this be not true let them give us the lie It is a Complement familiar enough with the Jansenists 'T is easily met with among their civilities even when they have more reason to take it to themselves then give it to others When therefore we check their stubbornnesse for not avowing the Five Propositions to be Hereticall explain'd in Jansenius's Sense or the Doctrine of Jansenius to be Hereticall so far as it is conâ—prized in the Five Propositions let them give us the lye by avowing the contrary and we shall soon be agreed promising to call them Heretiques no more on that account so long as they persevere in that confession But â—if they refuse it as they have done hitherto they must not take it amisse that men call them by their name that is to say Heretiques Now by this whole discourse it appears that their argument who complain of being termed Heretiques is retorted on themselves and serves for nothing but to evidence their confusion They make an Induction from the Arians Nestorians Eutychians and Menâ—thelites who have been acknowledg'd as Heretiques for not renouncing Propositions condemned by the Church but defending them notwithstanding that condemation and they would perswade us they proceed not like those men for that they sincerely condemn the Propositions condemned by the Pope and consequently ought not to be accounted Heretiques like those But by the precedent discourse it appears that the Jansenists act the same part that those Heretiques did For the Pope condemn'd the Five Propositions as Opinions of Jansenius and as containing the Sense and Doctrine of Iansenius and affirm'd them in that Sense to be Hereticall But the Jansenists to this day defend them in that sense and stoutly deny them to be Hereticall in that sense Therefore the Jansenists are Heretiques as were the Arians Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites And 't is impossible they should clear themselves till they deal candidly and confesse what is daily expected from them that the Doctrine of Iansenius is Hereticall But if they run back to their old song that they know not what the Doctrine of Iansenius is we have already answered that the Iansenian Doctours know it by their own study that they have avow'd it that they cannot be ignorant of it that it is ocularly made manifest to all that can but understand what they read that this Doctrine is expressed in the Five Propositions And for such as cannot read or are not able to understand what they read and yet obstinately follow that Belief they are Heretiques in regard that being oblig'd by the conscience of their incapacity and want of Schollership to refer themselves to the judgement of the ablest Divines they prefer the Opinion of three or four Doctors of Port-Royall before the judgement of the Pope and Church of Rome of the Bishops of France of Sorbon and all other Universities and in a word of the whole Church for that must needs be attributed to the whole Church which is received by a part incomparably greater then that which contradicts it nay which alone makes the whole Church by excommunicating and cutting off the part resisting So that the Leaders are Heretiques and Heresiaâ—ks like Arius Nestorius Eutyches Cyrus Sergius And their Followers are Heretiques like the Arians Nestorians Eutychians and Monâ—thelite people I adde that to be an Heretique it is not neâ—essary to be instructed in particular in all the points contained in the false Doctine which Heretiques follow A man that had seen Saint Paul do miracles and heard of the Sanctity of his life might not he have been inspir'd of God to produce an act of Faith and to believe the Doctrine of Christianity to be true which St. Paul preached though he neither understood the language of St. Paul noâ— knew in particular what the Doctrine of Christianity contained In like manner as he who rejecting the inspiration should condemn the same Doctrine and believe it to be â—alse could not be excus'd from committing a sin of Infidelity or against Faith A Christian that knows no more of the Doctrine of Mahomet but that it is abhor'd by all the Faithfull may he not make an act of Faâ—â—h cooperating with God's inspirations to disapprove that Doctrine without knowing distinetly any one article or point thereof And in case some one upon light conjâ—ctures should obstinately say though but in generall that the Doctrine of Mahomet were not to be rejected would it not be an act of Heresie in him or something worse And what does the Councell of Trent bid us do when it requires all Christians to say Haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas rejectas anathematizatas ego pariter damno rejicio Anathematizo All Heresies whatsoever condemned rejected and anathematized by the Church I do also condemn reject and Anathematizo Is it not a professing of our Faith by renouncing of Heresies in generall without knowing in particular what they are but conâ—enting our selves to understand that they are condemn'd by the Church Could not the Councell if it had pleased have named â—he Heresie of Wicliff of Luther of Calvin c. as the ancient Councels â—sometimes named other Heresiarks viz. Dioscorus Nestorius c in their Anathematismes when they professed the Catholique Faith And had the Councell named them would it have been necessary to know what those Heresies contained Since therefore it is an act of Faith to reject Heresies in general when the Church proposes in generall that it ought to be done why shall we sâ—ruple to affirm that it is also an act against Faith and an Heresie to contradict her therein Wherefore seeing an Authority sufficient to oblige a man that acts rationally such as is the authority of the Pope Bishops and Doctours proposes the Doctrine of Iansenius as a Doctrine containing errours and condemned under the notion of Heresie though we knew no more of it then this yet that alone ought to suffice for believing in generall that Iansenius's Doctrine contains errors contrary to the Catholique Faith and consequently it sufficeth for the calling of those people Heretiques who obstinately defend it and contradict the Declarution of the Church without further need of a particular information of those errours I know 't is no matter of Faith to believe that a man call'd Iansenius was ever in the world that he was a Bishop and writ a Book intituled Augustinus and that he treats in that Book of Questions of Grace Predestination and Free-will but upposing the experimental certain and indubitable knowledge men have thereof I maintain that it is a matter of Faith to believe that the Doctrine which is known to have been treated by that man in that Book and upon that Subject is in some points Hereticall and consequently that this cannot be contradicted but by an Heretique Like as it was not an act of Faith when St. Paul preached to believe that he was a man and that he preached and spake of Iesus Christ but it was an act
condemned the Errours of Jansâ—nius by an expresse Bull and his Scholars protest in their observations upon that Bull a See the Observations upon that Bull published by the Jansenists That it is proper onely to scandalize the world because it condemnes the Doctrine of St. Austine as the most blinde say they are constrain'd to avow Geneva sayes no lesse against the Council of Trent protesting with Calvin that all the Anathema's of that Council fall upon St. Austin and that the Authours of them understood not the Doctrine of that great man Melancthon quarrels with Sorbon and having said that those Doctours condemne St. Augustine under the name of Luther he cryes out with astonishment b Melancthon in his Apology for Luther Is it not strange that in all Sorbon there is not a man that understands St. Augustines opinion In fine Port-Royal crecting a Trophy to the memory of Jansenius as the learnedst man of his time whose minde was enrich'd with the knowledge both of Scripture and also Tradition c See the first Apology for Jansenius pag. 10 15 91. calls him the Hercules of our Age who vanquish'd that Monster Sufficient Grace brought St. Austin down from Heaven re-establsh'd his Doctrine and clcar'd it twelve hundred years after the decease of that excellent Father in a time when it was contâ—mned and obscured Geneva gives the same Elâ—gium to d Beza in the life of Calvin Calvin which Melancthon does to Luther affirming almost in the same terms that he has as it were reviv'd St. Augustine in these last Ages re-establish'd and marvellously clear'd his Doctrine which was for so long a time obscured Who could have believ'd Siâ—s that the Eccho of Port Royal would have been so faithfull to repeat verbatim what it had learn'd of Geneva to publish the same Maximes to defend them by the same reasons to explain them with the same expressions to ground them on the same passages even to the citing as Jansenius does of one sole Text of St. Augustine a â—undred and seventy times which Calvin had alledg'd but twenty Who would have imagin'd that the Jansenian Heresic which appears so young under the trim ornaments of a new language had been an Age old That the most remarkable lines of its beauty should be but the wrinkles of a face burn'd and blasted with lightning from the Vatican which has been seen to fall above twice upon its head Who would have