Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

THE BULLETIN OF THE CATHOLIC LAYMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA 5 “OF THE PEOPLE” (Written for The Bulletin by a Lawyer.) Whence came the democratic principle of civil au thority incorporated in the American Declaration of Independence that “governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed ? The coronation oath of the King of England for nearly eight hundred years and until the time of James I contained the express provision that the Sovereign Power was derived “from the people of the realm, and the Sovereign took an oath “to do the people s will.” James I changed that ancient oath and, contrary to precedent, to English traditions and to law, made it say that he was king, not by will of the people, but by the will of God. And to leave no doubt that he meant to assume the prerogatives of a divine elec tion, James wrote an “Apology for the Oath of Fi delity,” which he addressed to the Kings and Princes of Europe and in which he undertook to prove from Scripture and by dint of argument that his power over his subjects came direct from God. This was the first time in Christendom that the doctrine of the divine right of Kings, as this phrase is commonly un derstood, was formally proclaimed and defended be fore the world. The “Apology” of James had hardly appeared be fore Francis Saurez, a Jesuit, who lived from 1548 to 1617, published a “Reply,” in which he maintained that while rulers received power indirectly from God, since all things good and lawful are from God, they received it directly from the people. “Civil power,” said Saurez, “whenever it is found in a man or a prince, has emanated from the people and the community, either directly or remotely, and it cannot otherwise be justly possessed.” He then pronounced the doctrine of divine right proclaimed by James as contrary to the “ancient, received, true and necessary principle of civil authority, as taught by the Angelic Doctor (St. Thomas of Aquin) and the illustrious Cardinal Bellarmine. He characterized it as “new, singular, an dapparently invented,” and that he thought it highly pernicious as exalting civil power at the expense of communal rights, he made very plain. Saurez did not stand alone in his opposition to the novel claim of James that Kings rule by the elec tion of God. In Cardinal Gotti’s Treatise on Laws, in Concina’s Dogmatic Theology, in the Moral The ology of Billuart, and in that of Busenbaum, in the Compendium Salamanca, in the writings of St. Isa- dore, St. Anselm, Dominic Soto, Covarruvias, Le desma, and a host of others, exactly the same prin ciple is enunciated, and these books and writings were taught in the seminaries and universities of Europe, Austria, Italy, Spain, France, Germany and in Eng land. Nothing in the world is more impressive of the truth of the democratic principle embodied in America’s Declaration of Independence that all gov ernments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, than the uniformity with which this principle was taught in the days of kings and under the very shadow of their thrones, not by one bold Jesuit, but by practically every Catholic moralist and theologian during five hundred years before the American Revolution. In these anxious times it is an inspiration to read those old writers and see how fully we of America, though regarded with condescension by some of the older peoples of the world, stand in accord with the purest reason and truth in respect to the most im portant relation of a ruler of the people, neither adopting the errors of some French philosophers which would bankrupt civil authority, nor subscrib ing to the fallacies of those who would ignore the rights of the people. I quote from Concina (1687-1756): “All men are born free with respect to civil so ciety; no one has any civil power over another, for this power exists not in each, nor in any one or any number in a fixed manner, but is vested in the whole collection of men. . . • Reason dictates that men united in a moral whole, that is, the community or the multitude or whole collection of men, shall them selves prescribe in what manner and by whom so ciety shall be governed.” From Billuart (1682-175 7): “But as it is not possible for this power to be ex ercised by the entire multitude, it is usual for the multitude to transfer its right or governing power, either to a number of people selected from all classes AND BEARING THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY, or to select a number of the nobles, which take the name of an aristocracy, or to one alone, which is styled a monarchy. F rom Busenbaum (1600-1668): “The power of making laws exists among men, but this power belongs naturally to no individual. As far as civil law is concerned it belongs to the community, who transfer it to one or to more, by whom alone the community itself is rightly governed.” From Compendium Salamanca (of the 1 7th century): “Since nature has not given any individual power over another, God has conferred this power upon the community; which, as it may think it more proper to be ruled by one or by many appointed persons, trans fers it to one or to many, that by them it may be ruled. Supposing the election made by the whole State, God confers upon the ruler the power which was vested in the community. And it follows, the ruler governs in the name of God, and whoever re- sisteth him, resisteth the ordinance of God as the Apostle says.” But why, since this principle of government by consent of the people is such an ancient doctrine of civil authority, was there not long ago some people to establish it in its purest form as here in America we believe we have. A reason which explains this to the writer is that the other countries of the world were all originally pagan and this democratic doc trine being Christian to the core, it had not only to win recognition, but to battle for existence after- (Continued on Page 19)