to the Reply made in defence of the Twelfth Provinciall Letter Argument 1. THat the Authour of this Reply hath not excused the Authour of the Provinciall Letters from the main crimes objected to him but left him in the lurch 2. Vasquez his Conclusions of Alms set down out of his Treatise of Alms. 3. Out of these Conclusions the Authour of the Reply and the Jansenist are evidently convinced of notorious Imposture 4. Some generall Notions of Simony given 5. Clear Imposture discovered in forging words in the name of Valentia when Valentia hath no such words 6. The Author of the Reply convinced out of his own words of Imposture in his trifling discourse against Tanner SIR YOur Friend the Jansenist is very little obliged to you for instead of helping him out of the miâ—e you have plunged him deeper in You know he was told in the Answer to his Twelfth Letter that he was justly called Heretique since the Church calleth him so for defending the Hereticall Propositions of Jansenius What Answer do you make You know he was told that since as was shewed in the Impostures his objections against the Society were generally the same which Du Moulin had made against the Church he could not take it ill to be called Du Moulins Disciple What Answer do you make You know he was told that the Title of Impostor and Falsiâ—ier was given the Authour of the Book of Morall Divinity burnt by the Hangman and therefore he having formed his Letters on that mould ought not to count it a wrong done him that the Jesuites gave his Letters the Title which the Parliament of Bourdeoux gave the Originall from whence they were copied What Answer do you make The reall crimes which your Friend hath committed make him guilty of these Titles of Heretique of Disciple of Du Moulin of Impostour c. What say you for him If you will defend him you must speak here or else I must tell you as your Friend hath already been told That silence in such crimes as these argueth conviction You tell us You judge these things said to divert the Authour From what That you do not tell us But â—â—e tell you from what These things were said to divert the Author from falsifying and abusing learned Writers which he doth not understand They were said to divert him from stealing calumnies out of condemned Libells They were said to divert him from Heresies They were said to divert others from giving credit to a fabulous Slanderer convinced of so many grosse and ignorant Calumnies It was this diversion was aimed at for his good and the good of those whose facil credulity he abuseth He ought to have cleared himself had it been possible for him from these just accusations and yet you who will needs take up the Cudgels in his quarrel tell us You are glad to see his Thirteenth Letter come abroad without taking any notice of the Answer to his Eleventh and Twelfth Letters where these crimes were laid to his charge This indeed may help to embolden your Friend and make him a little more impudent in belying Authours since you clap him o' the back and are glad to see him slight his being convicted but it will never help to clear him But because you expresse your joy at the sight of the Thirteenth Letter I pray tell me were you glad to see that whereas in the beginning he undertakes to answer the Fourth Imposture in English the Fourteenth and with it Seven more he notwithstanding never toucheth one of those Seven Were you glad to see That that very Fourteenth Impostuâ—e which he handleth is so pittifully treated that it is but reading one short passage of Lâ—ssius which I have inserted in the end of this Book for to see his Ignominy written in undeniable Characters It is no friendly part to be glad that one for whom you have a kindenesse saith what he cannot prove and undertakes what he cannot perform yet you are glad to see this in your Friend which another man would be ashamed of in a Stranger And perhaps your Friend the Jansenist in whose vindication you write will be as glad to see your Letter which is much according to his palate full of falsity and errours You undertake to shew that he hath not wronged Vasquez nor Valentia nor Tanner Let 's see how you perform it And to proceed orderly let 's begin with Vasquez and first lay down the accusations on both sides and then come to you The Authour then of the Provinciall Letters speaketh thus in his Sixth Letter It is said in the Gospel Give Alms of your superfluity and yet divers Casuists have found out a way to exempt even the richest persons from this obligation of giving Alms by interpreting the word superfluity insomuch that it seldom or never happeneth that any man is troubled with any such thing And this is done by the learned Vasquez in this manner What ever men lay up out of a design to raise their fortunes or those of their relation is not called superfluous For which reason it will be hard to finde any among those that are worldly minded that have ought superfluous no not even among Kings And a little after he concludeth That it will be as sure a way according to Vasquez for a man that desires to work his Salvation to be guilty of ambition enough that so he may have nothing superfluous as it is according to the Gospel not to be ambitious at all To this the Jesuites answered That Vasquez taught quite contrary to what the Jansenist imposed on him Here was then the question to be decided in the Twelfth Letter and in its Answer viz. Whether the Authour of the Provinciall Letters â—ad cited Vasquez right or no And you Sir who undertake to second the Jansenist Authour of the Provinciall Letters maintain that Vasquez is not wronged but that he is really Authour of the Doctrine for which he is cited I undertake to prove the contrary Our question must be cleared by looking into Vasquez as he lieth in that Treatise of Alms which consisteth of four Chapters Of these four the first onely is that where he treateth the question in hand concerning Alms which secular men are bound to give I shall therefore draw out from thence all Vasquez his Conclusions concerning this question keeping as near as may be not onely the sense but the very expressions of Vasquez Vasquez his Conclusions concerning Alms which Secular Men are bound to give First all grant that the Precept of actually giving Alms is an Affirmative Precept which doth not oblige at all times Dub. 3. num 10. Secondly all agree that this Precept obligeth under mortall sin when our neighbour is in extream necessity Ibid. Thirdly all seem to agree though perhaps some dissent that no man is bound to give Alms when the necessity of the poor is not urgent but onely ordinary Ibid. Fourthly some say that though you have that which is superfluous not
onely to nature but also to your state or condition yet that there is no obligation of Pâ—ecept for you to give Alms excepting onely when some poor man is in extream necessity So saith Gabriel Alexander Major Gerson But St. Antonin â—onrad and Durand speak dubiously Ibid. n. 12. Fifthly notwithstanding this there are other cases besides those of extream necessity in which a man is bound to give Alms. Ibid. â— 15. Sixthly the ground of the obligation which I have to give Alms is That Charity exacteth that I should give that which is necessary to another and superfluous to me yet if the necessity be but ordinary and not urgent it seemeth very hard to oblige me under mortall sin â— 21. But as exâ—ream necessity doth oblige so urgent necessity obligeth also n. 24 As therefore I am bound under Precept to relieve another mans extream necessity out of that which is superfluous to nature so it seemeth to me that I am bound to relieve his urgent necessity out of that which is superfluous to my state Seventhly the Secular man is not bound to seek out the persons that are in necessity as Prelates are but to relieve them when they occurre n 25. Neither is any particular secular man bound to releive this or that particular poor man that doth occurre when he may justly suppose that some other will releive this poor man if he do not That therefore I be obliged under mortall sin to relieve this man I must know that probably no body else will n. 28. Eighthly the order of Charity mâ—st go thus For to conserve the good of my neighbour with detriment of my own I must consider whether they be equall or unequall For I am not bound to conserve my neighbours life with losse of my own life but I am bound to conserve his life with the losse of other things n. 25. If therefore my neighbour be in danger of his life or in great sicknesse I am bound to help him with that which is superfluous to nature for me and mine n. 26. Secondly if my neighbour be in danger of loâ—ing his reputation or fame I am bound to succour him with all that I have superfluous to the maintenance of my nature Thirdly if one be in danger of falling from hâ—â— state or condition I am bound with that which is superfluous to my state to supply him I say with that which is superfluous to my state either present or future which I may lawfully aim at For as I am not bound to lose my state for fear another should lose his so also I am not bound to lose my future state which I may justly aim at for to prevent