In that work he calls the tenet, That Faith is not to be kept with Heretics, "a most pernicious evil, and a most impious doctrine, "ascribed to the Catholics, and spread abroad by those men "who, rather than peace should be made, wished to throw every "thing into confusion, that thus no harmony, no articles of peace, of equity, or honesty might be received by persons dif"fering from them in religious matters. Against these persons, Molanus maintains and defends "the Innocence," to use his own words," of the Christian Republic."

In his steps the said Faculty of Divines now treads: always ready to defend the same cause, and to combat the calumnies of its adversaries, she now does it by this public writing.

In testimony whereof, to this instrument, authenticated by the Seal of our University, undersigned by our Dean, we have ordered the Bedell to subscribe his name.

Given at Louvain, in an Assembly Extraordinary, this 18th November, 1788,

(L. S.)

J. B. DE MAZIERE,

S. T. D. and Dean for the time being.

By Command of my excellent Lords and Masters,

J. F. VANOVERBEKE,

Bedell of the Sacred Faculty of Divinity,

Extracted from the Register of the Sacred Faculty of
Divinity of the University of Doway.

JANUARY 5, 1789..

At a Meeting of the Faculty of Divinity of the University of Doway, the Dean informed them, That the Catholics of England were desirous of the opinion of the Faculty upon three Questions, the tenor of which was as follows:

1st. Has the Pope, by virtue of any authority, power, or jurisdiction, derived to him from God, or have the Cardinals, or even the Church herself, any civil authority, civil power, or civil jurisdiction whatsoever in the Kingdom of England?

2d. Can the Pope, the Cardinals, or the Church herself, absolve or free the subjects of the King of England from their oath of allegiance?

3d. Is there any principle of the Catholic Faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with Heretics, or other pesons who differ from them in religious opinions?

These questions first having been privately considered by each Professor of Divinity, and afterwards having been attentively discussed at the Public Meeting,

To the first and second of them, the Sacred Faculty answers, That no power whatsoever, in civil or temporal concerns, was given by the Almighty, either to the Pope, the Cardinals, or the Church herself; and, consequently, that Kings and Sovereigns are not, in temporal concerns, subject, by the ordination of God, any Ecclesiastical Power whatsoever; neither can their subjects, by any authority granted to the Pope or the Church from above, be freed from their obedience, or absolved from their oath of allegiance.

to

This is the doctrine which the Doctors and Professors of Divinity hold and teach in our schools; and this all the candidates for degrees in divinity maintain in their public theses.

To the third question the Sacred Faculty answers,-That there is no principle of the Catholic Faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with Heretics, who differ from them in religious opinions. On the contrary, It is the unanimous doctrine of Catholics, that the respect due to the name of God, so called to witness, requires, that the oath be inviolably kept to whomsoever it is pledged, whether Catholic, Heretic, or Infidel.

The Answer of the Faculty of the Canon and Civil Law in the same University of Doway.

Having seen and attentively considered the above written ques, tions, and the answers of the Sacred Faculty of Divinity to them, the Faculties both of the Canon Law and of the Civil Law declare, That they, without hesitation or doubt, concur in the aforesaid answers of the 5th instant; and that they have always firmly believed, and uniformly taught, that neither the Cardinals, nor the Pope, nor even the Church herself, have any jurisdiction or power, by divine right, over the temporals of Kings, Sovereigns, or their subjects; and, consequently, that Kings and Sovereigns are not, in temporal concerns, subject by the ordination of God, to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever; nor can their subjects, by any authority granted to the Pope, or the Church, from above, be freed from their obedience, or absolved from their oaths of allegiance.

Further,

Further, The Doctors of these Faculties declare, That an oath implies an obligation of natural and divine right, by which the party is bound to perform the promise contained in his oath to whomsoever that promise be made, whether he be a Catholic, an Heretic, or an Infidel; and that no person, through pretext of heresy or infidelity in the party to whom the promise is given, can be released from his obligation. The Catholic Religion, far from admitting any principle by which oaths can be dispensed with, holds such perjuries in abhorrence.

The Answer of the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris, to the Queries proposed by the English Catholics.

The Dean and Faculty of Divinity in the University of Paris to all who shall inspect these Presents, send greeting.

Certain Queries, the tenor of which is as follows, have been transmitted to us from England, in the name of the Catholics living in that kingdom :

1st. Has the Pope, the Cardinals, or any body of men, or any other person of the Church of Rome, any civil authority, civil power, or civil jurisdiction, or civil pre-eminence whatsoever, in the Kingdom of England, by reason or by virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, inherent in or granted, or by any other means belonging to the Pope or Church of Rome?

