Again suppose I do not hear him speak but hear from irrefragable witnesse of many honest and understanding men that he hath made this profession deliberately or that he printeth and teacheth this without controversie I may judge him an Heretique and yet it is not matter of Faith that these witnesses tell me true But it is enough to have either a Physical or Morall Evidence to judge one an Heretique And this as I said is common to all crimes as well as Heresie The Iudge when he condemneth a man to death for murther needeth not put it in his Creed that infallibly this man hath committed Murther nor needeth he have Physicall Certainty but 't is enough that he have a Morall Evidence Secundum allegata probata as the Law saith according to what is alledged and proved by witnesses which notwithstanding may all erre Iust so in cur case though it were allowed not to be of Faith that the Five condemned Propositions are in Jansenius his Book yet without scruple we may and in reason ought to condemn the Book as Hereticall the Church having condemned it for such This proceeding is authorized in Scripture and that fitly to our case Hereticum â—ominem saith St. Paul ad Titum 3. post unam alteram correptionem devita sciens quia subversus est Avoid the Heretique after having once or twice reprehended him knowing that he is subverted Where the Apostle telleth us that after a man hath been once or twice admonished of his Heresie if he mend not he is to be avoided as one with whom the Church holds no Communion and his refusing to submit after one or two admonitions St. Paul calleth a knowing that he is subverted in matter of Faith Now if this were ever clear in any case it is in this we handle of Jansenius For to say nothing of the severall Briefs made by Pope Urban against Jansenius his Book the Five Propositions were extracted out of his Book by the Synod of France who professe to have used all diligence in examining them These Bishops presented the Five Propositions to Pope Innocent He having made the matter be examined with all diligence the Jansenists themselves being present at Rome and acknowledging them to be in Jansenius and defending them as his Doctrine after all condemned them as appeareth in his Bull. After him Pope Alexander now sitting renewed the condemnation testifying that the Propositions are in Jansenius and defining that they are condemned in his sense as they lie in his Book To these two Censures all the Bishops and the whole Catholique Church have subscribed Here are then two Admonitions and more by which it is made known that the Book of Jansenius containeth Hereticall Doctrine we therefore unlesse we will contradict the rule of St. Paul must esteem it Hereticall and know that it is subâ—erted We need not examine whether it be matter of Faith that the Five Propositions be in Jansenius or no it is enough that it hath been once and twice and so many times declared to us that we cannot but esteem it sufficiently certain here being far more then that which St. Paul requireth So Sir you see that your main Argument which is the summe and substance of all is so far from proving what you would inferte that though your Antecedent were granted yet the Consequence were of no force at all 2. Objection It were ridiculous say you Letter 18. pag. 338. to pretend there should be any Heretiques in the Church for matter of Fact But whether the Five Propositions be in Janseniuâ— or no is pure matter of Fact Therefore it is ridiculous to pretend that Jansenius or those that maintain his Doctrine should be Heretiques This Argument is veâ—y oftâ—n inculcated in many places though I cite but one I answer That understanding as you do Propositions written in any Book to be matter of Fact 't is a perfect madnesse to assert that none can be declared Heretiques for matter of Fact And the Consequences of that Assertion are so evidently absurd and Hereticall that nothing can be more For first it would follow that never any Proposition in any Book could be declared Hereticall for still you would say it is ridiculous that any man should be an Heretique for matter of Fact and still it would be matter of Fact whether the Proposition were in the Book or no and so no Books could be condemned in the Church Secondly it would follow that no person whatsoever could be condemned and that we must not believe that ever there was any Heretique in the Church that can be named except those that are mentioned in Scripture though St. Paul tells us 1 Cor. 9. Oportet haereses esse and so we should never be obliged to avoid any one as an Heretique contrary to what I alledged in the first Objection out of the Apostle For still it will be made matter of Fact whether Arius for example and so of the rest did hold this or that For that Arius writ or said thâ—s or that is matter of Fact Thirdly it would follow that as no Proposition in any Book could be defined by the Church to be Hereticall so on the contrary no Proposition in any Book could be defined Orthodox or to be consonant to the word of God or the true word of God And so we should by your wise argument come to doubt of every Proposition even in the Holy Scripture For still it will be according to your ridiculous Maxime â—matter of Fact whether that Proposition be in Scripture And certainly it is as clear matter of Fact whether the Scripture saith God will have all men saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth as it is whether Jansenius in his Book saith Christ did not die for all men And so by this argument we shall never be obliged to admit any Proposition as Scripture which is to say we may deny by your argument all Scripture And further as to the whole Bible it is as much matter of Fact whether this or that Edition of Scripture be true Scripture as whether the Five Propositions be in Jansenius yet the Councell of Trent hath declared that the Vulgat Edition shall be held Authenticall and he would be an Heretique that would not allow it 3. Objection Popes and Councells * Letter 17. pag. 307. may â—rre in matter of Fact as many stories alledged in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letters prove Therefore perhaps they have â—rred here and so it cannot be matter of Faith I answer That this may all be said as well of Arius or Nestorius or of any Heretique who is not named in Scripture as of Jansenius his Book yet the Church hath said Anathema to many Heretiques by name And look what crime he should commit that should say Arius never was an Heretique the self same should that man incur that should dare to say Jansenius his book containeth no Heresie And certainly the Phrase of the Church hath alwayes been