the like losse in my neighbor This is the expresse opinion of Navarr and Cajetan For though Cajetan think a man is bound to give Alms out of that which is superfluous yet he doth not think that superfluous which is reserved to raise ones state So that one will scarce be obliged to give Alms understand this in the case here spoken of when my neighbour is in danger of losing his state unlesse I relieve him with that which is superfluous to my state as Vasquez explicateth himself num 32. and as the following words import either in Cajetans opinion or mine if this obligation grow onely out of what is superfluous to ones state num 27. It is certain then that not onely extream necessity but also many other urgent necessites oblige us to give Alms. Nor must we look onely on our having superfluity but on our neighbours necessity Num. 29. Ninthly Corduba doth justly reprehend Cajetan for saying it is onely a Veniall sin for an Advocate or Lawyer to refuse to plead for a poor man or for a Physician to refuse to prescribe physick to a poor man For Corduba judgeeth it a Mortall Sin to refuse to prescribe when the poor man is in danger of falling into a great sicknesse or of losing his health The like he â—udgeth of the Lawyer when the poor man is in danger of losing his â—ame his statâ— or his goods for want of some body to plead for him And this I think true not onely when the question is of preventing the losse of fame state or goods but also for recovering them when they are unjustly taken from the poor man Num. 33. dub 3. cap. 1. These are Vasquez his Conclusions concerning Alms which oblige Secular men in this Fathers opinion under Precept of Mortall Sin Now tell me what is here so criminall that the whole Society should be defamed by it With what face but that of Impudencâ— it self could the Authour of the Provinciall Letters say That Vasquez freeth the rich men from giving Alms and that according to Vasquez it is as secure a way for a man that desires his salvation to be guilty of ambition enough that so he may have nothing superfluous as it is according to the Gospel not to be ambitious at all Or with what face can you say Sir That Vasquez his design was to satisfie the rich who would gladly be as seldom as may be obliged to give Alms and that according to the Method of the Society Pag. 201. 2. Edit You see here that Gabriel Alexander Major Gerson clearly free secular men as Cajetan also doth from obligation of Precept of giving Alms in all cases but onely that of extream necessity And Saint Antonine Conrad and Durand dare noâ— say That any other cases oblige under Mortall Sin Yet Vasquez hath the knack of complying with rich men though he tell them there be many other cases which oblige them under Mortall Sin You see Cajetan obligeth not the Lawyer or Physician to assist the poor Patient or Client but under Veniall Sin yet Vasquez to comply according to the Method of the Society with the Lawyer and Physician and give them large scope telleth them they are obliged under Mortall Sin to assist in these cases You thought that after you had made your Reply no body would ever look into Vasquez for you could not think but that if any body would take the pains to read Vasquez he should finde his Doctrine as far from being lax and compliant as you Sir are from sincerity that is as far as heaven is from the earth You complain pag. 194. of the second Engl. Edit That the Answer to the Twelfth Letter of your friend the Jansenist toucheth nothing of what your Friend had said in his Twelfth Letter I answer for him then and tell you the reason was because your Friend had said nothing to the purpose no more do you â—e not angry good Sir and I will make my words good That which your Friend had to do and you also have was to shew that he had not cited Vasquez false This he never shewed nor do you or can you shew And yet till you shew this you say nothing to the purpose This Answer is abundantly enough No more needs be said to prove you and your Friend
both Impostours It is enough to read on the one side what is objected in the Sixth Letter against Vasquez and on the other side the Conclusions here set faithfully down by me out of Vasquez for to to confuâ—e all which both you and your Friend say Yet to condescend to you or rather to satisfie the Readeâ—s I will observe some of your errours You object That what worldly men lay up to raise their own fortunes or that of their relations is not called superfluous for which reason it will be hard to finde any among those who are worldly minded that have ought superfluous according to Vasquâ—z What then Doth Vasquez therefore free sâ—â—uâ—aâ— men from the obligation of giving Alms Read Vasquez and you will see that he is so far from that that few Casuists are so severe as he But Sir to undeceive you I must tell you your Friend hath taken the citation of those words out of a wrong place and so he either ignorantly or voluntarily erreth all the way He taketh the words which make up his objection out of the Fourth Chapter num 14. where Vasquez treateth of the obligation which Clergy-men have to give alms If he had taken them out of the First Chapter he would there have found the Conclusions which I have drawn out of him in his own words In the Fourth Chapter num 14. Vasquez saith nothing of the obligation which secular men have or have not to give Alms He treateth of the obligation of Clergy-men and saith That there is great difference betwixt Secular and Clergy-men for Secular Men may lay up to encrease their state but Clergy-men may not So in Secular Men even Kings you will hardly â—inde any thing superfluous in Clergy-men that have fat Benefices you will saith Vasquez alwayes finde it if they live sparingly as they are bound to do Now if your Friend would needs quote these words out of the Fourth Chapter to set down the obligation which according to Vasquez Secular men have to give Alms at least he should have looked how Vasquez qualified that obligation in the place where he treated of Secular Men. By not doing this he fell to charge Vasquez wrongfully of favouring ambition and relaxing the obligation which Secular Men have to give Alms. The Jesuites answered that Vasquez was severe enough in his obligation and to shew that he favoured noâ— ambition they told your Friend the Authour of the Provinciall Letters that Vasquez allowed not Secular Men any other raising their fortune but such as was lawfull nor any other pretense of Dignity but such as they might justly alm at Statum quem licitè possunt acquirere Statum quem dignè possunt acquirere And they asked him why he cited not these words You to help your Friend out at this dead lift answer That those words Statum quem licitè possunt acquirere and statum quem dignè possunt acquirere were fifteen pages in folio before the passage which he cited A goodly Answer What if they had been five hundred pages before What were that to the puâ—pose Who â—id your Friend cite a wrong place It was a grosse errour in him to do so and it is a grosse errour in you to bring such a simple excuse unlesse you did it of set purpose to make your Friend be laugh'd at Another error of yours is that as you confound the citations so you confound the terms which is to make your self ridiculous among School-men So you p. 200. talk of Corduba and take the matter quite wrong The question is there it is in Vasquez c. 1. dub 3. num 32. very different And Corduba is as much against Cajetan and others as against Vasquez Corduba saith That although there were no poor men at all in urgent want yeâ— he that hath supâ—rfluity would be bound to give Alms sometimes so to fulfill the Prâ—cept of Charity This Cajetan will deny as well as Vasquez Cajetan because hâ— requirâ—â—h as a condition to expedite the obligation under Precept that there be some poor in extream want Vasquez because he holdeth that superfluity alone is not enough to oblige a man under mortall sin to give Alms but joyneth with the superfluity the extream or urgent necessity of the poor so to make the Precept oblige But because Vasquez hath in this place Hoc non placet you print these words in great Letters as though they made Vasquez criminall whilest notwithstanding he saith no more then generally all Casuists do For all say That there is no obligation under Mortall Sin to give alms unlesse there be some poor either in â—xtream or in urgent necessity Vrgent necessity I understand to be such that they cannot well passe without your alms For if they can as Day-labourers for example do it is very hard to say that it is a mortall sin not to give Alms sometimes onely because the affirmative Prâ—â—ept must sometimes be practised In this Corduba is singular and if Vasquez say Non placet Cajetan Navarr Alexander Gabriel Major Gerson Sarmiento St. Antonine and all the rest will say Non placet too for none hold with Corduba So Sir you see how you erre by not understanding the terms of ordinary and urgent necessity and I hope you will say no more that the Jesuites shuffle in distinctions and conâ—ound matteâ—s with terms since your errour proceedeth from ignorance in terms and from not distinguishing ordinary and