been perswaded that Genâ—va could have com'd so close to Paris as to make a part of its Suburbs Or that Port-Royal should in so short a time have gotten as far as Geneva and that those pious Solitaries who make themselves invisible in the Roman Church should be so well known in all the Lutheran and Calvinian Churches scattered over Europe Passe the Sea when you please Sirs and go visit your friends in Great Brittain you will there finde great support yea even though your onely Credentials were the London Mâ—rcury of the third of January 1656. who has every where given you this testimony That your Doctrine is in many things the same with that of the Reformed Churches Descend into the Low-Countreys and all the Schools of Holland will be opened to you all Calvins Disciples will give ear to you as Oracles all the Ministers will subscribe to your Catechisme of Grace condemned by the Pope all their Oratours will labour to set forth your Panegyrick and will charm your ears with the sweet harmony of your praises which Mr. Marsh Professor of Groiuing has already made resound over the whole Earth e In Sinopsi verae Catholicaeque doctrinae Where he defends the Jansenists Catechisme condemned at Rome Macte illa vestrâ vertute viri docti quod audeatis in os resistere impio illi Pontifici qui in suorum Jesuitarum gratiam damnatâ Orthodoxissimâ sententiâ puri puti Pelagianismi putidam impiam protectionem susceperat Take courage you generous and learned men who durst openly oppose that impious Prelate who to gratisie his Jesuits undertook the defence of pure Pelagianisme by condemning a most Orthodox Opinion Go into Switzerland there the Protestant Cantons will give you great entertainment your Deputies were feasted there in their return from Rome your selves will be far more regarded and making Victorious Grace triumph in despiâ—e of the Pope and Jesuits as f In confesso est ipsis novatoribus vestris Jesuitis ultro hoc largientibus quod victricis gratiae propugnatores Jansenistae in maximiâ— ac fundamentalibus Fidei articulls in castra transierunt nostra Henry Ottius Professor and Minister of Zuric in his Speech printed 1653. after the Catechisme of Grace was censured sayes one of their famous Ministers in the Academies of Zuric Basil and Berne you will be â—avished to behold your selves covered with Laurâ—ls in the Zuinglians camp for having generously defended the fundamentall Maximes of their Doctrine Now if you hold so good Intelligence with these strangers what may you not hope from the Hugenots of this Kingdom among whom you have two remarkable Disciples L' Abadie and Le Masson who being turned Calvinists without leaving to be Jansenists do publiquely set forth in their preachings at Montauban what they have heard in your Assemblies testifying by an acknowledgement worthy of those Ministers that they learned Calvinisme in the Books of Jansenius and Jansenisme in the Books of Calvin Hear Sirs what the latter of them sayes who violating the honour of his Character and the dignity he not long since bore of a Pastour while he exercis'd its Functions in a Parish of Normandy findes no better excuse to justifie his perfidiousnesse then to say that being a Disciple of Jansenius he changed not his Party in coming to that of Calvin and had done no more but declar'd exteriourly what he already was in the interiour of his soul and manifested to the eyes of men what had appeared before to the eyes of God g Lewis le Masson an Apostata Priest in his Apology printed at Montauban 1656. It was written me from Paris sayes that wretched Runaway that some of my Friends did attribute my change to an effect of Jansenisme and a just judgement of God who had forsaken me in my errour to punish my curiosity for being a little too examining of Things whereas I ought to have kept my self submissively in the Commmnion of the Church and have had a better Opinion of Rome and believ'd her infallible in decisions of Faith Forasmuch as concerns Jansenisme I answer That before Jansenius was known in France I was a Jansenist as I may say that is I had the same Sentiments twenty years ago touching matters of Grace Free-will and Predestination that I have at this day And could a man acknowledge any other Master of the Celestiall Mysteries then Jesus Christ I might adde that the Book of Calvin 's Institutions had made me a Jansenist before the Book of Jansenius by reason of the
pag. 202. page is not cited whichis a meer childish reply when the Book and Chapâ—â—r is cited After all this if you will needs make a clamour you do but shew that Hereticall Spirit which you would so fain hide for never any Catholique used such extraordinary obstinacy as this is which makâ—th you resolved rather to deny that you have eyes to see that which all the world that will look in the Bâ—ok doth see then to submit to the Authority of the Church which considered you deseâ—ve not at all to be shewed the places Yet because here in our Countrey your asseverations may do hurt not to Catholiques for they know whom they are to believe they know the respect they owe to the Chuâ—ch but to Protestants who may take your bold Assertions for Truths and so think upon your credit that the Pope the Synod of France and the Catholique Church arâ— all in an errour to take away this occasion of scandall I will set down the places and the page too as you desire where the Propositions are fully taught in Jansenius Though I intend noâ— this for to adde any Authority to the Popes Bulls or to the Synod of France's assertion for what can it adde to light a candle at noon-day Nor would I have any man think that if I have not cited the places to his gust therefore they are not in Jansenius No any man may dispute against my opinionâ— none against the Church Yet I am perswaded the places are so clear that no man having once read them can make any doubt but that the Propositions are truly taken out of Jansenius and condemned in his sense which is that that Pope Alexander saith Ex libro Cornelii Jansenii excerptas ac in sensu ab â—odem â—ntenâ—o damnaâ—as fuisse definimus declaramus We define and declare that the Five Propositions are gathered out of the Book of Cornelius Iansenius and that they are condemned in the sensâ— intâ—nded by him And because both the Bull and the Book of Jansenius are written in Latin and cannot be examined but by those that understand Latine I shall content my selfe to cite them in their owne language Those who understand not Latine may be satisfied with the citations in English already set down in Father Annats Discourse before the Answer to the Sixteenth Letter In citing the page and column of Jansenius his Book I use the Impression of Paris of the year 1641. Prima Propositio condemnata Aliqua Dei Praecepta hominibus justis volentibus conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia Deest quoque illis gratia quâ fiunt possibilia Jansenius Tom. 3. lib. de Gratia Christi Salvatoris cap. 13. pag 135. columna prima prope initium post soluta argumenta in contrarium sic aâ—t Ex â—âc indubiâ—◠â doctri◠â quaedam non parvi momenti ad hanc rem spectantia inferuntur clarescunt Primum quidem esse quaedam homini pâ—aecepta secundum staâ—um vires in quibus constitutus est impossibilia Secundum non adesse semper gratiam quâ possimus hoc est qua eadem praecepta implere sufficiamus Tertium hanc impotentiam reperiri non solùm in exâ—oecatis obduratis infidelibus de quibus nunquam Augustinus vel Ecclesia sed solùm Scholastici nonnulli ex humanis rationibus dubitârunt sed etiam in fidelibus justis qui fidem Christi charitatem Justitiae susceperunt Quartum hanc impossibilitatem fidelibus accidere non tantum quando nolunt praecepta facere sed etiam quando volunt Haec Jansenius loco citato Postquam autem multis Augustini sententiis licet perperà m inteâ—â—ectis doctrinam suam fusâ— stabilisset tum demum pag. 138. colum 2. lit C. sic concludit Haec igitur omnia plenissimè demonstrant nihil esse in Sancti Augustini Doctrina ita scilicet semper Augustini tribuit quod ipse sentit certius fundatius quam esse praecepta quaedam quae hominibus non tantum infidelibus excaecatis obduratis sed fidelibus quoque justis volentibus conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires sunt impossibilia Deesse quoque gratiam quâ fiunt possibilia Hoâ— enim â—x Sancti Petri exemplo aliisque multis manifestum est Secunda Propositio condemnata Interiori Gratiae in statu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur Jansenius Tom. 1. libr. 5. de Haeresi Pelagianâ cap. 17. pag. 120. col 2. lit E. de Gratiâ Christi post Adae lapsum daâ—â quam vocat initio capitis 17. Christianum Adjutorium saepe simpliciter Adjutorium vocat sic loquitur Non est ergo Adjutorium ullum quòd solùm possibilitatem id est potentiam volendi atque agendi adjuvat ut eo pro solo nutu hominis concurrente voluntatem obediendi sibi sumat homo vel tribuat sed quod ipsam voluntatem aâ—que actionem invictissimè dat facit Tom. 3. lib. 2. de Gratiâ Christi Salvatoris cap. 4. pag. 41. columnâ 2. lit A. Adjutorium vero infirmae captivaeque voluntatis vult esse tale scilicet Augustinus vult cui Jansenius suam sententiam semper tribuit quo siâ—t ut vesit hoc est esse hujusmodi ut simul ac daâ—ur ipsum velle voluntati detur si non detur nunquam velit quia fine illo nunc propter infirmitatem velle non possunt Et eodem Tom. ac libr. cap. 24. pag. 82 col 2. lit E. Gratiam Dei Augustinus ita Victâ—icem statuit ut non raro dicat hominem operanti Deo per Gratiam non posse resistere sed è contrario Deum non quicquid voluntatem facturam praevidet sive absoluâ—è sive conditionatè sed quicquid omnino voluerit in voluntate operari Et capite 25. reflectens ad ea quae proximè citato capite 24. dixerat sic incipit Haec itaque est vera ratio radix cur nulla omnino medicinalis Christi gratia effectu suo careat sed omnis â—fficiat ut voluntas velit aliquid operetur Quod quamvis gratiae istius congruae Auctoribus intelligit Theologos Scholasticos praecipuè Societatis Jesu permiâ—um videatur veritas tamen est in Scripturis Sacris Augustini scriptis explorata Et paulo post pag. 83. colum 1. lit A sic habet Apud Augustinum gratia opus bonum ita reciprocantur ut quemadmodum ex grat â datâ mox effectum operis consecuâ—um inferre solet ita vice versa ex defectu operis gratiam non esse datam Porro Titulus istius capitis 25. est talis Decimò ejus gratiae scil efficacissima natura declaratur ex eo quod nulla prorsus â—ffâ—ctu caret sed eum in omnibus quibus datur infallibiliter operatur Qui ergo dicit de interiori gratiâ post lapsum data gratiam ipsam voluntatem actionem invictissimè dare facere
