that though the Pope was chief of Bishops yet the Congregation of Bishops was the Court from whence final resolutions were to be expected The former Tenet had of late gotten a great strength through the most parts of Christendom but the Divine Providence when it found it fitting raised the French Church which at the present is very flourishing to set a bar to their great advance as may be seen by the Papers here inserted The substance of the Advocate General 's Plea against a Thesis defended in Sorbon concerning the Pope's Infallibility Translated out of the French Copy I Do saies he acknowledge my carelesness in having suffered to scape unpunished those horrible Blasphemies which the Jesuites vomited out against Jesus Christ in a Thesis defended the last year in the College of Clermont which maintained that the Pope was as infallible in matters both of Fact and Right as Jesus Christ himself Has a greater Impiety been heard of But it is ordinary with them to teach erroneous Doctrines And I believe 't is from the impunity of that Crime that the boldness has been taken to defend the like Errours in Sorbon against her Statutes the Doctrine of the Gallican Church and the Maximes of State and of this Court How That the Pope with five or six ignorant Divines with mercenary souls should be Infallible to make Articles of Faith of whatsoever Passion Interest or Ambition shall suggest to him Our Ancestors have seen the fatal consequences and effects of this pernicious Doctrine Wherefore lest this poison should spread it self farther and this pernicious Doctrine take root if it be left unpunished I conclude the Thesis shall be struck out and blotted the Defendent and President constrained to maintain the direct contrary and the Syndic never to approve such like Theses under pain of being extraordinarily proceeded against The Pope and Bishops are not Authors of our Faith but faithfull Guardians and irrefragable Witnesses of universal Tradition received from hand to hand from Jesus Christ to us according to Vincentius Lirinensis Quod semper quod ubique quod ab omnibus creditum est hoc de Fide est c. Notes upon it Those who are acquainted with the Government of France understand that the Parliament of Paris is made of Members given to Learning and reading of Fathers and to the skill of Languages particularly Greek and Latine and by consequence of Church Antiquities and that the King's Advocate who at this present is called Monsieur Talon is ordinarily one of the most eminent and that in matters of Divinity they are tenacious of the Decrees of the Sorbon the greatest Catholick University in our parts of the World and whose Doctrine passeth for the Doctrine of the Church of France especially their Ancient Decrees It is again to be noted that he saith that the Tenet of the Pope's Personal Infallibility in making Doctrines to be of new accepted for Articles of Faith is against the Maximes of the French Government that is that it toucheth upon Treason which if it be true in France it can be no less in England and he cannot be truly loyal to his Country who obstinately maintaineth that Errour The reason is clear for if that be true the Pope may define and oblige Subjects to believe that he can depose a Prince and bind his Subjects to take Arms against him as was insinuated in a Letter confidently reported to have been lately written from Rome to Ireland by a great man of that Court though others say the Letter was counterfeited Extracted out of a Letter written from France to a Person of Quality The Jesuites having defended formerly that the Pope hath the same Infallibility with Jesus Christ Monsieur Talon the Advocate General complained of it publickly in Parliament remonstrating that this was a most horrible Impiety and highly deserving open and corporal Punishment Whereupon the Court of the said Parliament has ordained that the President the Regent and the Scholars which maintain'd it should appear personally to receive a Reprehension for the first time and a denouncing of corporal and publick punishment intended and resolv'd to be inflicted in case any of them should relapse into the like Blasphemy hereafter Notes upon it The Thesis mentioned is that against which was divulged the Paper entituled THE JESUITES NEW HERESIE which insinuates that the Tenet of the Pope's Infallibility was their former Heresie which is a gentle Censure upon a Doctrine able to introduce Heresies without number into the Church of God as is evident to whosoever shall consider how easie it is for a dozen of Divines to be either corrupted or deceived and yet our Faith by this Position is made to depend on their Science and Integrity Note again that the King's Advocate professeth that the Tenet of the Pope's Infallibility in matters of Fact deserveth publick and corporal punishment which signifies no less then whipping banishment or some such like punishment and that it is a Crime deserving that the Civil Magistrate ought to take notice of it This Absurdity was invented by the Jesuites in envy