urgent necessity Ordinary necessity is that which Casuists call communis necessitas pauperum the common necessity of all those that are truly poor urgent necessity is that which maketh poor men stand in present need of something necessary either for life as Beggars do I mean true Beggars that know not well where to have a meals meat or for health as sick that are in want or for preserving their fame or goods as those that are oppressed by the rich do These and many other such like cases are urgent in which Vasquez obligeth rich men under mortall sin to afford their help if they know that others will not do it Now these cases which happen but too often make it clear that you wrong Vasquez in saying that he obligeth not to give alms but in very rare cases and such as never happen in Paris But I go on to shew you another errour of yours The Jesuite for he was a Jesuit though you will needs mistake him had in his Answer to the Jansenists Twelfth Letter urged the Jansenist to shew out of what words of Vasquez he could conclude That it would be as safe according to Vasquez for a man that desireth his salvation to be guilty of ambition enough that so he may have nothing superfluous as it is according to the Gospel not to be ambitious at all To this the Jansenist was mute you give two Answers but both such as would make a Dog laugh First you say You might answer that this objection was never made by the Jesuite in the Imposture Pretty
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
sheweth that the poor man if he be refused by one rich man ought to go to another and not presently fall a pilfering But if after all his industry in begging no body will help him then according to Vasquez he may lawfully take that which is necessary for his relief not onely in his extream but also in his urgent want This is Vasquez his Doctâ—ine which if you will impugn with reason I shall willingly hear you for I am not of Vasquez his opinion nor of Cajâ—tans neither though I respect them both as far above me I have onely one thing more to adde That this Treatise of Vasquez concerning Alms is a Postâ—ume Work and therefore it must not be wondred if it be a little obscure wanting the Authours last hand Nor were it any great credit for you if in a Work which the Authour never lived to perfect you should spy some â—rrour But your disgrace is not the lesse for having falsified this Work But it is time to passe to Valentia and Tannâ—r whom you accuse of favouâ—ing Simony which is crime enough if you can prove it But before I begin with you I will set down something for a generall Notion of Simony to clear the Reader and let him know in what all agree and what the terms which we must use do mean For though you Sir and your Friend would needs be answered in this matter without School-terms yet I judge it very impertinent to humour you in this desire and if every Tradesman is allowed his terms if a Faulconer or Hunts-man would be laughed at for relating their Game without the terms of their art sure it cannot be required that a Divine should desert his terms which are necessary to make him intelligible First then the Reader will be pleased to understand that the Definition of Simony which St. Tho. 2. 2. q. 100. and all Divines allow of is that which is given in Gloss Decret c. 1. q. 1. in these words Simonia est studiosa voluntas â—mendi aut vendendi aliquid spirituale aut spirituali annexum Simony is a deliberate will of Buying or Selling some Spirituall Thing or something annexed to a Spirituall Thing Secondly the Authour from whose infamous crime this horrid Sin hath its name is Simon Magus who would have bought of St. Peter the power of giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of hands For though the Authour of the Provinciall Letters a fit Advocate for such a purpose say Letter the Twelfth page 294. first Edit That it is certain that Simon Magus used no terms of Buying or Selling yet it is most certain that he did and upon the authority of Scripture we have it that he would have * Acts 8. 20. bought that power of St. Peter So St. Peter understood it and so all the world conceived it till this Jansenist was pleased to plead for Simon Magus Thirdly all consent that according to the Definition given to make any act truly Simoniacall there must be a Buying or Selling of some Spirituall Thing or something annexed to a Spirituall Thing And if there be not a Buying or Selling then all agree that there is no Simony By this means Curats and other Church-men are exempt from Simony For though they receive Tythes Pensions Stipends and Distributions from the people in respect of their Spirituall Functions yet they receive them not as a price of their Spiritual Functions but as a Temporall Subsistance which out of gratitude or to incline them to do willingly what they undertake the people pay or give those by whom they are helped in Spiritualls and this is grounded on Christs appointment For as St. Paul tellâ—th 1 Cor. 9. So our Lord ordained to them that announce the Gospell to live of the Gospell It is therefore allowed by all that it is not Simony speaking onely according to the Dâ—finition to give a Temporall Good for a Spirituall either by way of gratitude or to encline the will when there is no pact or bargain of Justice intervening And by this Doctrine many acts which are commended by Antiquity are understood For example Baronius in his History Anno 929. commendeth Henry King of Germany whom he calleth the Ornament of Christian Religion for having given great gifts and a great part of the Province of Suâ—via to Rodulph King of Italy and Burgundy for to obtain of him the Lance of Constantiâ—e in which there was one of the Nails wherewith Christ was nailed to the Crosse This act is commended by Baronius who would never have commended Simony Nor indeed can that good King be suspected of Simony since God blessed him as Luitprandus relateth with a great victory by means of that Lance. And besides he made a vow to God to extirpate Simony in all his Realm We must therefore say that what he gave for the Lance which he esteemed Sacred was not as a price to buy it but as a motive to induce King Rodulph to give it or a gratitude for it And the like we must judge of divers other such actions commended by Antiquity and practised by Saints Fourthly it is to be known that among other Divisions of Simony one very common is into Simony against the Divine Law and Simony against Positive Law Simony against Divine Law is that which properly and strictly agreeth with the Definition above mentioned Simony against Positive Law as Sotus saith lib. 9. de Justit q. 5. Art 2. is not properly Simony for it hath not in it a Buying or Selling of a Spitituall Thing or any thing annexed to a Spirituall Thing But it is called Analogically Simony because it is punished by the Church as Simony For the Church hath forbidden many acts under pain of Simony for very just reasons though those acts contain not a Buying or Selling of a Spirituall Thing These acts are all expressed in the Ecclesiasticall or Positive Law So that to incurre Simony against Positive Law is to do some act expresly forbidden in the Positive Law under pain of Simony These acts are very many and it imports not to set them down we have said enough for our purpose These things then being foreknown now I come to you Sir and will begin with what you say against Valentia Your Friend the Jansenist in his Sixth Letter pag. 114. chargeth Valentia to have deserted St. Thomas and to have taught in his 3. Tome pag. 2042. this Doctrine If a man give a Temporall Good for a Spirituall that is to say money for a Benâ—â—ice and that a man give money as the price of a Benefice it is apparent Simony but if he give it as the motive inclining the will of the Incumbent to resign his Interest non tanquam pretium Benificii sed tanquam motivum ad resignandum it is not Simony though he that resings consider and look upon the money as his principall end This is the charge he layeth to Valentia which you Sir undertake to make good The Jesuites answer that