Authority of the Book and condemn the Church for falsely censuring a good Book Nor is this to guesse at their intentions as the Authour of the Provinciall Letters saith Let. 17. pag. 301. For it is evident that no man would tell us as he doth That above Sixty Persons all Doctours have read the Book and cannot finde the Five Propositions there for any other reason then to make the world think that they are not there and that there is nothing condemned in his Book Now as he could not be esteemed a Christian as to his belief who having the repute of a Doctour should say I have read over all the Alcoran and finde nothing in it against reason and which may not well be believed so he cannot be esteemed a Catholique who after the Authority of the Popes Bull the Synod of France and the whole Church should say I have read over all Jansenius his Book and finde no Hereticall Propositions there Certainly it were no rash judgement to thinke that man no Romane Catholique who should say I have read all Luthers Works and all Calvins too and finde not any thing there which is not Orthodox since the Romane Church hath condemned those Books And so also it cannot be deemed a rash judgement to think him no Catholique who saith as much of Jansenius For the Doctrine of the five Propositions is as plainly laid down in Jansenius as anything contrary to the Catholique Faith is in Luther or Calvin or any Heretique And this Sir as it confuteth your reason so I hope 't will take away the wonder you express so largely in the beginning of your Letter at seeing those of Port-Royal called Heretiques who as you say admit the Propositions condemned in the Bull. For if they allow the Bull and condemn the five Propositions condemned in the Bull they also maintain Jansenius and defend the five Propositions in his Book which they will have to be all good and Catholique And in so doing they shew themselves to be manifest Heretiques by really maintaining that which they verbally deny or if you will have it in other terms by granting the five Propositions to be Heretical in the Bull and defending them to be Catholique in Jansenius though they be the same in both places as is evident to all that can read by confronting the places and to all that cannot read by the publique Authority of the Church Whereas on the contrary no man denyeth the Propositions to be in Jansenius that deserveth any credit For that the Author of the Provincial Letters telleth us there are above sixty Doctours who have read Jansenius and finde them not there signifieth nothing that Authour being a man that dareth not shew his face a man convinced of notorious Impostures and falsifications a man that advanceth so many things against reason that he seemeth to have lost his wits or drowned them in passion And yet this very man who brings this to excuse himself from Heresie dareth not name one of those Sixty Persons which maketh all men justly suspect either that there are no such persons to be found or else that they are not responsible men since they dare not own what he assureth that they say So that me-thinks this Argument of Sixty Persons which he bringeth is just as if a man convinced before a Judge by a number of sufficient legal Witnesses of stealing a Horse should answer for himself that above sixty persons whereof he will produce never a one could swear that they never knew him to be a Thief though they have known him all his life time which would never save that man from the Gallowes And so Sir all the Arguments by which you in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letter and your Friend in the Little Letter which lyeth between these two endeavour to prove that the Jansenists ought not to be called Heretiques are fully confuted and it is made clear that never a reason you alledge excuseth the Jansenists not onely from Schisme which your friend pag. 321. alloweth that they deserve but from the title of Heretique since they maintain in Jansenius those Propositions which the Pope and the unversall Church tell us are Hereticall in Jansenius Now as I promised I will say a word or two to your Stories whereby you would prove that Popes and Councels may erre in matter of Fact The first thing then that I say to all your Stories and passages of Fathers and Divines by which you would prove that Popes and Councels may erre is that they need no Answers at all This is evident because they are all brought to prove that which is not in question betwixt you and your Adversaries It is granted to you that a Catholique may hold that a Pope or Councel may erre in matter of Fact for example that a Pope may upon a false Information esteem a man unjust Simoniacall or Hereticall who is not so It was therefore to no purpose for you to prove this with many Stories and Allegations for it made nothing to your businesse But Sir that which you were to have proved was that they the Popes and Synod have erred in this matter of condemning Jansenius But this is so impossible to do that you never go about it save onely by saying that the Jesuits procured the Bull which how fond a toy it is I shewed in the beginning of this Letter where I answered what you say against the Jesuits This is the first thing I had to say concerning your Stories The second thing is that your alledging these stories as you do maketh me much suspect that which you would so sain hide that is that you are an Heretique What dutifull subject would rip up the faults or disgraces of his Sovereigns predecessours when he were not forced upon it or what Catholique would make it his businesse to divulge the errours committed by Bishops and Popes when it made nothing to the aim of his discourse Constantine is commended for saying that if he saw a Priest commit Fornication he would cover him with his own robes to hide that crime from all the world But you tell us pag. 308. That you think fit to accustome us to the contrarieties which happen in the Church in matter of Fact and give us instances of one Father of the Church against another of a Pope against a Pope and of a Councel against a Councel What Catholique I pray ever thought this â—it or what good can this produce what could the sequel be were you a man of any credit in your storiâ—s but that the people by this means should be lead by the hand as it were to contemne the Authority of Fathers of Councels of Popes and of the whole Church When I read your first Letters I imagined you had some spleen against the Jesuits but now I see your malice is against the Church You load the Jesuits with calumnies that it may be thought that men of such wicked practices as you describe them might easily be