to the great Scholar Jansenius to the end that people might be persuaded he held Errours not visible in his Books of the which they calumniated him and would prove him guilty of them onely by the Pope's Infallible word defining him to be so which mad Prank of theirs has made such a pother in France of late years A Decree of the Court of Parliament against a Theological Conclusion intended to have been maintain'd the 19 of January 1662 3. by Monsieur Gabriel Droüet of Ville-neufve Bachelor Given the 22 of January 1662 3 at Paris Extracted out of the Registers of Parliament and faithfully render'd into English THis day the Court having deliberated upon what was by the King's Council represented the 19 and 20 of this present Month concerning a Thesis intended to have been maintain'd the said 19 day by Monsieur Gabriel Drouet of Ville-neufve in Britany Bachelor in Divinity at the Act call'd The great Ordinary of SORBON which contain'd in its Second Position Christus Sanctum Petrum ejúsque Successores summâ supra Ecclesiam Auctoritate donavit Christ gave Saint Peter and his Successors highest Authority over the Church in its Third Romani Antistites Privilegia quibusdam Ecclesiis sicut Ecclesiae Gallicanae impertiunt The Bishops of Rome bestow Privileges upon certain Churches as upon the French Church in its Eighth Concilia Generalia ad exstirpandas Haereses Schismata alia tollenda incommoda admodum sunt utilia non tamen absolutè necessaria General Councils are very profitable to extirpate Heresies and Schisms and to take away other inconveniencies but not absolutely necessary and many other Propositions contrary to the Authority of the Church to the Ancient Doctrine alwaies received and conserved in this Kingdome to the holy Canons to the Decrees of General Councils and to the Liberties of the Gallican Church tending also to exalt the power of the Pope
before any man had the boldness to maintain them This we generally find in all Heresies The Doctrine of Arius is an Heresie but it does not consist in the vain and indeterminate words of the Doctrine of Arius but in this particular Position or Opinion that the Son is not consubstantial with the Father It is the very same in all the rest They all maintain a peculiar and distinct Dogme independent from the name of the Author and when we do not know the Opinion any more we say that we know the Heresie no more and if a man had never known it he might well say that it never was This is sufficient say the Divines to repell that unjust Reproch which they fling upon us of being sectators of a new Heresie For we sincerely protest that we intirely acquiesce in the Authority of the Universal Church that we embrace without the least reservation all the Dogms which She proposes to us as of Faith that we submit all our Understanding and Reason to her and that our hearts do not at all accuse us of holding any Doctrine which is repugnant to her Decisions so as we can say before God with confidence upon this subject Iniquitatem si aspexi in corde meo non exaudiet Dominus We do not conceal our sense but are ready to referre it to the Pope and to the Bishops and to accept them for our Judges We have offer'd it several times and have this consolation that those who are the most prejudic'd against us have nothing to object against us In fine we are so far from embracing any particular Doctrine on the Five Propositions that though we do not acknowledge the Jesuites for the Rules of our Faith yet it is most true that we hold no Opinion upon the matter of the Five Propositions which they dare publickly accuse of Heresie before the Pope or the Bishops How clear and ingenuous Sir is this Declaration how truly Catholick and exceedingly remote from all suspicion of Heresie and that not onely for acquitting these persons of Errours but for shewing that they could not be culpable of Heresie if without their knowledge and consent they should haply fall into some Errour since all the world knows that the crime of Heresie does not consist simply in the Errour but in the Obstinacy to maintain and dwell in an Errour against the judgment of the Church Now how is it possible that these people should impudently maintain an Errour they are totally ignorant of against a judgement of the Church which they know nothing of But this does not satisfie the Jesuites and because they do not find their reckoning in it they continue their accusation of Heresie and this is it which has oblig'd the Divines to give them this defiance and which is certainly very urging Either set the Heresie you impute to us distinctly and clearly down or acknowledge your selves Calumniators for accusing us of an Heresie which you cannot tell what to make of On this it is that the Jesuites have reveal'd the Mysterie of their Politicks and the whole secret of the Heresie In stead of endeavouring to set down describe the Positions a thing which upon trial did never succeed with them they intrench themselves and have recourse to the uncertain expression of the Sense and of the