhowever, the humble and modest Suarez became the star pupil, and it was notlong before his theology professors were asking him for advice.In 1571, Suarez became professor of philosophy at Segovia, then taughttheology at Avila and Valladolid. Suarez soon attained to the famous chair oftheology at the Jesuit College in Rome. From there, due to ill health, Suarezreturned to Spain, teaching at Alcala, where he was virtually ignored, andthen to Salamanca, where, as in Alcala, he lost academic disputes to inferiorrivals. In 1593, the emperor insisted on Suarez's accepting the main chair oftheology at Coimbra, where, in 1612, he published his masterwork, De Legibusac de Deo Legislatore.Francisco Suarez never achieved his due in life. His quiet, plodding lecturestyle made him lose academic influence to flashier though inferior rivals.Perhaps the crowning indignity heaped upon him is that, in 1597, at the ageof 49, this brilliant and learned jurist and theologian, perhaps the greatestmind in the history of the Jesuit Order, was forced to leave the University ofCoimbra for a year to obtain a doctorate in theology at Evora. Ph.D-itis in thesixteenth century!3While Suarez contributed little on strictly economic matters, he addedgreatly to the weight of the Louvain-Molina rediscovery of the active naturalrights view of private property, and he reinforced the great impact of Molinistfreewill theory. In addition, Suarez had a much more restricted view of thejust power of the king than did Molina or his other predecessors. To Suarezthe power of the ruler is in no sense a divinely created institution sincepolitical power by natural and divine law devolves solely on the people as awhole. The community as a whole confers political power on the king orother set of rulers; and while Suarez believed that natural law requires someform of state, the sovereign power of any particular state 'must necessarily bebestowed upon him by the consent of the community'.Suarez's theory, of course, held radical implications indeed. For if thepeople or the community confer state power on a king or a set of rulers, maythey not then take it away? Here, Suarez fumbled; he was certainly notprepared to go all the way to a truly radical or revolutionary position. No, hedeclared inconsistently, once the sovereign power is conferred by the peopleon a king, it is his forever; the people cannot take it back. But then Suarezshifts once more, adopting the traditional Thomist doctrine of the right of thepeople to resist tyrants. If a king lapses into tyranny, then the people may riseup and resist, and even assassinate the king. But Suarez, like his forbears,hedged this powerful right of 'tyrannicide' with a thicket of restrictions; inparticular, tyranny must be manifest, and a private person cannot rise uphimself and kill the king. The act must in some way be mandated by thepeople or community acting as a whole.