2d. Can the Pope, the Cardinals, or any body of men, or any person of the Church of Rome, absolve or release the subjects of the King of England from their oath of allegiance? 3d. Is there any principle in the articles of the Catholic faith, by which Catholics are justified in breaking faith with Heretics, or others, who differ from them in religious opinions?

They beg us to give our opinion in a solemn instrument upon these questions, that, by it they may repel, as well from themselves as from the Catholic faith to which they are inviolably attached, all evil suspicion, as well on those points which relate to the right of the sovereign under whose government they live, as on those which relate to the public faith and peace of England, which upon no pretence ought to be disturbed.

Bound to satisfy every person who asks our opinion on doctrinal matters, and never having entertained any doubts upon the points in question, we opine, determine, and judge as follows:->

The Answer to the first Quære.

Neither the Pope, nor the Cardinals, nor any body of men, nor any other person of the Church of Rome, hath any civil authority, civil power, civil jurisdiction, or civil pre-eminence whatsoever in any kingdom, and consequently none in the kingdom of England, by reason or virtue of any authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, by divine institution inherent in, or by any other means belonging to the Pope or the Church of Rome.

This doctrine the Sacred Faculty of Divinity of Paris has always held, and upon every occasion maintained; and upon every occasion has rigidly proscribed the contrary doctrine from her schools.

Among the many proofs of this (to avoid mentioning all of them) we shall state a few instances; which, being nearer to our times, are not liable to objection.

66

In the year 1626 a censure was published against the following propositions, extracted from the Treatise of Santarellus: De "Hæresi Schismate Potestate summi Pontificis in his delictis "puniendis."

46

"The spiritual power of the Church entrusted to its Prelates, "extends indirectly, even to temporals, to the end that it may conveniently help the faithful to their spiritual end, and "supply the defect of the temporal power, if the temporal power "should be negligent in the execution of her duty, or abuse the power which is particularly true with respect to the crime of "heresy.

16

"The Pope can inflict temporal punishment on Sovereigns for "heresy, and deprive them of their kingdoms, and free their sub(6 jects from their obedience.

"The Pope hath both temporal and spiritual power by divine «right."

"The Pope has, at least indirectly, a power over Princes in "temporals, inasmuch as temporals may prove an impediment "to their direction of the sheep of Christ to their superna "tural end."

"The Pope has a directory, and consequently a rompulsory 46 power over Princes who do wrong."

66

66

"If, for the common good of the Church, wisdom and sound reason require that temporal punishment should be inflicted on disobedient and incorrigible Princes, or even that they should ་ be

be dethroned, the Pope has a right to punish them in that "manner."

"The Apostles were subject to their Sovereigns, de facto,—buț not de jure."

The Sacred Faculty of Divinity condemned the doctrine contained in these and similar propositions, " as new, false, erro

.66

neous, contrary to the word of God, bringing odium on the "Papal dignity, giving occasion to schism, derogatory to the "sovereign authority of Kings (which depends upon God alone) "impeding the conversion of infidel and heretical kings, as tend68 ing to disturb the public peace, to subvert Kingdoms, States, "and Republics, to withdraw subjects from their obedience and "subjection, and to excite them to faction, rebellion, sedition, "and the murder of their Sovereigns."

In this censure the other Faculties of the University of Paris, and several other Universities in France, as Toulouse, Valence, Bourdeaux, Poitiers, Caen, and Rheims, concurred with great applause.

The Articles laid before Louis the XIV. in 1663, by the Sacred Faculty, agree with the above censure. By them it is declared, "That it is the doctrine of the faculty, that the King of "France neither acknowledges nor has in temporals any supe "rior but God; that this is her ancient doctrine, from which she "will never depart. Moreover, that the Faculty has always opposed, even those who were of opinion that the Pope had "in temporal concerns an indirect authority over the King of "France."

And when in 1682, in the censure hereafter referred to, the Sacred Faculty expressly observes, "That the grand principle of their doctrine (viz. that the sovereign power of Kings de"pends upon. God alone, and that no one has any right to in "terfere in their temporal concerns) has been frequently re"peated by them, particularly in their solemn declaration of the

year 1663." This sufficiently shews that, in the declaration of 1663, they stated nothing to the King of France but what they considered as common to him with all other Kings.

Thus in 1682, when Malagola interpreted the power" of binding and loosing" which Christ gave to Saint Peter and his successors, as relating both to the secular and ecclesiastical power, the Sacred Faculty declared that this doctrine resolved itself into the same doctrine which she had before condemned in Santarellus; she used the very same words and the very same expressions of censure which she has used in regard of Santarellus; she took that occasion to renew her censure of Santarellus ; b and