A Curious Correspondence.

A CURIOUS CORRESPONDENCE .

( Continued from page 440 . )

VIII . —( continued ) . ' " Catholicus " is mistaken in imagining I stated that the Confessor records in a list all particulars regarding the Penitent which have been gathered from his confession . I merely intended to convey that a list containing such particulars is periodically furnished to the Confessor . This arrangement may

possibly only be for the purpose of assisting him in probing the conscience of the Penitent . Much important information is doubtless obtained through the spies , to whom I have already referred . Besides , every novice and member is bound to make a full disclosure of his life and character to the Superior or Rector , in order that it may be finall y laid before the General ( " Inst . " i ., 350 ; ii . 321 ) . The appointment by the Superior of a special Jesuit confessor is

, however , not without its significance in connection with this question . It is also remarkable that , if a member has confessed to a priest who is not a Jesuit , he is bound to repeat his confession to one that is ( "Inst . " i ., 375 ; ii ., 71 ) . What is the reason of this ?

" Catholicus " is in error if he supposes I intended to assert that Bellarmin and Lainez taught " the socialist doctrine of the populace being the best source of authority . " Such teaching would have been in entire opposition to the supremacy of the Pope , which , as I pointed out in my former letter , was the real object of the doctrine in question . It was but one of the many weapons which Jesuitism , so fertile in resources , is accustomed to employ whenever occasion requires . Its purpose was to repair the defeat sustained by the emancipation from Papal control of the Sovereign and the national Clergy , and the

consequent subordination of the latter to the State . Later on , when the people themselves became too powerful , none showed himself a more zealous supporter of the Divine Right of Kings than the Jesuit Father himself . The Supremacy of the Pope was claimed in temporal as well as spiritual matters ( see " Ozorius . Concion de Sanctis , " Paris , 1607 ., pt . iii ., 64 ; " Azorius . Inst . Moral , " Rome , 1600 , vol . ii ., bk . x ., c . 6 , p . 1041 ; " A Lapide , Comm . in Acta Apost . " Leyden 1627 p . 227 : " Suarez . Defensio Fidei Catholicet Apost "

, , , , ., Mayence , 1655 , iii ., c . 22 , 23 ; " Liberatore La Chiesa e lo Stato , " Naples , 1872 , pp . 14 , 22 , 23 ) . As regards Popular Sovereignty , Lainez asserted at the Council of Trent that , while the Church derived its laws from God , human societies framed their own political constitutions , and were therefore free .

1 hey were , he said , the source of all executive government , and merely dele gated it to their rulers without thereby surrendering their own prerogative ( " Sarpi . Storia del Concilio di Trento . " ) Bellarmin , after stating that no ' Christian was permitted to leave a King on the throne who led his people into heresy or infidelity , declared that the Pope was the sole judge as to whether the King was guilty or no . He strenuousl y upheld the prerogative of the Pope to absolve from laws and oaths when necessary for the glory of God and

the welfare of souls , on the ground that it naturall y flowed from his power to bind and to loose . He also taught that the royal authority was directly derived from the whole body of the People and . was dependent on the popular will subject always to the guidance of the Pope who could limit the temporal power whenever he deemed it necessary . ( " De Potest . Roman . Pontif . V ., " c . 8 ; vii . c . 3 , 5 . )