Doctrine of Jansenius without any farther advance You hold say they the Doctrine of Jansenius to be Catholick the Pope declares it heretical behold then your Heresie But as they had to doe with persons very well prepar'd to defend themselves so never was there an Equivocation unriddled as this has been They told F. Annat in express terms that this was a Scholastical Sophism unworthy an old Logician as he was Nunquámne intelliges Dialectice senex puerile argumentationis vitium and they prov'd it well too For some of them it seems condemn his Sense and his Doctrine as heretical whiles others defend it for Catholick without the least difference between them concerning Faith because it is not the same precise and determin'd Sense which is thus condemn'd by some and approv'd by others though they both of them call it by the same name and that is but what we daily meet with in the different explication of an Author For there is ever in these encounters this opposition of words that some affirm the Doctrine of an Author to be Catholick and others that 't is heretical though neither of them disagree touching the true Faith The Fifth Council pronounces the Doctrine of Theodoret to be impious and heretical Father Petavius and many other Jesuites deny it are they therefore against the Faith of the Council By no means since they defend Theodoret but by interpreting him after another way then did the Council and by giving him a Catholick sense 'T is the very same case in the present Dispute The Pope saies the Doctrine of Jansenius is heretical other men say We find no such matter in Jansenius The words have indeed an appearance of contrariety but without implying the least contrariety of Faith forasmuch as the Doctrine which these Divines maintain to be Catholick and of Jansenius is not certainly the same Doctrine which the Pope condemns for heretical and as being that of Jansenius And the proof which they bring is decisive We do not say they maintain on the matter of the Five Propositions any thing save the Doctrine of Grace efficacious alone as 't is held by S. Augustine and by the whole School of S. Thomas Now 't is clear that the Pope does no-where condemn this Doctrine as he makes all the Church believe and indeed as both the Church and the Jesuites themselves do accord It is then certain that the Pope does not condemn that which we understand under the notion of the Sense of Jansenius as we likewise do not hold what the Pope condemns under these terms seeing this Doctrine excepted we have nothing at all to doe with the rest but reject it in general as we are ready to doe in particular when-ever the Church shall please to describe it in particular or to shew us where it is And thus you have the whole state of this ten-years Dispute The Jesuites stand to their sense of Jansenius and all men that will may perceive the Illusion and Equivocation of the terms But in fine F. Ferrier is come up from the very farthest part of all Languedoc to the aid of his Confraternity and has been chosen by F. Annat to publish this Heresie and to answer all those Writings which made it plainly out that it is but a mere Chimaera but especially he undertook to replie to the Treatise of Just Complaints which expressly clears this Equivocation of the Sense of Jansenius Now therefore it is that we shall shortly come to know in what this wondrous Heresie consists or else we must never hope to understand it whiles we live What saies this Reverend Father to us then That 't is expedient to publish
the true Idea of Jansenism in effect 't is very expedient and there it was it should indeed have been begun For 't is a wondrous strange thing that men should make such a noise about a business which no body yet understands And also saies F. Ferrier because these Divines complain in their Writings that we accuse them of an Heresie without being able to determine what it is I find my self oblig'd to say their complaints are very unjust It has been told them a thousand times over that their Heresie consists in their believing and maintaining that the Doctrine of Jansenius on the Five Propositions is Catholick although the Church condemn it for Heretical which is quoth he pag. 3. a true Question of Right that presupposes matter of Fact viz. That Jansenius establishes some Doctrine in his Augustine and in this Question one cannot divide the Fact from the Right that is to say one cannot hold the Doctrine which is condemn'd for heretical and at the same moment maintain the Doctrine of Jansenius upon these Propositions not to be the same which the Popes have condemn'd This is all the illumination that F. Ferrier affords us upon this point and to which all his Colours are reduc'd After this 't is to no purpose to hope for any other either from him or from any else He has done his utmost was too far engag'd and we are not to believe that any body will ever be able to out-doe him But in earnest Sir 't is an Abuse beyond all humane patience to promote as F. Ferrier does here a thing so invisible as is