it is an Imposture and with good reason for Valentia hath no such thing at all I will tell you Sir what passed with me when I read these words in your Friends Sixth Letter I imagined that they being in a different print under Valentia's name and the very page â—â—ted must needs be in Valentia I turned therefore to Valentia having his Third Tome by me But when I râ—flected on the citation which was onely pag. 2042. of his Third Tome without telling the Impression I presently discovered your Friend the Jansenists knavery On the one side by citing the page he would have all the world believe he was very exact and on the other side by not telling what Impression he followed he was sure no man should finde it out There have been severall Impressions of Valentia and in my Book which was printed at Ingolstad Anno 1603. there is no such thing in the page cited I was troubled at this but being resolved to search further and to finde it out at last I went to the Twelfth Letter where the the same matter is handled again There I found that the citation of the page 2042. was meant of the page 2044. and that it was in Tom. 3. Disputat 16. p. 3. I turned therefore for the sixteenth Disputation hoping there to finde both what was in the Sixth and Twelfth Letter But the jest on 't was that in that Tome there are but Ten disputations So that your Friends citing the Sixteenth was but to fool the world or rather to declare himself a Knave to all the world I suppose you will lay the fault on the Printer but I believe the Sequell will shew where the fault was For I being still unsatisfied went and read all the Treatise of Valentia concerning Simony which is in his Third Tome Disp 6. and in the Sixteenth Question and after all I must tell you that there is no such thing in Valentia as either the Sixth or Twelfth Letter impose on him There are indeed p. 3. and in the Impression named pag. 1983. lit D. some words which make it clear that this is the place which was meant by those citations as for example the Latine words which he citeth in the Twelfth Letter for those in the Sixth are of his own coining are there though not fully as they are cited But as to the whole matter he hath falsiâ—ied Valentia both in his Sixth and his Twelfâ—h Lâ—tter And this falsification consisteth chiefly in two things First whereas Valentia treateâ—h onely of Simony as it is against the Divine Law and in the Dâ—finition of all Divines which I have set down he maketh Valentia speak of Benefices which being a matter where Positive Law is concerned he detorteth Valentia's sense Secondly he feigneth words in another print to make Valentia deliver a Doctrine which he never dreamt on nay which he hath expresly forewarned the Reader of using neither Valentia's words nor sense but smothering some passages of that Author and foisting in others to make them â—it for his own purpose This Sir you call to cite the passage of Valentia at length for this you say The Jesuites have nothing to answer to Valentia This your Friend calleth Valentia's Dream But Sir it is not Valentia that dreams 't is you that rave Valentia hath no such thing The words are not Valentia's they are your Friends falsifying You may perhaps say that all that is laid to Valentia's charge by your Friend may be inferred out of Valentia I answer you that it can no more be inferred out of Valentia then out of all other Divines who unanimously admit the Definition of Simony as I shall shew at the end of this Letter But allow that it might be inâ—erred out of Valentia you should then have cited Valentia's words right and shewed the â—llation you should not have changed and chopt as you do This is manifest Imposture and so I leave you with that good Title on your back as to Valentia and now I come to Tanner For Tanner your Friend saith thus Tanner is of the same opinion with Valentia Tom. 3. pag. 1519. confessing withall that St. Thomas is of a contrary opinion in that he absolutely maintains that it is undeniable Simony to give a Spirituall Good for a Temporall if the Temporall be the end thereof Here Tanner is accused first of all that which Valentia is accused of in the sixth Letter though he have not the words imputed to him nor the sense of them no more then Valentia and next of speaking against the absolute authority of St. Thomas For this the Jesuite charged your Friend with Imposture and he endeavoured to clear himself in his Twelfth Letter But the Answer to that Letter made him stâ—ll appear an Impostour so clearly that I need not adde one word After all you come Sir to maintain the Impostour but your Discourse is so childish and so manifestly against reason that a young Logician newly stept over pons asinorum would be able to confute it all Your words run thus Tanner saith in general that it is no Simony in point of Conscience in foro conscientiae to give a spiritual good for a Temporal when the Temporal is only the Motive though the principal one and not the price of the Spiritual And when he saith it is not Simony in point of Conscience his meaning is that it is not any â—ither in regard of Divine right or of Positive right Here Sir you falsifie Tanner in telling us he speaketh in general of Simony He doth not in that place speak in general of Simony he speaketh onely of Simony against Divine Right as is manifest first by the words which he useth verè propriè Simonia truly and properly Simony which import Simony against Divine Right And secondly by his expresse Caveat which he immediately giveth as the Jesuite hath already told you Again Sir you are highly out in the terms when you take Simony in foro conscientiae in the Court of Conscience to be a Generical name according to Tanner to all Simony which is evidently false For when Tanner had said That it is not Simony in the Court of Conscience he presently adjoyneth That this hindreth not but that it may be Simony of Positive Right which is the exteriour Court So he opposeth Simony in foro conscientiae to Simony in foro exteriori by the first he understands Simony against Divine Law by the other Simony against Positive Law Nor in this is he singular but useth the terms as other Divines do Therefore when he saith it is not Simony in foro conscientiae in the interiour Court of the Conscience his meaning is not to say that it is not Simony in point of Conscience but it is not Simony against Divine Right which is just contrary to what you inferre You go on therefore and say Simony of â—ositive Right is Simony in point of Conscience I answer that it is very certain that he that bath committed
Mercuries attest That the Doctrine censured by Sorbon is in many things the same with that of the reformed Churches Du Moulin dotes not when at Sedan he avowes the same uniformity of Doctrine Rousselet publishes it at Nismes Eustache at Montpelier and of the two famous Apostates L' Abadie and Le Masson who are now at Montauban the first confesses that to Calvinisme he passed through the gate of Jansenisme the second that he learn'd Jansenisme in Calvin long before Jansenius printed his Augustinus We have in our hands the Book he hath lately printed containing the Motives of his Apostasie which hapned the last year after he had preach'd the Lent forâ—going in the Diocâ—sse of Roven It is not necessary to dilate any more on this Subject there being so many printed Pieces which demonstrate the conformity of the Doctrine of Jansenius and â—alvin concerning Self-â—fficacious Grace to which the Jansenists have never been able to answer As to that which the Secretary addes near the end of his Letter of the compassion he has to see me forsaken of God I have three things to reply The first that since his spirit of jeaâ—ting and scurrility seems to have left him his Letters are very flat and he grows tedious and contemptible to those that read him The second that a Novendiall devotion at the Holy Thorne would be well employ'd to obtain of God the cure of his blindenesse The third that I conceive a particular confidence by seeing my self forsaken of God in the opinion of those who believe he has forsaken his Church and goes daily destroying it as the Jansenists do by adhering to the traditions of the deceased Abbot of St. Cyran If the fancy take him to make any reply let him not send his Writings any more to Osnabrâ—ck For it is but to make a toil of a pleasure Amsterdam Leiden and Geneva are much more commodiouâ— since in all those places he shall not onely have permission to print his Works but an Approbation to attend them After all The Jansâ—nists are Heretiques An ANSWER to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Provinciall Letters and to another of an unknown Person to Father Annat which is inserted into the Second English Edition betwixt the Seaventeenth and Eighteenth Argument 1. THat the Author of the Provinciall Letters complains that he is called Heretique when at the same breath he vents Heresie 2. That all that he saith for his vindication from Heresie maketh him suspected of Heresie 3. That the Jesuites dependance on their Superiours which he objecteth is their security as his Independance is the Sâ—urce of â—hâ—s ruine 4. The Superiours of the Jesuites proceeding in Printing Books 5. An Answer to an Argument wherein it is said that the Jesuites take the Piety of their Adversaries for a pretense of calling them Heretiques 6. That it is a groundlesse accusation which reflects on the Pope and Synod of France to say the Jesuites procured the condemnation of Jansenius though nothing is or can be produced that ever they did in order to a false Information 7. Three other Calumnies against the Jesuites refuted 8. Ten Objections by which the Jansenists would prove themselves no Heretiques refuted and proved to be of no force at all In the refutation of the Fifth Objection the Texts of Jansenius are cited where he plainly teacheth all that is condemned in the Popes Bull as his Doctrine 9. The Jansenists severall Histories and passages of the Fathers and Councells shewed to â—e impertinent and to argue him to be no good Subject of the Church 10. His Hypocriticall Piety to Jansenius his memory and his false asserting the matter to be of no consequence whether the Propositions be in Jansenius or no. SIR HAving perused your Eighteenth Letter which here in England hath as well as the former no little Vogue among Protestants I thought sit to answer it to let the world see how senselesle a Piece it is For indeed I must â—ell you there is not one Reason in it which â—avours either of Divinity or of Philosophy or of common Sense But howsoever because it speaks against the Popes Bulls and rails at the Jesuites it is welcome to all but onely the poor remnant of Catholiques who with great Resentment seeing you to preâ—â—nd to the name of Catholique say of your Writings Filii Matris meae pugnavêrunt contra me The Sonnes of my Mother â—ight against me Had you writ a Consolatory Missive to us here in England you had done something worthy the name of Catholique and beseeming a good Subject of the most Christian King But to call your self a Catholique and write against the Authority of the Sâ—a Apostoâ—que for which we here suffer so much that we are even pointed at in thâ— Streets by the name of Papists is a thing that breedeth nothing but scandall and confusion in the House of God For this reason I count it my duty to let all the world know that your Letter is neither Catholique nor Rationall as having neither Faith nor Sense in it And to take your Arguments all in their full force and consuâ—e them totally I will rip up what you say in your Seventeenth Letter and your Friend in his to Father Annat for they all drive at the same mark I know Reverend Father Annat hath answered your Seventeenth Letter and in his Tract against the Complaint of the Jansenists hath â—n substance confuâ—ed the main points of the other two so that there would not be need of â—aying any thing more did not your Letters do speciall hurt here in England For all that you advance in favour of Jansenisme is looked upon here as equally availing for the defence of Protestant and Puritan and Anabaptist and Quaker and the other innumerable Sects into which our poor Nation is divided For this reason I presume Reverend Father Annat will give me leave to reassume what he hath said against the Seventeenth Letter and prosecute it to the end of the Eighteenth To begin then you enter upon your Seventeenth Letter with a Complaint that you are called Heretique and challenge all the world to shew where you have taught any thing Hereticall and yet which is a strange madnesse of yours at the same breath that you make this challenge you declare your self Heretique I need not then go back to your former Writings to â—ell you on what account that Tiâ—le is given you The whole subject of your Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letters makes the matter clear The Pope and whole Catholique Church hold the Jansenists Heretiques you hold the Jansenists are not Heretiques The Pope hath declared that the Five Propositions condemned in Innocent the Tenth's Bull are Hereticall in Jansenius his sense you say those Five Propositions are not Hereticall in Jansenius his senser And for this you are deservedly called Heretiques We Catholiques in England say with St. Hierome Epâ—st ad Damasum de Hypostafis nomine Siquis Cathedrae Petri jungitur meus est He that agreeth with the Chair
of San-Cyrans Sanctity But the Disciples I speak of were men who in a Quarter joyning to the Nuns Monastery were brought up according to the principles of that Doctrine which now beareth the â—ame of Jansenisme There is also another House called Port-Royall in the Suburbs of St. James at Paris which sometimes is meant by Port-Royall in this Treatise the Nuns whereof and their Directours hold the same strain of Doctrine with the other San-Cyran then being Prisoner in the Bois de Vincennes and the Informations fully made by the Commissaries and Judges deputed by the King and the Archbishop of Paris he was found evidently criminall in divers points which concerned the Catholique Faith and the Doctrine of Christian Duty The Judges inclining to mildnesse would not proceed to rigour against him but by the Kings advice a Paper was presented to him containing the Catholique Doctrine contrary to his Maximes which if he would have signed and promised to observe he had been set free But the Abbot notwithstanding he had the impudence to deny all that of which by evident witnesse of irreproachable persons and by his own Letters as likewise of his Friends to him he was convinced yet he would not be brought to sign the Catholique Articles but chose rather to remain Prisoner then by professing the Catholique Faith to unsay in publick what he had privately taught Some time after the King who now drew towards an end of his days resolved to close up his life by a Royall act of Clemency which was the freeing of prisoners and recalling â—xiles from their banishment He had very great difficulty to resolve on the liberty of San-Cyran but being sollicited by many of the Abbots Friends who undertook for him that he should never meddle with writing or spreading his venomous Doctrine at length his Majâ—sty condescended that this Abbot also among others should be set at liberty But the King was no sooner dead but that San-Cyran fell to his old trade of venting his pernicious Maximes and laid down the draught of the Book now called Frequent Communion which though he never lived to see finished yet it came out afterward under the name of Arnauld a Doctour of Sorbon of whom we shall speak in the third Paragraph All this relation I have out of the Book called the Progresse of Jansenisme dedicated to the Chauncellour of France by Monsieur Preville and printed in the year 1655. In which Book is contained the whole Information made against San-Cyran by persons of worth who were acquainted with him and who having answered upon oath to the Interrogotories made by the Justice did at length every one of them sign what they had deposed Now out of this Authentique Information the Originall whereof is in Clermont Colledge and may be seen by any man that will I have taken that which I thought sufficient to set down what kinde of Doctrine this man vented I conceive all is not yet known For San-Cyran above all his other Maximes perpetually inculcated to his Confidents That they should be sure to keep secret what he taught them That if they spake of any thing he would deny it and that if ever they were examined about it they should deny all even upon oath His conscience dictated so clearly to him the malice of his Maximes that he was ever most unwilling to deliver his Doctrine by writing and when he could not avoid writing he endeavoured to be obscure and commanded those that received his papers to burn them as soon as they had read them Yet his Friends were not so faithfull to him nor he to himselfe but that many of his Writings and Letters either to him or from him were kept and since discovered all which make a great part of two Books in Quarto and out of them as concerning San-Cyrans Doctrine take what followeth First then for himself he teacheth That he hath his Mission from God That God giveth him particular Lights to know the Interiour of men That he learneth not his Maximes in Books but in God and that his conduct is in all things according to the interiour instincts which God giveth him Secondly for the Church and its Members he maintaineth that the Church is not now the same which Christ planted That for these six hundred years last past the Church is quite corrupted in Manners and not onely in Manners but also in Doctrine That God himself destroyeth the Church That the Bishops and Pastours of the Church that now are are destitute of the Spirit of Christianity of the Spirit of Grace and of the Spirit of the Church That the Religious Orders and other Spirituall men of these times understand not the Gospell nor the wayes of Christ and that he onely hath the true light of the Gospell and perfect Intelligence of the Scriptures That the Councell of Trent was made by the Pope and by School-men who have much changed the Doctrine of the Church That School-Divinity is a pernicious Science which ought to be destroyed That St. Thomas hath corrupted Divinity by Humane Reason That the Jesuites ought to be destroyed as most domageable to the Church of God Thirdly for what belongeth to the Commandments he denieth That all just men have sufficient Grace to keep them Further he maintaineth That every just person ought to steer his actions according to the interiour motions which God giveth him though contrary to the exteriour Law and this he maintaineth even in Murther for the committing whereof this interior instinct is warrant enough And according to this Doctrine he maintaineth in his Book called the Royall Question That men may lawfully kill themselves and that many times they are bound to kill themselves The Reader will note that this last Tenent of killing ones self is not mentioned in the Progresse of Jansenisme as the rest are but he defends it in his Book of the Royall Question as I said But I have here set it down for the similitude it hath with the precedent point Fourthly concerning the Sacraments he teacheth That Confirmation and the Sacrament of Orders and Episcopall Consecration that is the making of a Bishop blots out all sins quoad culpam poenam like Baptisme That the Sacrament of Confirmation is more perfect then Baptisme hath more force and more efficacy and requireth no other dispositions and therefore that a man in Mortall Sin hath no need of Confession for to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation That Veniall Sins are not matter sufficient for Absolution That perfect Contrition is absolutely necessary for the Sacrament of Penance That Absolution is to be deferred a long time till the Penance be first fulfilled That by Absolution the Priest doth not forgive sins but declare them forgiven by sorrow and penance That it is not necessary to confesse the number or Species of Mortall sins if the Contrition be sufficient That the Holy Communion hath more force to forgive sins then the Sacrament of Penance That the frequenting the Sacraments