both the parties concerned that is the Authour of the Apology and the Cuâ—â—z do acknowledge their Judge in this cause As indeed he is the sole â—udge in whose Arbiâ—rement the quarrel can cease For the matter being manifestly of those causes which are called Causae majores it apperttaineth not to any private Doctour or School to determine and by that means to give rules to all Christendome which cannot be done by any under the Pope For this reason the Archbishop of Roven answered the Curez of his Diocesse who first stirred in this business in these words as they are set down pag. 2. in â—ine in these Additionalls That this affair was of great concernment and reflected on the whole Church Therefore he refered them to the Synod of France then sitting at Paris Nor did that Synod define any thing as to particular cases or condemnation of opinions held by Learned Authors All which sheweth us the importance of the matter which being of the Causae majores or greater Causes belongeth to the Head of the Church This answer is according to the Doctrine of Gerson sometimes Chancellour of the University of Paris Tom. 1. de examin doctrin Consil 3. and not to cite others according to Du Val a learned Soâ—bonist and late Authour de potest Sum. Pont. p. 4. q. 5. who speaketh thus Constat ex pâ—rpetuâ Ecclesiae praxi quâ nihil unquam de Fide aut Moribus absque Romani Pontifiâ—is auctoritate consensu deâ—râ—â—um lâ—gimus Hinâ— est quod Primates Archiâ—piscopi in Provincialibuâ— Synodis praesertim ubi de Fide agâ—râ—tur Romani Pontificis auctoritatem semper exopt ârunt rati non aliter sua dâ—crâ—ta robur habcre This is certain saith he out of the perpetuall practice of the Church in which we finde that nothing hath ever been dâ—creed concerning Faith or Manners now all Morall Divinity or cases concern Manners as the rule of Manners without the Authority of the Pope of Rome Hence it cometh that Primates and Archbishops in their Provinciall Synods especially in matters of Faith have alwayes desired the Authority of the Bishop of Rome Knowing that their Dâ—crees would not otherwise have any strength So we ought in all reason to expect from his Holinesse and no other the condemnation or approbation of the Authour of the Apology I therefore will not go about to answer those things Yet because these Factums of the Curez are spread here in England for no other reason then to discredit the Doctrine of the Society I think it but reason to set down some Thoughts which may induce the Reader to suspend his judgement till the matter be decided at Rome The first is That it is not certain that these Factums or Representations of the Curez are really and truly legall acts because that some of the ablest Curez are said to have renounced them and some to have professed that their names were set by others to these Factums when they kâ—ew nothing of it This if when it cometh to the Test it proveth so will shew that the whole businesse is but a turbulent proceeding of some unquiet spirits and not really the Deed of the Curez in generall as is pretended I kâ—ow the last Piece in the Additionalls maintaineth that the Factum is truly the Deed of the Curez But I say That still it is not certain that either that or the former was really a Deed of all as is pretended and not rather the act of a factious party that usuâ—ped the name of all And althoâ—gh I will not interpose to decide the question yet I say we in England cannot at all be sure having no other ground but the Additioner or Printers assurance which no man can justly esteem any thing at all he being convinced in the former answers to the Additionalls to be maliciously bent to say any thing that â—eemeth against the Jesuites be it true or false not sparing even Blasphemy The Second Thought is That supposing it be allowed that these Factums are legall then all that followeth is contained in these two Consequences First That those Curez think that these opinions are taught by the Authours whom they alledge Secondly That the opinions in the judgements of these Curez are not tenible and ought not to be taught Now as to the first consequence that they are mistaken in divers of the opinions is most certain For example in the very first of the Catalogue pag. 17. there is a notable errour viz. They say That the Casuists teach that a man may be confident he doth not sin though he quit an opinion which he knoweth to be true and is more safe to follow that which is contrary thereto This is an errour For no Casuist doth teach That you may quit an opinion which you know to be true that were a meer madnesse no Probability can excuse you against a known Truth But the whole Doctrine of Probability according to all Casuists supposeth a doubt on each side See the four first Impostures and you will be satisfied of this Now as to the second Consequence which I said followed if it be allowed that these Factums are valid and legall to wit That the the Curez think that these opinions I speak now onely of those which are truly cited are not tenible and ought not to be taught I answer That though they think so yet we are not bound to joyn in their opinion till the Church hath spoken and declared for them The Curez are on the one side and the chiefest Divines of Christendom that have ever writ are on the contrary Whom shall we believe The Curez are not known to have taught Divinity nor writ Treatises of these matters in which they give their censure They bring no reasons nor cite no authorities For my part I shall rather believe one learned Authour who hath joyned long experience with solid study then forty unlearned men either Curez or Jesuits or others Which I do not say to villifie the Curez but to reflect on the Authority which they oppose For example many of the cases which are by the Curez supposed dangerous Propositions are Navarre's opinions though they do not cite Navarre but some Jesuit And I tell them I will sooner believe Navarre alone then a hundred such as never taught Divinity never studied Canon-Law the chief ground of Morall Divinity nor never had any Auctority or name in the Church whereas Navarre hath the approbation of all learned men in the world is read in all Universities and in the whole Church of God esteemed an Oracle of Learning What then shall we say when the Curez do not onely oppose Navarre alone but St. Antonine St. Thomas Gerson Sylvester Raymundus Cajetan Soto Medina Lopez Peter Navarre Angelus Corduba Sanchez Suarez Molina Vasquez Lessius Layman and an hundred others But of this again I advertise the Reader that I pretend not to diminish the Auctority of any Learned man Curé or other onely I say it is
of the inconveniences may arrive Does he not know that the circumstances and dangerous consequences of an Action are sufficient to render it criminall before God when in its own object it were not really so What consequences can one imagine more dangerous and more capable to corrupt an action and render it mortall then those which Lessius brings to reject the practice of this that is the infinity of unjust murthers which it would cause in the State This opinion sayes he ought not to be permitted in the practique for the inconveniences which may follow Men would easily perswade themselves that they were accused out of Calumny and that they have no way to clear themselves but by the death of the Calumniatour And so many unjust murthers would be committed in a State Will you acknowledge the true Doctrine of this Father which you have supprest and are you not sufficiently convinced of that falsenesse by these so manifest proofs The fourth Imposture concerns Filiucius who is reprehended by this Writer for maintaining that Doctrine of the Jesuites which forbids killing not for opprobrious words onely but even for the most hainous Calumnies and most unjust Accusations He alledges for a reason That one may be punished by the hand of Justice for killing people upon that account I would gladly know what â—ffence that Father had committed if he should have made use of that reason Does the Jansenâ—st believe Judges never punish Murtherers but on Politique accâ—unts and not upon Maximes of Conscience and Religion â—s not the Law of God thought on at the Bar Have not the â—udges of life and death the Commandments of God before their eyes Is the Râ—ligion of their Court so suspicious that he judges the Iesuites to be criminall for having grounded their opinion on the legall Sentences Let me entreat him once more to tell me why he has added this Raillery to the former I told you Father that all you can do will amount to nothing if you have not the Judges on your side Does he think these Fathers hold it dishonourable to regulate their conduct by the justice of Laws and the sentences of the Court But that which is yet more ridiculous in this passage is that in the place he cites Filiucius indeed speaks of the penalties which the Iudges order against Murthers but sayes nothing of Murthers which are committed for Calumnies 'T is in the following Number that he treats of it and where he brings two reasons wholly different from those which this Iansenist attributes to him I put them in the margin that all the world may see how God confounds Calumniatours and how he suffers them whilest they attaâ—que the reputation of others so to blinde themselves that they become a reproach and laughing-stock to the whole world We must hold says c Practicè contrarium est sequendum tum quia si fama sublata est non recuperatur per mortem detractoris Si non est sublata ferè semper aliis modis impediri potest tum quia aperiretur via caedibus major a mala sequerentur in Republicâ ut fatetur Lessius 1. 11. 