this Heresie without Dogme and to make as if he understood nothing of so many convincing reasons by which the falsity of this pretence has been made evident to stand so obstinately in an Equivocation that has been so fully detected and to repeat in cold bloud seriously and gravely Absurdities which have been a hundred times overthrown as if they were infallible Oracles I profess to you Sir I know not what to think of all this unless perhaps the Jesuites may imagine that being as they are powerfull in the world they may lawfully say and doe what they please themselves as being no more subject like other men to the dictates of Reason and common Sense Was there any need that F. Ferrier should himself have discovered the Mysterie of this Heresie without Position or to say better this Heresie without Heresie Did not the Cordelier Jubilé doe it before him and fully as well Every body derided it in this Frier and so will they doe in this Jesuite so as if this be all that he has to doe at Paris he may e'en goe back again to his Province His staying at Paris will be no advantage to his Cause and most certainly blemish his Reputation But saies F. Ferrier 'T is a Question of Right to understand whether the Doctrine of Jansenius be Catholick or Heretical as it also is to know whether the Doctrine of S. Augustine be orthodox or not But I maintain that whoever saies so knows not what a Question of Right or a Question of Fact signifies We must doe all we can then to penetrate through these natural or voluntary Obscurities of F. Ferrier and after this if he render not up himself I shall esteem him for a desperado We are not to imagine that so soon as ever the words of Catholick Doctrine and Heretical Doctrine come into a Question it is presently a Question of Right since if so several Contestations would likewise be reduc'd to Questions of Right which are merely but of Fact being expressed by these terms And for instance they would affirm that there is a Question of Right between the Fifth Council and Father Petavius seeing the Council condemns the Doctrine of Theodoret as Heretical and this Father maintains it to be Catholick which in the language of F. Ferrier one would name a Right But to know in very truth whether a Question be of Right or of Fact or of both of them together you are onely to consider what both parties agree in and what they contest for 't is evident that the Question does not fall upon that which is accorded but wholly on that which is disputed When therefore two persons are agreed that a certain Dogm or Position is heretical and question onely whether this Dogm be of such an Author or not the dispute is onely concerning the matter of Fact The Jesuites and the Sixth Council do consent that 't is an Heresie to say There is but one Will in J. Christ but they are at variance whether this Heresie was taught by Pope Honorius The Council affirms it the Jesuites deny it This is only a Question of Fact though it be express'd by terms which look like matter of Right The sense of Honorius is heretical saies the VIth Council The sense of Honorius is Catholick say the Jesuites When men agree on the contrary that an Author has taught a certain Doctrine and the dispute be whether this Doctrine be Catholick or heretical the Question is of the Right not the Fact because the Effect is agreed upon and the Right is contested The Monothelites and the Sixth Council agreed that Pope Honorius taught that there was but one Will in J. Christ but the Monothelites pretended that this Doctrine was Catholick the Council maintains it for Heretical This is a Question of Right express'd by the same terms with the other The Doctrine of Honorius is Catholick say the Monothelites The Doctrine of Honorius is heretical saies the Sixth Council But when they are not agreed concerning a certain Doctrine whether it be Catholick or Heretical or has been promoted by some Author there the Question is concerning Fact and Right together because both of them are disputed The Monothelites affirm that 't is a Catholick Doctrine to say there is but one Will in J. C. as Pope Honorius teaches the Jesuites reply the Doctrine is not Catholick and that 't is falsly imputed to P. Honorius Here the Question is both of Fact and Right But that which is strange is this that when they dispute in this manner concerning matter of Fact and Right they both accord in the expression For the Jesuites who neither agree with the Monothelites either in the Fact or Right do yet consent with them in this expression contrary to that of the Council that the Doctrine of Honorius is Catholick 'T is an easie matter by this Rule to detect the Illusion of F. Ferrier who maintains it generally in his Writings that these are Questions of Right viz. to know whether the Doctrine of S. Augustine be orthodox or not or this of Jansenius heretical or Catholick For 't is evident that insisting upon the general terms one cannot distinguish whether they be Questions of Fact or of Right whiles 't is possible to form upon the Doctrine of S. Augustine and on that of any other Author whatsoever Questions purely of Right and Questions both of