Master of Sentences Albertus magnus St. Thomas St. Bonaventure St. Raimond St. Antonine Paludanus Hostiensis with an infinite number of other Authors who methodically taught Morall Divinity a long time before the Jesuites ever came into the world I ask whether it be not a mark of his great ability to be so ignorant as not to know the age of the Sorbon nor the Casuists which she hath produced since the time that St. Lewis gave that house in exchange to one whose name it carrieth Truly he does us but too much honour to say that we have laid the foundation of so excellent a Science which is nothing but a Compendium of Holy Scripture Fathers Councels and both the Laws Canon and Civill But as those illustrious Authors whose very names terrifie him had no need of Jesuites to bring them into the world so likewise they need them not to defend themselves from the mockeries of a Momus as odious for his malice as despicable for the little judgement he shews in his writings An Advertisement to the Jansenists Whence are your heads grown so weak that you cannot endure the name of Casuists Your infirmity is very dangerous when the noise of three or four syllables lesse agreeable with your ears is so able to stupisie your brains 'T was a lack of judgement to make that ridiculous enumeration of Catholique Authors which you have affectedly done about the end of your fifth Letter because you have thereby obliged us to seek in the Catalogue of Heretiques the names of such as as have inspired you with this hatred and we must ask you whether all these Fellows which ye here see Luther Usher Bucer Taylor Keiser Groper Tamber Whitaker Herman Tilleman Calagan Hus Thorp Wright Horst Schuch Crau Whyght Esch Hall Hun Fryth Hesch Pourceau Thâ—raw Moutard Naviere Goniu Philpot Testuvot Jansen Holden Hitten Suffen Houvenden Zanchius Brandius Scharpius if I say all these men whom the Heretiques either set up in Libraries for their Writers or in their Martyrologies as Saints of their Religion were really Christians The eighth Imposture French 25. IT is strange to see how the Jesuites reconcile by the interpretation of some term the contrarieties which are between their opinions and the Decisions of Popes Councels and of Holy Scripture For instance Pope Gregory the 14. hath declared that Murtherers so saith our English Translatour when he ought to have said Assassins which term is explicated in the answer to this Imposture are unworthy the benefit of taking Sanctuary in Churches and that they are to be forced from thence Whence Escobar pag. 660 affirms that those who kill any one treacherously ought not to incurre the penalty of that Bull. This to you seems contradictory but it is reconciled by interpreting the word Murtherer or as he should have said Asassin Letter 6. p. 104. Engl. edit Answer Since the censure against Jansenius forced his Disciples to study the Doctrine of interpreting terms for to reconcile the contrarieties between their erâ—ors and the constitution of Innocent the tenth they are grown so conceited that they undervalue all Interpreters of Laws and so clear-sighted that they spy faults where there are none Far be it from me to dispute the glory with them of knowing better then they do how to interpret Bulls and to give a new sense to Councels and Fathers such as is unknown to any but Heretiques All that I will say is onely this The Morall of the Jesuites stands in no need of such interpretations If the Jesuites undertake to explicate the Doctrine of the Fathers and the Decisions of Popes and Councels they will beware not to take their interpretations as Jansenius doth the sense of S. Augustin out of the Comentaries of Calvin and Luther They will conform themselves to Authentique or Doctrinal Interpretations such as are received in Schools and taught by the greatest Divines It s no hard matter to shew this by the very example our Calumniatour brings concerning the word Asassin in the Bull of Gregory 14. For Escobar sayes nothing concerning that Bull but whâ—t he hath from very learned Authours This accuser had never spokâ— as he does had he had but a little more understanding and sincerity then he shews in his censure to have had His want of Sincerity is visible in this that he makes Escobar say All those who treacherously kill any one ought nâ—t to suffer the penalty of the Bull which 〈◊〉 is not to be found in the 660. page which he citeth but rather the quite contraâ—y Hâ—s want of understanding appeareth in this thâ—â— he believeth this Dâ—cision impugnes the Bull of Cregory the 14. for as much as he declares Tâ—â—t 〈…〉 are unworthy of enjoying Saâ—ctuarâ—â—â—ut Lâ—â—â—bâ—r reconciles this contrariety in his mâ—â—ner of interpreting the word Asassin If â—â— had said his Dâ—cision is contrary to the Bâ—ll in as muâ—h as iâ— takâ—th away the priviledge of Sanctuary from those who treacherously murther any and that Escobar should reconcile this contrariety in interpreting the word treacherously he had had a little more colour for his Calumny But to say he does it by interpreting the word Asassin is a fault unpardonable For by a gross ignorance he confounds those who murther a man treacherously with Asassins who are hired to kill for money which are two things as different as Genus and Species according to the Canonists and Divines From whence it is that they are distinguished in the Popâ—s Bull and that Escobar makes two distinct questions in the place he notes a Proditoric aliquem â—ccidens ferro seu venono carétne Ecclesiae immunitate Caret p 660. Num Asassini rei gaudent Ecclesiae privilegie non gaudent ex constitut Gregor 14. ibidem In the first of which he asks If he that murthers a man treacherously be dâ—prived of Sanctuary and answers Yes A Decision quite contrary to that which is attributed to him In the second he asks whether Asassins be capable of the priviledge of Sanctuary and answers No which shews us the great abilities of the Jansenist who believe that under the terms of Law one comprehends by the word Asassâ—â— all those who murther others treacherously Let 's help him a little out of these errours and blow away the mist which stifles his wits What do the Canonists call murthering a man treacherously Escobar sayes To murther a man treacherously is to murther him when he has no reason to suspect it Therefore he that kills his enemy is not said to kill him treacherously though he set upon him unawares by Ambuscade or come behinde him What is an Asassin according to the terms of Law Such a one sayes that Father as is hired for money to kill a man by Ambuscade when he thinks not on 't Therefore he is not called an Asassin who kills another without any set price but onely to do his friend a courtesie These two Interpretations will not please the Jansenist He laughs at the first in his seventh Letter
Consciences When you over-looked the Christian and Spirituall Letters of the Abbot of St. Cyran you ought for the honour of your Sect to have reformed that Complement you make him write to a certain Nun. y See the Christian and Spirituall Letters wâ—iâ—h Monsieur D' Andilly published under the name of the Abbot of St. Cyran which are far more polisht then those which are kept in Cleâ—mâ—nt Colledge written by the Abbots own hand as you may easily judge by what follows I am now more then ever assured of your great love to God and 't is that which redoubles mine to you rendring me as much yours as I am his who never shares any thing but gives all he loves as I give all my whole heart to you Letter 49. You will confesse these words might have been left out and that they are not very necessary to Salvâ—tion It is not at all necessary in being Christianly charitable to be more transported then those who fall into rage into drunkennesse and into a passion of sensuall love Those are the expressions of that great Abbot of St. Cyran writing to Monsieur D' Andilly z This is the first Letter of those which are kept in Clermont Colledge written by tho Abbot of St. Cyran to Monsieur D' Andilly the 25. of Sept. 1620. A man must be passionate as we are for that invisible beauty sayes he before he be able to speak or have the least knowledge of it This Love therefore is interdicted your Court because they never heard That that passion which troubles and stifles their wits illuminates ours