82. Filiucius Tract 29. c. 3. n. 52. Filiucius the contrary opinion in the Practique because if the Calumniatour have already taken away your reputation you cannot restore it by taking away his life if he have not yet done it there are commonly many other wayes to preserve it And besides all this 't would open a gap to Murthers and greater evils would happen by it in the State An Advertisement to the Jansenists I cannot tell why you should be so offended with the Iudges or what reason you finde to dislike the Iesuites sticking to their sentences in the Decision of the Morals For indeed they have hitherto been very indulgent towards you and with a great deal of patience suffer'd your disorders What ever it be you must take away the scandall which you have given to the publique in saying falsly That the Iesuites finde it lawfull in conscience to kill a man for opprobrious words onely and that they forbid it meerly for politique respects and to have the Iudges on their side Whereas I do assure all Catholiques there is not any one Divine whether Iesuit or other that will suffer one to kill another for simple Calumnies 'T is true some famous Authours who are no Iesuites have thought it lawfull to kill a Calumniatouâ— when he seâ—s upon both honour and lâ—â—â— with such powerful and unjust inventions that there is no way of escaping but by his death 'T is the opinion of Bannes of Maior of Peter de Navarr of Monsieur Du Val that ornament of the Sorbon and of Cardinall Richelieu as you may perceive by Father Caussins Answer to the Morall Divinity and by another Answer of a Divine of the Society But this is so extraordinary a case that it scarce ever happens Notwithstanding the most knowing Authours that are amongst the Jesuits as Suarez Vasquez Lessius Reginaldus Filiucius c. do unanimously oppose this Doctrine because of the dangerous consequences which it would draw after it and if in opposing it they use a modesty 't is because that opinion has not yet been condemned by the Pope nor by the Church who have power to do it and that although they do not approve the opinion of these famous Doctors yet they know the respect which they owe to their persons For your part who unjustly condemn this proceeding and who would render them criminall because they are not so heady as those of your party nor so insolent as to attribute to themselves the Authority of the Pope and of the Church you ought rather to study to correct the wicked Doctrine of the Abbot of St. Cyran who was so bold as to dare to teach a man may kill his neighbour when the inward Spirit moveth him to it although the outward Law forbid it When you please you may see both the proof and the practice in the second page of the Information that was given against him by the command of the late King in the Year 1638. The Original is in the Colledge of Clermont The two and twentieth Imposture French 3. THat the Jesuits encourage Banquerupts because Lessius affirmeth A man that turns Banquerupt may with a safe conscience retain as much of his own goods as is requisite to maintain his Family in an honourable manner nè indecorè vivat notwithstanding that it was gotten unjustly and by manifest crimes Letter 8. pag. 168. Answer This Disciple of the Calvinists learnt this reproach in the Traditions of his Master page 334. a Du Moulin casteth the same reproach on the Church pag. 334. A man saith he that had taken by force or fraudulently anothers goods is not obliged to restitution if be cannot do it but by prejudicing his honour Navarr Consil lib. 3. de Statu Monach. Consil 3. onely changing the name of Navarr into Lessius But he hath put on it such
to call those Heretiques whom the Pope condemneth as such whether there be matter of Fact or no contained in the condemnation So the Quartodecimani are by St. Augustin Hâ—res 29. and by the whole Church called Heretiques because they would not obey the Decrees of the Pope and Church and yet the observance of Easter on such a day had more of matter of Fact in it then what Pope Innocent or Pope Alexander declare concerning Jansenius And all this hath been ever practised in the Church of God upon Christs Authority who saith Qui Ecclesiam non audierit sit tibi sicut Ethnicus Publicanus He that heareth not the Church whether it be in matter of Fact or no let him be unto you as an Heathen and Publican that is as one quite out of the Church As for the stories you alledge I shall answer you when I have done with your Objections Now I observe that these three main Objections so often inculcated whereby you would prove that it is but matter of Fact and so not of Faith but a matter wherein Popes and Councells may erre do not prove any thing at all For notwithstanding the possibility of errour in matter of Fact which many Catholique Doctours allow yet it is not to be presumed that here is any errour but quite contrary it is to be supposed certain that there is none unlesse we will be temeâ—arious and refractory to the Church we having two Popes and a Synod of France's Assertion redoubled that all diligence was used and knowing also that the matter was very easily cleared the Question being onely whether the Book which they had in their â—ands had the Propositions or no finally the whole world being certified that all parties were agreed that the Propositions were in Jansenius before ever the condemnation was thought of as you may see in severall places of this Book namely in the Sixteenth Letter and Father Annats Answer to the Jansenists Complaint Now then I proceed to a fourth Objection by which you would prove not onely that the Popes and Councells may erre as hitherto but that in effect they have erred 4. Objection Many Learned men have read Jansenius all over and cannot finde the Five Propositions therefore they are not there and so the Synod of France and the Popes who condemned those Propositions as Jansenius's erred I answer first that this is a Negative Argument and so in effect proves nothing against the Positive Assertion of the Synod of France which found them there and the Definition of the Pope who defineth that they are there But to answer again I ask who were those sixty Persons that read Jansenius and could not finde those Propositions Perhaps Doctour St. Beauve was one whom pag. 300. you call the Kings Professour in Sorbon but you do not tell us that he was turn'd out of his place for Iansenisme which I have from a good hand Or were you one Sir If you were and the rest like you I do not wonder that you could not finde the Propositions in Jansenius though they be there You that could finde in so many Authours of the Jesuites as you have falsely cited that which is not there might have the trick of not finding in Jansenius that which is there It is a great deal easier to read an Author and not to find that which is there then to finde there that which is not there as you Sir are evidently convinced to have done The Fourteenth Imposture and the small piece of Lessius inserted in the end of this Book maketh this evident You can finde or say you finde in Lessius that which he hath not and why may you not more easily not finde or say you cannot finde in Jansenius that which is clearly there You therefore when you tell us that above sixty * Let. 18. pag 343. Persons have read Jansenius and cannot finde the Propositions there ought to let us know who those sâ—xty were and if they please to appear they shall be shewed the places 5. Objection The places cannot be cited * Letter 18. pag. 342. therefore they be not there and so still the Church erreth But pray Sir who is it that you challenge to cite the places Would you tell his Holinesse that you will not believe him till he citeth the places that is will not believe him till you see it That is not the duty of a Childe to his Father nor would any Servant be so â—aucy with his Master Or would you say this to the Synod of so many grave and learned Bishops as in France collected the Propositions out of Janseniâ—s and for the greater satisfaction of all the world have given it under their hands that the Propositions are truly in Jansenius to their knowledge as you may see in their Subscriptions put in the beginning of this Book in the History of Jansenisime Is it to these you would say they cannot cite the places That were to be very disrespectfull and to suspect them strangely either of grosse ignorance or of extream malice But you tell us Letter 18. pag. 330. 'T is the Jesuites you mean 't is they cannot cite the places and yet they call you Heretiques And what then Sir Suppose no Jesuite in the world could cite the places must the Church therefore be out or must the Iesuites not give the Propositions the same name which the Popes and universall Church gives them that is to call them Hereticall and condemned in Jansenius his sense and as they lie in Jansenius What if the Iesuites should answer that since the Popes and Synod of France thought not sit to cite the places they judge it a dutifull Deference not to cite them neither Or what if no Iesuite hath ever looked in Jansenius What is that to us Catholiques who dutifully and obediently believe the Church that telleth us they are in Jansenius We believe in the Catholique Church as our Creed teacheth us and the Iesuites believe in the same Church and whether they have read Jansenius or no we and they must say the Five condemned Propositions are in Jansenius Tâ—uly Sir I cannot hold laughing when I read page 342. that you define the Iesuits to cite the places of Jansenius as you have cited their corrupt Maximes which is to say that you desire them to cite wrong places for you know Sir you never cite right But Sir that the world may see how impudent you are and how resolved to deny Truth wheresoever you finde it I desire all to take notice that long before your Seventeenth or Eighteenth Letter where you urge this Argument so insolently the places were cited and publiquely allowed to be truly cited and that even by your own selves as is evidently convinced in Father Annats Answer to the Iansenists Complaint where you have the Iansenists own confession and the Soâ—bonists citing the places and besides Father Annat hath also cited the places All that can be râ—plied is that the a Letter 17.
pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut Sanguinem suum fudisse Quod Semipelagianis tribuat â—ansâ—â—ius 〈◊〉 assertionem Christus pro omnibus mortuus est seu Christus est omnium Redemptor patet ex Libro Tertio de Gratia Christi Salvatoris Capite 20. Quod sic inâ—ipit Sed aliud Argumentum pro Gâ—aâ—â—â sufficienti omnium proferri solet quod Christus est Redemptor omnium juxta illud 1. ad Tim. â— Qui dedit semetipsum redemptionem pro omnibus Et paulò post Respondetur hoc Argumentum ad nause am usque à Pelagianiâ— pâ—aeserâ—â—mque Massiliensibus incuâ—catum suiâ— ut mirum sit recentiores tanto studio trita Haereticorum arâ—a colligere obsoleta recudere Et paulò post rursùm de iâ—sdem Masâ—liensibus lit D. Haec habet Tanquam firmâ—ssimam Basim errori suo collocaverunt illa Scripturae loca quibuâ— Deus dicitur omnes velle Salvos sieri atque esse Redemptor omnium Jam vero suam sententiam Jansenius eodem capite pag. 164. col 1. lit A. sic exprimit Nec enim juxta doctrinam Antiquorum pro omnibus omnino Christus passus aut mortuus est aut pro omnibus omninâ— tam generaliâ—èr sanguinem suum fudit Cum hoc potius tanquam errorem à fide Catholicâ abhorrentem â—oceant esse reâ—puâ—ndum Omnibuâ— vero illis pro quibus sanguinem suum fudit quatenus pro â—s fudit eâ—iam Sufficiens Auxilium donat quo non solum possint sed reipsa veliâ—t faciant id quâ—d â—b iiâ— volendum faciendum esse decreviâ— Nam per illa occultissimè justa justissimè occuâ—ta conâ—â—â—iâ— sua quibusdam â—â—minâ—bâ—s dare praeâ—estinavit Fidem Charitatem in â—â Perseverantiam usque in finem qâ—os absoluâ—è pâ—aedestinatos eâ—â—ctos Salvandos dicimus aliis Charitatâ—m fine Perseverantiâ aliis Fidem fine Charitate Pro primi generis hominibus tanquam veris ovibus suis vero populo suo tanquâ—m absolutè salvando semetipsum dedit ac tradidit pro istorum peccatis omnibus omninò delendis aeternâ oblivionâ— sepeliendis Propitiatio est pro istis in aeternum vivisicandis mortuus esâ— pro istis ab omni malo liberandis rogavâ—t Patrem suum non pro caeâ—eris qui à Fide Charitate desicientes in iniquitate moriuntur Pro his enim in tantum morâ—uus est in tantum rogavit Patrem in quantum temporalibus quibuâ—dam gratiae â—ffectibus exornandi sunt Et ut alia innumera loca omittam in fine hujus Capitis 20. quod ultimum est coâ—elusio libri pag. 165. col 2. lit E. sic loquitur Nullo modo principiis ejus Augustini consentaneum est ut Christus Dominus vel pro infidelium in infidelitate morientium vel pro justorum non perseverantium aeâ—errâ salute morâ—uus esse sanguinem fudisse semetipsum redemptiâ—nem dedisle Patrem orasse seâ—iatur Sâ—ivit enim quò quisque ab aeterno praedestinatus eâ—at Scivit hoâ— decreâ—um neque ullius pretii oblatione mutandum esse nec seâ—psum velle mutaâ—e Ex quo factum est ut juxta Sanctissimum Doctorem non magis Patrem pro aeternâ liberatione ipsorum quam pro Diaboli deprecatus fuerit And now Sir I hope you will not say that the places cannot be cited since there is nothing said in any of the Five condemned Propositions which is not in the Quotations I have here brought And besides these there are innumerable other places wherein Jansenius abâ—seth the Auâ—hoâ—ity of St. Augustin and under his name delivereth the same Heresies For you knâ—w Sir that 't is Jansenius his Mode to make St. Augustin say what he would have thought wherein he hath been very injâ—rious to that Learned Doctour and â—iâ—ht of the Church whom after so many â—gâ—â— he hath perverted to make him become a Dâ—â—ender of Heresie Buâ— I go on to your other Objections The sixth Objection a Letter 17. pag. 305. Jansenius in these Five Propositions teacheth nothing but what the Tomists and Dominicans teach But the Tomists are not Heretiques Therefore the Propositions in Jansenius are not Hereticall I answer This is one of those means by which you endeavour to evade the force of the Popes Definitions which Pope Alexander in his Bull points at when he telâ—eth us that â—â—rtaine perturbatours of the publique Tranquiâ—lity endeavour by subtle interpretations to clude the sorce of Pope Innocents Constitution For here you would either bring the Dominicans Doctrinâ— under the same censure of Heresie by telling us they teach the same with Jansenius or else 〈◊〉 your selves under their shadow by telling us the Dominicans are good Catholiques and therefore you who teach nothing but what they teach are also good Cathosiques But I suppose the Dominicans will noâ— be much troubled at you and Jansenius for this For since Jansenius saith though falsly that St. Augustin tâ—acheth these Propositions 't is not to be wondred that he abuseth the Dominicans as much as he doth so great a Doctour of the Church and the othâ—r Sâ—ints and Fathers of whom he either telleth us that they were in an errâ—â—r or else that thâ—y taught his opinions Nor was Jansenius the first that used this way of disâ—â—uâ—â—e The Câ—â—vinistâ— carried the Lanthorn bâ—fore him who attribute to Sâ— Augustin all their Errours in this matter and cite the Dominicans for their opinions as may be seen particularly in Prideaux his Dâ—cem Lectiones in which he useth the same Arguments which Jansenius afterward used so fully that I believe there is scarce an Argument which Jansenius hath in all his Tomes to prove any of the Five Propositions or to confute the contrary Arguments which may not be found in Pridâ—aux In particular he groundeth his opinion upon St. Augustin and proveth it by the Tomists and namely by Alvarez as may be seen in his Second and Fourth Lections and in all the fiâ—st six generally where he often as Jansenius also doth attributes to the Jesuits Semipelagianisme and would make the Dominicans defenders of rigid Calvinisme To the Argument then I answer that the Major is false The Tomists Doctrine is very different from Jansenius his Doctrine as it is from Calvins I could easily prove this But the Tomists as they have vertue enough to kâ—ep themselves within the Church so they have learning enough to defend their own Doctrine In the mean time it is enough to say that never any Tomist advanced the Five Propositions of Jansenius or any of them in his sense and that Jansenius himself impugneth the Tomists And as to the Argument of this Objection it is a great deal better to put it thus The Tomists Doctrine is Catholique as all allow But the Five Propositions are not Catholique as the Church believeth Therefore the Tomists do not teach the same with Jansenius his five Propositions This discourse you snarle at yet it is a great deal
submit to any authority either Humane or Divine Absurd Must your Senses be judges of all the objects which contain matter of Fact so that neither Reason nor Revelation nor the Word of God can contradict it Foolish My eyes report that a stick put half in thâ— water is brâ—kâ—n or bent at the Superâ—icies of the water may not Reason correct this errour of my senses Faith teacheth many things that Reason cannot reach unto though the object be not supernaturall must not Reason yield to Faith because the matter is an object within the extent of Reason For example to have a soul is a thing to use your own words pag. 347. liâ— 6 7. naturall and intelligible of all which things you say reason is to be judge Now suppose some one could not judge by any reason that occurreth to him that he hath a soul must that man never believe that men have souls Again to judge of the presence of a Body is an object of Sense I say there 's fire because I either see it or feel it I say there 's a man that speaks because I hear him I say this is bread because I taste it And yet Sir how far our Senses are out sometimes is evident in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar where all Catholiques believe as you professe you do also that there is no Bread after the Consecration though the Sight the Taste the Feeling carry us to judge that there is Bread as well after as before Consecration Truly Sir when I reflect upon your bringing this Argument to prove that which you often say as Let. 17. pag. 298 and Let. 18. pag. 351. and in many other places That there are no Heretiques in the Church and that the Church is without Heresie I cannot but take great compassion of your blindenesse I see you take for an argumenent that there is no Heresie that very thing which is the originall Source and Cause of all Heresie You would have every ones reason judge of all the objects of reason and sense of all the objects of sense and so you sweep away all submission all respect to authority all captivating the understanding in obedience to Faith and by this very means you put an answer into every Heretiques mouth to maintain his perversity with If the Antitrinitarians deny the Blessed Trinity they tell you 't is against reason If the Anabaptist refuse to baptize his Childe he telleth you 't