that those amongst some of the new Doctors who would be thought the most favourable to Popes as Monsieur du Val have not been afraid to maintain the Pope's being Infallible was no matter of Faith Duvallius de Suprema authorit Rom. Pontific l. 2. q. 1. Non est de fide Summum Pontificem esse Infallibilem And that the Opinion which assures us he is not is neither erroneous nor rash Ibid. Non est erroneum neque temerarium temeritate Opinionis dicere Summum Pontificem in decernendo errare posse But these very Divines however studious of exalting as much as they could possibly the Authority of the Soveraign Bishops do acknowledge as a thing certain indubitable and constant amongst all Catholicks That they are not Infallible in matters of Fact That therein they may erre and That indeed they are very frequently mistaken Bellarm de Sum. Pontif l. 4. c. 2. All Catholicks saies Cardinal Bellarmine accord in this That the Pope acting as Pope and with the Assembly of his Counsellers yea even with a General Council it self may be deceived in particular facts which depend upon the information and testimony of men And applying this general Maxime to a matter of Fact perfectly resembling that of Jansenius which is to consider whether the Heresie of the Monothelites be comprehended in the Epistles of Honorius as the VI. General Council confirm'd by so many Popes hath defin'd it he adds A General and Lawfull Council cannot erre in defining Points of Faith as neither has the Sixth Council erred therein but it may erre in Questions concerning matters of Fact Ibid. c. 11. Generale Concilium legitimum non potest errare ut neque erravit hoc Sextum in Dogmatibus Fidei definiendis tamen errare potest in Quaestionibus de Facto And Cardinal Baronius affirms the very same upon the same Subject of the Sixth Oecumenical Council We do not so strictly receive the Condemnation even of General Councils themselves as to what concerns mens Persons and their Writings For no body doubts but that who-ever it is he may be deceived in matters of Fact and then is that expression of S. Paul to take place We can doe nothing against the Truth but for the Truth Baron ad An. 681. n. 39. In his enim quae Facti sunt unumquemque contingere posse falli nemini dubium est All other Divines even the most devoted to the Court of Rome have hitherto contain'd themselves within these limits but the Jesuites will no more indure either bounds or Examples in their excess and extravagancies It suffices not them to render the Pope Infallible as some Divines may possibly have done They will have it that Jesus Christ has absolutely imparted to him the very same Infallibility which He himself possess'd upon the Earth and that as this Infallibility of Jesus Christ extended to all and not onely to things already reveal'd but to those things which had never yet been so reveal'd and that he made known himself in saying them so the Pope does also become Infallible not onely in proposing to the Church what is contain'd in the reveal'd Will of God but in proposing to her likewise matters of Fact which it is evident and certain God has never yet reveal'd as when for Instance the Question is Whether these Propositions are in a Book of the Seventeenth Age. Nor are these any Consequences which we may naturally deduce from their doctrine they draw them thence themselves and form Catholick Assertions of them conformable to the Title of their Position There is then say they an Infallible Judge of Controversies of Faith even extrinsecal to a General Council it self as well for Questions appertaining to Right as for those which concern matters of Fact And that you should not doubt what it is they would signifie by these Questions of Fact albeit the word Fact oppos'd to Right renders it sufficiently perspicuous they produce for an Example and as a new Consequence of this Infallibility of Jesus Christ communicated to the Pope That since the Constitutions we may believe with a divine Faith that the Book of Jansenius is heretical and that the Five Propositions do belong to this Author Unde post Innocentii X. Alexandri VII Constitutiones fide divinâ credi potest Librum cui titulus est Jansenii Augustinus esse haereticum Quinque Propositiones ex eo decerptas esse Jansenii Behold then here the Proposition which these men assert publickly in one of the greatest Cities of the World and it is worth observing to note the Original and the date of it For those who now at present promote it so boldly had long since scatter'd the seeds thereof in some of their Writings and it was sufficiently evident that all their design was to be bottom'd upon this Errour they had likewise themselves advanced the Conclusions in one place and the Principles in another but it was still with certain windings and ambiguities of termes which as yet furnish'd them with lurking-holes and places of subterfuge but now they discover nakedly and without disguise to