and that as in Religious Orders which are nothing but certain Fraternities of men living and dying together perfection consists in Charity even as 't was onely a mutuall affection which bound together that famous Squadron of Greeks and rendred them invincible The knowledge of the things of God springs up onely out of the Love we have of him All the wits on earth how sharp and knowing soever they be can never understand any thing in our Caball unless they be first initiated into those Mysteries which as * Orgies were the Sacifices of Bacchus where the Heathens did run about like mad men and tear and cut themselves Holy Orgies render their spirits more transported one towards another like those who fall into madnesse into drunkennesse and into the passion of carnall Love Three faults by which our Master in his Books illustrates that unspeakable perfection those have who unite or make themselves one with him by a certain amorous Devotion which has different movings worthily illustrated by those of the Sun which have an uniformity in their disformity which has something looking like spots which we may exemplisie by those we see in the body of the Moon which has disorders like those of the four seasons which are the same in their variety of which motions the violent which are those of Winter introduce again the beauty of the Spring which is a Sally of my pen you ought to welcome In fine it is not necessary to take God and Monsieur D' Andilly for one and the same thing as that same Abbot did and to think ones self happy in the union of these two nor is it necessary that the passion one has for an illustâ—ious Solitary Person of Port Royall should be alwayes in an eminent height from whence there is no possible descent Nor is it necessary to salvation to say That God loveth that person by us with an infinite love which we cannot explicate but by Letters as strangely placed as the Characters of the Sibylls and as hard to understand as Hebrew which the first Hebrews never learnt but by Cabal This admirable Love belongs onely to the Heads of your Sect. A man must be of your Cabal to be perfect in it I am confident there are very few Wits can write a Language so high as is that which himself admires in one of his Letters very carefully kept in Clermont Colledge Hearken a little how he speaks of that Love which flames in his Breast for he deserves that all the World should understand him * Saint Cyran's mad Raptures in expressing himself to his Neighbour Monsieur D' Andilly Me thinks sayes he on one side that the Characters of Friendship are as estimable as Letters and on the other side having been surprized about eleven a clock by him for whom I write and having neither a good Pen nor good Ink which are two wants into which I often fall I had then a certain inability to write better which is more excusable between two Friends then in any other thing not bounded by the simple will as true Love is which laughs at those powers and effects of which other dignities boast and finding my self bound by that powerfull Language which your Letter speaks it is no strange thing if being desirous to reform you in your stile and rank you with my own that is with that of the enamoured of God who onely Contemplate and Act without speaking I am become as obscure in the expression of Conceptions as in Letters For it was not my pen which was the instrument of my haste so much as the ardent desire I had which made me hasten more then either the time or my hand to tell you that I did not take your vulgar and common fashion of speaking although it was extreamly well deduced by which you engage your self to me in occasions for my Friend without remembring you that that which I have got on you through your voluntary donation to prevent all time and all occasions and all the power which you could ever acquire and rendâ—ing my self as at the very point of a Temporal Eâ—ernity whâ—re our friendship did begin the Master of the ground gave me a right to all the fruit and because it is impossible while I write to you that I should not feel a burning fire in my Spirits which elevates me and maketh me soar very high I have taken occasion from thence to begin a Discourse which I admire in its root and which you have had cause to contemn in its branches and leaves for the little grace I gave those words I made use of to expresse it which gave me the knowledge that I never before had of the admirable Secrets of our Master the which not being able but imprudently to tell to any other but your self and not being able to make them come out of that my Spirit but with the same precipitation of the Spirit of God which compells me violently to tell you them think whether you had rather I should lose them by writing them slowly or dictating them to a Servant who dishonours them and cooleth them with a greater certainty then if I should cast them as informed seeds falling from heaven upon your Spirit by Letters as ill ranged as were those of the Sibyls when they writ in their fury the Oracles of the Gods z 'T is
it not that they were both Judges and Parties That Cardinall Lugo had tyed himself to the generall of the Jesuits by the Vow of a blinde Obedience That Cardinall Spada ashamed that he could not make that censure prevail which he had undortaken had complotted with the Jâ—suits to save his own credit by exposing the reputation of the Pope and finally that the whole affair had been managed rather by Politick Considerations then by the Rules of Ecclesiasticall Discipline and solid Reasons of Theology What was left unattempted by the whole party to set the Prelates against the Pope to draw the Universities to gain particular persons to engage Communities to seduce the people to mislead souls and insensibly corrupt the purity of their Faith and the fidelity they owe to the Universall Pastour of Christs Flock Neverthelesse in fine the Providence of God who watches over his Elect and laughs at the malice of the impious disappointed all your designes and unspeakable was the grief that seiz'd your mindes when you understood that above fourscore Bishops of this Kingdome had demanded the condemnation of the Five Propositions that make up the Fundamental Maximes of Jansenisme that after a long deliberation the Pope had granted it that Heaven had given a blessing to it as the fruit of so many Vows Prayers and Tears shed by the Children of the Church to extinguish by such an amorous deluge the conflagration you had rais'd in the midst of their bowels and finally that those three famous Columnes erected with so much cost and preparation to uphold the credit of your Doctrine which visibly tended to its ruine were not able to support that tottering Machine nor hinder the fall of your Sect. Then it was that drawing forces out of despair you intrench'd your selves within your Fort â—â—ntiris impudentissimè and thence as from a safe Rampart scoffing at Fulminations and Censures you gave your friends to understand n Arnauld's second Letter p. 150. That certain persons having carefully perus'd a Book and not found therein the Propositions which are attributed to a Catholick Bishop after his death in the narration of a Popes constitution could not declare against their conscience that they are in the Book Who would have thought that after you had given the Lye to Popes and Bishops who expresly affirme the contrary there could any thing have been added to your insolence Yet you rested not there you perceiv'd there was something wanting and that to crown so manifest a Rebellion against the Sea Apostolique it was requisite to give it the name of Obedience protesting with pompous words o Arnauld's first Letter p. 25. that the Disciples of Monsieur d' Ipre had made it apparent to all France that they can humble themselves under Gods Vicar not onely when he honours them with his favour but even when he seems to abandon them to the Impostures of their Enemies p In the same Letter p. 9. that they who suspect them of Errour should have much ado to assigne the pretended Heresie which every one fancies to himself as he pleases since if they reduce it to the Five Propositions condemn'd by the Pope that Heresie which he imputed to them would prove to be but a Chimera there being no Divine that maintains those five condemned Propositions What Sir is this the Jansenian humility that so vaunts with ostentation of having submitted to the Vicar of Christ while it rejects the narration of his Bull and accuses the Oracle of truth of falshood lying Is this the sincerity where with you justisie your Doctrine by condemning those of remerity who opposed it before it was condemn'd and accusing those of calumny who ascribe it to you since the publique voice of the Church hath blasted it with an eternall ignominy Before the Popes Bull the Heresie of Jansenius appear'd with lustre in your Works it march'd with great attendance and nevershew'd it self but guarded with the Fathers of the first Ages It was the Doctrine of the Church the Doctrine of the Apostles the Doctrine of the Popes and Councils After the Bull this Heresie is nothing but a Chimâ—ra which every man fancies such as he pleases and no man