is against reason If the Quaker refuse a civill respect as to put off his hat to any body he telleth you 't is against reason If the Protestant refuse to believe the reall Presence he telleth you 't is against reason and his sense dictates to him the contrary Now if you urge Scripture against these men they will answer with your own words in which you abuse the authority of St. Thomas and St. Augustin pag. 347. in fine When the Scripture presents us with some passage whereof the literall sence is contrary to what the senses and reason judge of it with certainty we must not endeavour to weaken the testimony of these that is of our senses and reason to submit them to that apparent sence of Scripture but we must interpret Scripture and finde out some other sence thereof And if you urge the Authority of the Church they will all finde some matter of Fact to elude the Popes Bulls and the Decrees of Councells and it will be impossible to finde any Decree of Councell or Pope which haâ—h not as much of matter of Fact as the condemnation of Jansenius hath since the very Decrees of Councells and Popes may be called in question 〈◊〉 â—his account that it is matter of Fact whether the Decree be truly the Decree of the Councell or Popes or no. Thus do you put a weapon into every mad mans hand and if any man will fancy himself to have certain reason to say as James Naylour did that â—he hath the Spirit of Christ or is a second Christ you will maintain that such a man is not to submit his certain reason to any body And so instead of making it good That there are no Hâ—retiques in the Church you maintain the ground of all Heresie and take away the Source of all Unity in Faith which is submission to the Church The Tenth Objection Those of Port-Royall that is the Jansenists condemn the Propositions which the Pope condemneth they maintain nothing against him or the Church Therefore they are not Heretiques This is the main subject of the little Letter which is put between the Seventeenth and Eighteenth and in a manner all the reason of it for all is a deducing of this in the example of the Arians Nestorians Euâ—ycâ—ians Monotheliâ—es Lutherans Calvinists c. who were therefore condemned bâ—cause they held Propositions which the Church condemned and confessed they held them which the Jansenists deny But I answer That the Jansenists do not condemn the Propositions which the Pope condemns nor maintain what he maintains Pope Alexander in his Bull saith We define and declare that the Five Propositions are taken out of Jansenius his Book and condemned in the sense intended by Jansenius and we do again condemn them as such and we condemn the Book of Jansenius The Jansenists or those of Port-Royall say the Five Propositions are not in Jansenius nor condemned in Jansenius his Sense that the Book of Jansenius is not condemned and coutaineth not Heresie What can be more opposite to the Popes Definition Now what you reply That this is not matter of Faith to know whether the Propositions be Jansenius's or no I have already answered you in the Second and Third Objection Again for what you say pag. 321. That if any one that hath eyes to read hath not met with the Propositions in Jansenius he may safely say I have not read them there and shall not for that be called an Heretique I answer That he may say so without Heresie for perhaps he understood not or maâ—ke not what he read or read not all Jansenius and meerly to say I have not found the Propositions in Jansenius is not to be an Heretique But to say they are not there * Pag. 300. as you do and to maintain That the Doctrine of the Book is good and wholesome Doctrine and not condemned that is to be a Jansenist and to defend Hereticall Propositions The sequell will shew the Truth of what I say and declare the aim of these turbulent spirits They do not say we have read the Book and cannot finde the Propositions there for to make the world believe that they are Dunces or cannot understand Laâ—ne for it were not for their purpose to be thought simple fools But they say so That the world upon their credit may judge that the Five Propositions are not there or which is equivalent that the Doctrine which is there is good Doctrine and not condemnend And so by saying this they do really approve the Doctrine and
believed to have wronged Janseniuâ— by false accusations And you set out many Histories of the Errours of Popes and Councels that it might as easily be believed that the Pope and Synod of France have â—rrâ—d in condemning Jansenius upon the Jesuits false information And so you leave nothing certain in the Church nothing to be obeyed for what is certain what is to be submitted unto if not the Decrees of Popes and Councels But I desire the Reader to take notice that as you have done in the Jesuits Books so in the Histories of the Popes and Councels which you mention you have falsified and misapplied many things and given for certain that which the best Authors have delivered as very dubious and suspected as may be seen in Baronius Bellarmin and others where is set down a clear answer to every one of these stories But you did not think sit to set down the Answers it was enough for you to bring the Objections so to undermine as much as you could the Authority of the Church by making the world think Fathers were against Fathers Popes against Popes Councells against Councells which never was in any matter which brings any consequence to destroy the union of Faith and submission to the Church which is that you would overthrow It would be too long a businesse to refute every particular story I content my self then to tell the Reader That 't is you that tell these stories that is one who for his perpetuall Imposture deserves no credit all And that Baronius and Bellarmin and many Learned Controvertists beside have solved all the difficulties which occurre in these passages all which have been objected by many Adversaries of the Catholique Church with more vigour then this Pedant objects them with The last thing then which you say and with which I conclude is That you tell us in the end of your Eighteenth Letter That Jesuits wrong the memory of a Bishop that died in the Communion of the Catholique Church and make a great noise about a matter of no concern Your Piâ—â—y to Jansenius his memory is but meer Hypocrisie You would have him judged a Saint though it were with censuring Pope Innocent and Pope Urban and Pope Alexander and the whole Synod of France who are not excusable if Jansenius his Book be Catholique But you care not that all the Popes and Bishops of the Church â—e thought never so wicked so Jansenius passe but for a Saint You care not how impious you be against all both living and dead so you be but pious towards Jansenius because of your affection to his Herrâ—ie And how can you call this a matter of small importance for which you make so great a noise and which evidently is such that the whole Church is concerned in it If what you say be true the whole Church is in an errour for falsely condemning Jansenius If your Arguments be good there must be no power in the Church to condemâ— any Heretique for never any was or can be more clearly and legally condemned then Jansenius his Book If you might have your will the Church should lose all Authority in deâ—ining matters of Faith because you will in all cases as well as this of Jansenius â—inde matter of Fact wheresoever any words written or spoken do intervene which shall serve you to cast a mist before the eyes of ignorant people to delude them and winde them into an errour against Faith The question is not betwixt the Jesuits of France and an idle Libeller whom they might easily contemne but it is betwixt the Church of Christ and Hereâ—ie If the Jesuites appear in this quarrell they do their duty and oblige all Catholiques whose common cause they defend in a matter where though you slight it the Authority of the Church is at stake and would be over-thrown if the Jansenists of Port Royall could prevail But he that secured his Church from the Gates of Hell will secure it from Port-Royall Portae inferi non praevaelebunt The Conclusion of the VVORK concerning those things which are not answer'd and concerning the Additionalls which deserve no Answer Reader By perusing the precedent Work you will see That the Authour of the Provinciall Letters remaines still under the same censuâ—e of a Slaunderer Falsifier and Jansenist That in all these Letters he hath not made good so much as one of the Twenty Nine Impostures laid to his charge That he undertook a dâ—fence of Four or Five of them but sucâ—eded so ill that he durst not adventure on the rest Out of this I conceive every rationall man will conclude That as hath often been incuâ—cated in this Work he ought not to be believed in any thing And consequently That the Reader ought