Mohatra a thing so venerable that 't is blasphemy to deride it O Sir where is your sincerity You that pretend to blame the manner of avoiding a lye by speaking one while loud and another while low by what equivocation can you say aloud you have jested at Mohatra and whisper that you have not derided Grace By what mentall reservation do you glory in publique that you have play'd upon the Jesuites and in secret that you have not mock'd St. Thomas St. Antonine and even the Anathema's of Rome Believe me Sir Innocence needs not that Hypocriticall artifice to defend it self you should have exprest it clearly that neither you nor those of your party do believe That sufficient Grace potentia proxima the Rosary or the Popes Censure are things so venerable that 't is impiety to deride them or blasphemy not to speak of them with respect When you were rebuked for the insolence of your Railleries touching Mohatra and the decisions of the most celebrious Casuists whom you covertly assail under the name of Jesuites who have taught nothing but what they have learnt of those great Divines you were not check'd for Impiety but for playing the Buffoon not for Blasphemy but Imposture You were not told that such kinde of Râ—illery was a Sacriledge that relates to your Railleries on the Rosary and Grace But you were told and I tell it you again That 't is unworthy of a Christian and that if you be guilty of having us'd it you are yet morâ— culpable in maintaining it and in setting on the Throne of God what one would scarcely suffer on a Theater taking the Saints for warrants of an Action which a Person of reputation would blush to own and which you have not dar'd to let passe under your name After all this Sir can you have the confidence to reproach Father Lâ— Moin with comparing Chastity to the fire of the Sepharius you who compare your Satyâ—icall Buffooneries to the zeal of the Saints and to the wrath of God I take not here in hand the vindication of that Father who has more then sufficient weapons to defend himself and paâ—ience more then enough to suffer you This is onely to tell you that you are so bâ—â—nâ—e that you see not your own faults how grosse soever they be and so obstinate in deâ—â—â—ction that instead of acknowledging your self to blame for having invented so many calumnies you daily hatch new ones which as contemning them I omit till you have acknowledg'd those you have hitherto advancâ—d If the love of Truth could so far prevail over your spirit as â—o leâ—d you to so generous a resolution I would then perfectly clear up your understanding as to the point of Attrition naturall in its Essence and supernaturall in its Principle I would satisfie you touching Father Garasse's words whom you accuse of having mingled Heresie with Raillery when he sayes That the Humane Personality was grafted and set on Horse-back on the Personality of the Word and when I had remov'd the suspicion of the first by his own words n Pag. 649. pag. 628. La seconde personne soâ—stient hypostati quâ—mâ—nt la nature humaine en sorte que la personalité de la nature humain est comme engloutie honorablement dans la personalité du Verbe comme une goutte d'eau s'anneantit dans un tonneau de Vin car â—'est de câ—tte comparaison que S. Cyrille se sert c. and by the Subject he treats of in that place where â—e puts this difference between the will and personality of man in the mystery of the Incarnation that in the Compositum which we call Jesus Christ there is but one person these are his words yet one cannot say there is but one will to wit the Divine which is the Hereâ—ie of the Monothelites impugn'd by him in this place I would furnish you with means to justifie the second your self by desiring you to translate into English this Text of St. Paulinus o Hiâ— hominem saucium praetermissumà praeviis neâ— curatum miseratus accessit jumento suo hoc est Verbâ— incarnatione suscepit But if you continue in your blindnesse if in that exact Answer wherewith you threaten the a S. Paulinus â—p 4. Jesuites you justifie your self but with reproaches and defamations if you come not to the point of the accusation if you content your self with common places and wranglings upon a circumstance little to the purpose I will follow you at the heels and observe your slips I will publish your infamy to the whole world and if I cannot silence you which I pretend not to be able to do unlesse you cease to be a Jansenist I will shew you at least that you merit no further answer and that a convinced Calumniator ought not to be listened to much lesse believed An ANSWER to the Jansenists twelfth LETTER Argument 1. THat the Jansenist hath no reason to take it ill to be called Jansenian Heretique disguized Calvinist Scoffer Impostor and the like since he hath by his own works drawn these Titles on himself 2. That it is a frivolous Argument to say as he doth I am alone against a whole Religious Order therefore I am no Calumniatour 3. It is as frivolous to prove his Citations true by saying It is not likely that I would expose my self to the censure of all by citing false 4. That he still useth the same Imposture he was convinced of in clipping and altering the sense of Vasquez 