the Church what it is they pretend to establish in her Let the whole Church take notice of it then and record it That it was the 12 of December in the year 1661 that the Jesuites openly publish'd that monstrous Opinion which they have been so long a-brooding That it was upon this day they propos'd as a most Catholick Assertion That whenever the Pope does speak out of his Chair HE HATH THE SAME INFALLIBILITY THAT JESUS CHRIST HATH not onely in Questions of Right BUT ALSO IN MATTERS OF FACT and that hence we are to believe WITH A FAITH DIVINE that those Five Propositions are of Jansenius It will My Lords be needless to amplifie much in letting the world see that this is not here onely a solitary Errour or simple Heresie but a whole source of Errours and as one may say an Universal Heresie which overthrows all Religion For you know My Lords that the very prime Fundamental of Christian Religion is That our Faith is not supported upon the word of Men but upon the Word of God which is Truth it self and that it is That which renders it immoveable and altogether Divine whereas it would else prove but Humane were it upheld by any other Authority less then that of God and if we were not able to render our selves that Testimony which S. Paul gives the Christians of Thessalonica To have received the Word which God hath taught us by his Church and that not as the Word of Men but as the Word of God and as in truth it is Non ut verbum hominum sed sicut est verè verbum Dei De error Abailardi c. 4. Whatsoever is comprised in the Faith saies S. Bernard is built upon solid and certain Truth persuaded by the divine Oracles confirmed by Miracle and consecrated by the production of the Virgin by the bloud of
derives in his Writings That if it be lawfull to say the Pope did not well understand Jansenius in condemning him one might as well say of the Church that she did not rightly comprehend the Doctrine of S. Augustine in approving it since it being not permitted to doe either of them without Reason it were lawfull to doe both when Reason requir'd it And the truth is that one of them which is to affirm the Doctrine of Jansenius was never throughly understood at Rome is very lawfull because there is great Reason to believe it and the other that the Doctrine of S. Augustine was not well comprehended is very unlawfull because there is also no Reason for it as will be demonstrated in another Treatise One cannot therefore know in general whether it be lawfull or not to affirm that an Author has been ill understood by the Church since it depends on the particular Reasons which induce one to say it Nor can one also know in general whether those who dispute whether the Doctrine of an Author be Catholick or Heretical are at variance upon the Right or the Fact since it may be upon either of them but one may clearly understand it by examining in Particular what is agreed upon or contested both by the one and the other And hence it is they easily prove that the present Contestation about the Doctrine of Jansenius is a pure Question of Fact For it would in truth prove a Question of Right if there were a certain precise Dogm maintain'd by some for Catholick and condemn'd by others for heretical But seeing the contrary is true that there is no precise and determin'd Dogm in the present Contestation as appears clearly from F. Ferrier's not being able to specifie any 't is visible that the Question is but concerning matter of Fact And therefore it must be acknowledg'd F. Ferrier has not altogether fail'd of the promise which he makes in the Title of his Treatise to present us with the true Idea of Jansenism For this true Idea consisting in conceiving an Imaginary Heresie his Treatise is of excellent use for the forming of this Idea since in Heresie without Position and without any Question concerning Faith such as is what he presents us is the true Idea of an Imaginary Heresie 'T is true indeed this is not his intention in it but many times men doe things contrary to their intentions Nor was it doubtless his design to shew us that the Jesuites be Hereticks how-ever one might invincibly prove it by an argument like that which he produces against the Divines whom he strives to render Hereticks He acknowledges no other matter of Fact in the Pope's Decision which declares that the Doctrine of Jansenius on the Five Propositions is heretical then this Jansenius teaches some Doctrine on the Five Prepositions which is certain he will have all the rest to be of Right and thence concludes That the Divines whom he accuses not denying this Fact That Jansenius did teach some Dogm upon the Five Propositions and yet refusing to own that his sense is heretical deny a Right and are Hereticks If this argument be valid behold the Jesuites arrant Hereticks without remedy For there is no more to be said but the same That it being certain the Sixth Council has condemn'd the Doctrine of Honorius this Decision comprehends no other Fact then this That Honorius teaches some Doctrine concerning the Will of J. Christ which is indubitable and by consequent the Jesuites who do not deny this Fact yet denying Honorius's sense to be heretical deny a Right and are Hereticks This obligation therefore the Jesuites have to F. Ferrier that he has made them rank Hereticks if you will believe him But it were yet a great charity to draw them out of this Heresie they have a world of others where it is impossible to warrant them The expedient is easie it being onely to shew them after how extraordinary a manner their F. Ferrier is mistaken For it is very certain the matter of Fact which he specifies That Jansenius has taught some Doctrine is to be found in this Question whether the Doctrine of Jansenius be Catholick or Heretical But there yet occurrs another also very distinct and far separate from Right and which has been the whole subject of this Contestation and this it is he dissembles Perhaps F. Ferrier imagines that when one submits a Book to the Pope to judge whether the Doctrine in it be Catholick or heretical 't is sufficient for him to know that the Book teaches some Doctrine upon a certain matter and that thereupon addressing himself to God he reveals to him that this Doctrine of which he all this while knows nothing is Catholick or Heretical If Ecclesiastical judgements were made after this sort there would in effect be no need to examine any other Fact then this whether the Author in controversie do teach some Doctrine upon a certain subject and this Fact being alwaies evident there would hardly be ever any Questions of Fact because men seldom dispute whether an Author have some Doctrine upon a subject no matter what But because this Imagination comprehends in it a very gross Errour since it supposes particular Revelations in the Pope which should be the foundations of these Decisions it is evident that Ecclesiastical judgements are not made in this manner Neither the Pope nor Bishops can judge whether the Doctrine of a Book be Catholick or Heretical without comparing it with Tradition Now 't is impossible they should compare it with Tradition without they distinctly know it Men never compare a Doctrine with Tradition which they know not but under the general Idea of the Doctrine of an Author For 't is neither Catholick nor Heretical as Doctrine nor as Doctrine of an Author The Doctrine of God is essentially true as being the Doctrine of God because God is the essential Truth But the Doctrine of the Devil himself is not false as being the Doctrine of the Devil because the Devil is not false from his Essence and because he sometimes speaks truth as when he acknowledged that J. Christ was the Son of God A fortiori the Doctrine of a Catholick Author is not Heretical because it is a Doctrine and because it is his Of necessity therefore ought both the Pope and the Bishops to judge rightly whether the Doctrine of a Book be Heretical or Catholick pass through the examen of this point of Fact That it is the Doctrine of this Book and to reduce it to some precise Position distinct and determinate from whence first to establish this Judgment of Fact namely that This Dogm and Position is of such an Author and after that this Judgment of Right This Dogm is Heretical or Catholick It is of this distinct Dogm that they affirm these two things viz. That it is of such an Author That it is Heretical But they affirm it by two very separate and remote Judgments and form'd upon most different
The Fourth is the opinion of several other Divines who are persuaded of one part that it is most false the Fact should be separated from Right or that it should be a point of Faith to hold the Doctrine of Jansenius heretical or that a man is obliged to believe it by humane Faith but who believe on the other part that the Fact being contain'd in this Formularie those who scruple it cannot sign it without restriction since the declarations which men make to the Church ought to be intirely sincere and free of all duplicity It is visible that in this difference of Divines each party condemns the others but after a sort very different The Jesuites who make the first ought by the necessary consequence of their Opinion to condemn for Heresie not onely the last who absolutely refuse to sign that the sense of Jansenius is heretical but those likewise who do not believe it of humane Faith or that believe it not at all albeit they sign it For Heresie consists in the opinion of the spirit and not in the omission of an exterior action of the hand A person who should not believe but with an humane Faith that the Body of J. Christ were in the Sacrament of the Eucharist or that should sign it in infidelity would be never the less an Heretick then he who should absolutely refuse to sign it So as all those many Bishops that have caus'd none to sign or that receive restrictions concerning the matter of Fact or that declare they do not require the belief of the Fact or that pretend not the Fact can be otherwise believ'd then by humane Faith are as much Hereticks in the judgement of the Jesuites and of F. Annat as