at least to suspend his judgement and not give his Vâ—rdict against any Authour of the Society or others upon this mans Testmony till he hath viewed the Books For none can justly be esteemed criminall because an arrant Liar giveth him out for such This then is desired of all That before they passe their censure if they be able they will be pleased to hear both Sidâ—s and when they have read what this man objects then view the Authours in their own Works which as it seemeth but a reasonable request so I am confident it is enâ—ugh to clear all the Casuists and Doctours whom this man slaundereth It was thus a Lawyer of our Nation not long since did For having read the Provinciall Letters he who knew it was not a legall nor rationall way to judge before both Sides were heard took some pains to turn to the Authours that were taxed And he was soon satisfied For having loâ—ked on three or four Citations and found them all false he gave no more credit to the Provinciall Letters but esteemed all of no credit and cited a Maxime of the Law That he that is once convinced a Lyar ought never to be believed In this manner I appeal to all the men of England that have ability enough to understand the Authours and desire them to be Judges provided onâ—ly they will be pleased to read the Authours in their own Works And as for those who 〈◊〉 want of Abilities cannot look into Books of Divinity I entreat them that they will be pleasâ—d to aâ—k that Question which the Roman Oraâ—â—â—â— did in a defâ—â—ce of his Quis quem accusat 〈◊〉 accuseth whom The Author of the Provinciall Letters accuseth the Fathers of the Society of Jesus and with them all the Schools of Divinity Whom are we to believe It is evident that one single man ought not to bear down all the world And more evident that an ignorant man ought not to censure a number of Learned Divines And most evident that no man in reason can conceive a prejudice against the Doctrine of many great Divines to whom the world hath for many years given publique applause for Learning and Vertue upon the report of an infamous Libell condemn'd of ignorance by learned
not setting a number of hands to a Bill which ought to sway but Reason Authority and Learning that must be heard The third Thought concerneth the Apologist that writ the Book which most of these Curez are so violently set against and which maketh so much noise in France The man whosoever he be for he is unknown to me is a very learned man and I believe they that censure him will never be able to disprove him And therefore I could wish they would leave the censure to him to whom it belongeth that is to the Pope and that Judicature which the Pope hath erected for that purpose at Rome whither the Apologist hath appealed He cannot be condemned but that very many of the main Doctours of all Universities and Religious Communities must be condemned with him For he is so wary that he advanceth nothing without great Authority and rather delivereth the opinions of others then his own I will not say but that there may be some fault in him I know divers have condemned him and divers also maintain him and unlesse a greater authority intervene then what one private Academy or any single persons verdict can give he hath and will alwayes have the greatest part of Universities and Divines for him The opinions which he delivereth as probable are so and will be so till he that hath authority to decide and teach the universall Church in matters of Faith and Manners shall be pleased to teach us the contrary When that is done I suppose the Authour of the Apology will submit and all good Catholiques with him Till then if I think the Apology is a learned Book and containeth solid Doctrine I think so with the Archbishop of Tholouse and the Bishop of Reâ—nes in Bretagne whose Faith Doctrine and Life are such that no man can call them in question and this every person may think till Higher Powers dispose otherwise This maketh it clear that all these Factums or Writings of these Additionalls ought not to prejudice the Apologist much lesse can they as they are here intended in England any wayes Patronize the Provinciall Letters which are argued of manifest Impostâ—re in so many and so notorious falsific â—ions Yet he that hath turned the Provinciall Letters into Latine and calleth himself Willelmus Wendrockius supposeth that all these Curez are for him and that they joyn issue with the Jansenists The fourth and last Thought is That I conceive we may justly with due respect ask some Questions of the Cuâ—ez which will breed occasion of wonder First then I ask why the Curez are so much against the Apology of the Casuists That Book was made to vindicate the credit of all Casuists against the scofâ—ing Irrisions of a Pamphleter So that it seemeth That to oppose the Apology may be construed to a â—â—sire of defending a Buffoon against a Religious Order and against all Casuists which I will not suspect of such Persons Secondly I ask why the Curez taking their Cases which they would have condemned out of a Book which containeth Jansenisme never take notice of the greater errors I mean the Heresies contained in that Book I know they endeavour an answer yet it is such as doth not satifie For still the wonder remaineth why the Curez should not shew as much zeal in desiring that Hereticall Opinions which daily spread in France should be suppressed as they do that the Morall Doctrine which they esteem bad should be condemned Thirdly I ask why do not these Curez point us out some body whom we may safely follow in resolving of Cases By taking the authority from all Casuists they leave us in the dark and wholly guidelesse in the many doubts which daily arise Is there no body who may safely be followed in matter of Cases Is there in the Church no means to clear up doubts in Morality Fourthly to end these Queries doth not this way of proceeding prejudice the Curez themselves and take away all their authority in deciding any doubt which may arise in every one of their respective Parishes For if Bonacina if Sanchez if Navarr if Lessius if Suarez if Sylvester may not be believed if their authority must not be heard though Two or Three or Ten or as Wendrockius saith ten thousand agree in a case upon what account shall the Cure be believed Allow the Cure as much vertue and learning as you will yet he cannot expect to be generally esteemed more vertuous or more learned then Navarr And so if one man though never so learned cannot decide a doubt and appease a fearfull conscience then all Curez and all Ghostly Fathers may sit still and shall have no authority in settling consciences and taking away doubts And at length Spirituall Directours shall in matter of conscience have lesse credit then a Physician or Lawyer in their Profession Nay these if they be able and conscientious men shall have more credit even in matter of conscience then a Ghostly Father For the Physician shall be believed if he tell his Patient that he may eat Flâ—sh on a Friday or that he is not obliged to fast and the Lawyer shall be credited if he warrant his Client that he may justly keep the Land which the Client doubted of But the Curâ— shall have no authority left him in any doubt for feare of the Monster of Probability For whatsoever he saith his Parishioners will tell him that he is but one Divine and that one Divine according to his own Doctrine cannot safely be followed All this in my opinion doth evidently inferre that we cannot upon the Curez complaints condemne the Apologist and those Casuists whom he citeth and followeth Yet my intention is not to dispute against the Curez nor do I undertake to defend the Apologist But as I begun so I conclude that since the Pope hath Evocated the Cause of the Curez and the Apologist to himself it is the duty of every good Catholique to expect those censures and not to precipitate his own But whatsoever be the event of the Apology this is sure that the Provinciall Letters are condemned by his Holinesse and that they are convinced of manifest Imposture Slaunder Ignorance and Heresie which being so the Doctrine of the Jesuits and other School-Divines whom those Letters inveigh against ought not to be prejudiced on that account which is all that these Answers intended to shew An Appendix in Answer to a Book entituled A further Discovery of the Mystery of Jesuitisme I Thought to have ended here having answered all that belongeth to the Provinciall Letters and their Additionalls But I am uâ—ged by severall Friends to take notice also of another Pamphleâ— called A further Discovâ—ry of the Mystery of Jesuitisme For my own opinion I conceive it to be so senslesse a Piece that it deserveth not to be taken notice of yet to condescend to the desire of others I will do as I have done in the Additionalls that is I will shew that nothing in that Book