knows in very truth Before the Popes Bull it was a crime to question the Five Propositions and they that held them suspect were Semipelagians Enemies of the grace of Christ such as attempred to destroy the most ancient Verities and to obscure the clearest Lights of the Gospel After the Bull it is an injury to impute them to you and they that reproach you with them are hainous Detracters and most impudent Lyars Before the Bull those Maximes were as so many unalterable Rules of Faith where of Tradition was he Source Saint Augustine the Oracle and Monsieur de Ipre the faithfull Interpreter that had renew'd them in our Age. After the Bull those very Maximes by a strange Metamorphosis are become meer Impostures which Envy alone hath invented Calumny divâ—lged and nothing but Ignorance to the prejudice of Innocence can believe since there are no Divines who hold these condemned Propositions Thus Sir it appears that you have an ambiguous Faith which you explicate according to the time a Faith that has two faces and which begets illusions in mens mindes at this day it is a Chimera because you dare not produce it so odious it is to all the world when you have wip'd away the shame of it and that the Censure is forgotten it will again be the spirit of the first Ages To grant to deny to say yes to say no are things indifterent to you You put all in practice to advance the pretended reformation you promise and that imaginary dominion which you affect in the Chuâ—ch 'T is onely the hatred you bear to the Jesuites that never changes because your bad inclination towards Religion ever continues You look upon their zeal as an obstacle that retards the progresse of your designs and because you cannot shake their vertue you endeavour at least to ruine the reputation it gains and the approbation it deserves Hence it comes that you make them Authours of all your disgraces and not daring to complain of the hand that strikes you at every blow you feel you bite the hand that would heal you If the Pope condemneth the works of Port-Royall the Jesuites presently become Falsifiers and Forgers of Bulls against the Doctrine of the Fathers If he command the Marble of Jansenius's Tomb to be taken up and that the marks of that proud monument which serv'd as a Trophy to Heresie be effaced the Jesuites are men of prophane spirits they suffer Idolatry in China they traffique in Canada they favour Libertines in Europe and uphold remisnesse and disorder in all parts of the world If the Clergy in France reprove the surreptitious Elogium of the Abbot of St. Cyran the Jesuites every where persecute Persons of Honour and are so far from sparing the living that they forbear not even
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
Pretty Do you take your Friend to be excused from falsifying an Authour if a Jesuite do not pull him by the sleeve and say Here Sir you have falsified this Authour Ridiculous Is a lie no lie unlesse a man be challenged with it Or a Theft no Theft unlesse a man be caught in it John D' Alba will thank you for this Maxime which makes his stealing more excusable then the Jesuites Morall But Sir your Friend was told of this He was told that he had disguized Vasquez and corrupted his Doctrine which he had done as well in these words as in the rest He was challenged of all but because all his words were not cited at length you tell us You might answer that this objection was never made Indeed you are a lusty Disputant that can talk so stoutly against reason But I would pardon this frivolous answer because at least it is short if you did not second it with a tedious discourse of Non-sense which makes your second answer The Summe is That you will needs have it a sin of Ambition for a secular man to lay up any thing for to raise himself or his though to such a state as he may lawfully pretend which Vasquez requireth Statum quem licitè possunt acquirere You are extreamly out Sir in your judgement Will you say That it is a sin of Ambition that is of its own nature a Deadly Sin for a Peasant to lay up a little money whereby he may bring up his Childe at School and make him a Lawyer or a Physician or if God so call him a Clergy-man Or would you tell a Tradesman that he is bound still to work in his shop and that it is a sin of Ambition to dispose so that by laying up something in his youth he may live in a better calling in his old dayes I am very glad Sir that you cannot impugn Vasquez his Doctrine nor make it appear ill but by advancing such Paradoxes as these There remain yet two Objections more against Vasquez which I will take notice of you would prove by them both that at least Vasquez obligeth rich men but very rarely to give alms But what if you should prove this Have I not shewed you that Cajetan and divers others oblige onely in case of extream necessity which is but rare But let 's hear you Vasquez say you understandeth all that he saith of tâ—e duty of rich men to give alms to oblige onely when they know that no body else will relieve the poor man He saith so I have put it in his seventh conclusion But is he therefore larger then others Cajetan as I have told you holdeth That I am not bound to give alms but when I see a man in extream necessity Now I can never know that a man is in extream necessity of my alms unlesse I know that no body else will relieve him Yet this Cajetan requireth and it will be a harder matter to oblige a man in Paris to give alms out of Cajetans Doctrine then out of Vasquez his Doctrine For Cajetan will say That to oblige you under Mortall Sin to give this man an alms you must know that this man standeth in extream need of your alms Vasquez will say that to oblige you to give this man an alms you must know that this man is either in extream need of your alms or in urgent need of it Now urgent need is a great deal more common then extream need as is evident But now I come to your grand Achilles by which you would make it peremptorily certain that Vasquez is very indulgent to the rich and obligeth them very seldom to give alms Because say you in those cases in which Vasquez obligeth rich men to give alms he alloweth the poor to steal from them For to answer this I will do as I did in the former matter first set down Vasquez his Doctrine which in cap. 1. dub 7. is delivered in two Conclusions First he saith with all Casuists generally That in extream necessity a poor man may take from the rich man that which is precisely necessary for his relief The reason is because the rich man is supposed not to be rationally unwilling that the poor man should take to save his life that which is necessary Secondly Vasquez saith further That in some urgent necessity a poor man may take from a rich man He saith in some case aliquo casu for it is not generall and he explicaâ—es himself presently eo inquam casu quo alius tenebatur hâ—ic patienti extremam necessitatem vel gravem succurrere In that case in which the rich man was bound to succour this poor man In this Conclusion Vasquez is against Cajetan and the Major part of Divines but he hath with him Sylvester and Angelus The reason of this Conclusion is the same as of the former For I cannot rationally be unwilling that the poor man should take that which I was bound under Mortal Sin to give him This is Vasquez his Doctrine Now that which I have to say here is first that this very Doctrine of Vasquez which you lay hold on evidently convincâ—th that Vasquez is stricter in point of obliging rich men to give alms then Cajetan or other Divines ordinarily are For Vasquez therefore granteth that the poor may take from the rich that which is precisely necessary in more cases then Cajetan and others do because he holdeth the rich obliged to give alms in more cases then Cajetan and others do So that the first thing that can be concluded from this objection is that you and your Friend have all the way falsified Vasquez and wrongfully judged him to be indulgent to the rich The second thing I have to say concerneth your Illation That either Vasquez doth not ordinarily oblige rich men to give Alms or else he giveth the poor an ordinary permission to steal I must tell you this Illation is very illogicall and inconsequent It is very true that Vasquez doth not ordinarily that is upon ordinary occasions oblige rich men by precept to give alms for he requireth that the case be urgent at least which is not ordinary and so your whole Argument faileth in the first clause Yet upon another account it faileth worse in the second clause For Vasquez doth not say That in all cases of urgent necessity the poor may steal no he alloweth not that but as I have told you he alloweth that when this particular rich man is bound to relieve this particular poor man then the poor man may take to supply his necessity Now this is not ordinary And it is made lesse ordinary and consequently the poor mans permission to steal lesse frequent by that clause which Vasquez prudently put That this determinate rich man is not bound under precept to give this poor man an Alms unlesse he probably suppose that no body else will or can do it This caution you very simply laughed at though it be a necessary one and