these Divines whom they particularly persecute True it is their Politicks oblige them to distinguish of two sorts of Hereticks in France some of which they treat civilly and others most outrageously They place the Bishops Sorbonists the Fathers of the Oratory the Benedictines c. in the first order and whom they do not yet attacque but by consequence though by a very necessary one whiles they range in the other those whom they immediately design for ruine that so they may with the greater force surprize the other Therefore it is sufficiently evident that all those persons who have sign'd the Fact either of humane Faith or without believing it shall be never the more acquitted for that but be all Hereticks in their turn when they have left off oppressing the others seeing they must of necessity be so in the opinion of the Jesuites But on the contrary all these three last parties who accord in this point that this Fact of Jansenius is very separable from Right that it does not in the least concern the Faith and that one may safely deny it without Heresie ought from a necessary consequence of this their mutual Opinion condemn the Jesuites both of Calumny and Errour It is certain these four Parties reside in the Church and that if one would now consider which of them were the most numerous one might safely affirm that there are none more profligate and abandon'd and who have fewer sincere approbators then that of the Jesuites Nor is this an aiery Supposition but a real Verity to be discern'd by every one that has a mind to it that the Jesuites stand almost single in this pretension that matter of Fact is inseparable from matter of Right and that one cannot believe without being an Heretick the Doctrine of Jansenius not to be heretical The most devoted to the Jesuites of the Bishops ask for whom the World takes them that they should believe them capable of so monstrous a Folly as is that of affirming that a Fact should be inseparably joyn'd to Faith They express as much as one would wish in words that they do not require the assent of Fact They receive the Subscriptions of those whom they very well know do not believe it and who declare as much before they sign All the Curats of Paris do solemnly approve and by an authentick Act the Distinction between Fact and Right contain'd in the first Mandat of Paris In fine they proceed with confidence that the Jesuites cannot find six Bishops in all France and ten Divines of the least considerable persons who will sign this Proposition which F. Ferrier maintains and which is the basis of all his Treatise The Fact of Jansenius is inseparable from Faith and one cannot reject the Dogm which is condemned without acknowledging it to be Jansenius ' s. And in particular they affirm that he could not make M. Grandin sign nor M. Moret nor amongst the Doctors M. Chamillart nor Monsieur de Rouën amongst the Bishops It is certain therefore that the Jesuites are in a manner alone in their erroneous opinions And 't is as true that the Divines whom they persecute are almost wholly united to the Church in this difference which is between them I confess they have yet some dispute with the other Divines because against the one they maintain that one owes not so much as humane Faith to Decisions de facto when there is any cause of doubt administred and against the other that it was not altogether sincere in them to subscribe a Formularie which clearly comprizes a Fact without being fully persuaded of the Fact But this difference has relation to Manners onely and not to Faith and in this very difference they may make use of the authority of the one to defend themselves against the other Those who sign the Fact as of humane Faith approve of their Doctrine touching the Sincerity of Subscriptions Those who sign the Fact without believing it approve what they affirm That the Church obliges none to believe the Fact by way of command so as to the truth they have this consolation that in every of the Points whereof they are accus'd they are united in Opinion with the greatest part of the Divines of the Church Whoever shall take the pains diligently to inform himself of the bottom of these particulars will clearly find that what I say is most true And if any man ask why the contrary appears to the World that the Jesuites domineer every-where and the Divines are oppress'd it is not very difficult to give a reason for it They are onely to consider what Post F. Annat holds and what Power the place in which he is affords him both at Rome and at Paris to doe what he pleases as to this matter They know nothing at Rome but from the Instructions which he sends them and he stands at the gate of all the Benefices of France to exclude who-ever stands in his way in any thing Every one has his particular business at Court and those who have no other either for themselues or their Communalty enjoy their repose in which they will not be molested Jansenism is the onely affair of Father Annat so as that people may not be cross'd in their particular businesses