5. That he continueth his his Imposture in order to Valentia and Tanner 6. That his new Objection of Eradus Billus needeth no Answer that Father having cleared himself long since 7. His ignorance in imagining Simony of Positive Right to be different from Simony in cases expressed in the Law 8. His evident falsifying Lessius and toy of excuse in saying he took it out of Escobar whose Book is an Abridgement of many and cannot give the full sense of Authours SIR YOu have not kept your word wiâ—h me you made me expect an exact Answer and have onely shufflâ—d me off with an evasian you promis'd to defend your self and now you will have me a witnesse both of your tergiversation and causelesse complaints I might Sir let you fly with confusion and in disorder without troubling my self to run after you but seeing you witnesse by your cry that you are wounded and grown sensible of the smart I am glad to understand the cause of it and to try if I can comfort you You complain first that you have for a long while been persecuted with injurious language and you seem solicitous to inform the world wherefore you are treated in that manner You should do better Sir to undeceive your self and call to minde that you suffer little in respect of what you have merited since having for a long time exercis'd the patience of others it is but just that you practise it your self at last by enduring those reproaches
City Is it of the Canonicall Hours of Port-Royall which were condemn'd at Rome Is it of the Defence of the secret Rosary which undertakes to justifie the impieties and extravagances of that Libell Is it of those he esteems so profiâ—able to the publique and recommends withouâ— naming them for fear the people should be infoâ—med that there is hardly any work set forth by Port-Royal which is not ranked in the number of prohibited Books taking up a great deal of room in the Roman Catalogue Have you no other proofs wherewith to justifie your Faith then that which gives us cause to suspect it Can you alledge no other Writings to prove your opinions Catholique save those which the Roman Church has prohibited because full of Hereticall Maximes Be it that all the Texts you have drawn out of them appear most Orthodox it follows not that those which I have quoted render you not suspect of Intelligence with Geneva All that can be gather'd from that diversity is that you are contrary to your self that in your Books are found many conradictions but no appearance of your justification that they all have two faces which you shew or hide according to the time the one Catholique the other Calvinist If men cry heretick when you shew the Geneva-face you make it vanish and dexterously turning the Medall shew the Catholique face in an instant So you never publish an Heresie but you have your Apology ready made you couple together Truth and Errour Poyson and its Antidote and by an artifice common to all the enemies of the true Faith you employ one part of your works to defend the other excusing the crime at the same time that you commit iâ— This craft I confesse may surprize the ignorant but cannot justifie you before the wise You are accus'd for instance of this Maxime of Aurelius That every â—in that violates chastity destroyes Priesthood which differs in nothing from the Heresie of the Husâ—ites and you answer that he sayes in the same Book That the Church cannot take away the power of Order because the Character is Indelible Behold indeed a manifest contradiction but that is no justification You are tax'd for saying That Christ admits us in time to the participation of the same food which the Blessed enjoy in eternity without other difference save that here be affords us not the senâ—ible sight and taste of it which is the language of the Calvinists and you answer That the Author of the Letters to a Provincial says that there are many other differences between the manner of his communicating himself to Christians here and to the Saints above I know not whether he be avowed by you for he averres that he has no establishment at Port-Royall fearing least you should be oblig'd to warrant all his Letters But in fine though he were his testimony would be at most but a manifest contradiction not a just defence You are accus'd of saying that the practice of the Church favours the generall impenitence of all men and to divert the blame you answer in your Apology that you condemn not the ordinary practice of Penance which is now in the Church 'T is clear that this is only to crosse and contradict not to purge and justifie your selves You are charg'd with writing in the Book of Frequent Communion that the Church is corrupted in her Doctrine of Manners and you answer the contrary is also found in your Apology to wit that the Church is in corruptible not onely in her Faith but even in her Doctrine of Manners Thâ—s evidently shews the truth of what I say that you fill your Books with contradictions But it proves not what you pretend that men ought to receive them for justifications 'T is not enough to shew for your defence that of two contrary Propositions whereof one is Orthodox the other Hereticall the former is in your Books It must be shewn that the latter the Hereticall one is not there which done you will have right to burst out in reproaches and say to every one of your Accusers mentiris impudentissimè But if effectively it be there if of all the Hereâ—ies I have tax'd you with there is not one but what is faithfully extracted out of your Works who sees not that all the opprobâ—ious accusations you return men for their good advice fall upon your selves and that instead of evincing your divorce from Geneva they prove you culpable not onely of the Errours but even of the Insolence of Heretiques Think on it Sirs I conjure you and if you would have us entertain more favourable thoughts of your Faith brag no more as Mr. Arnauld does that you never fell into errour Acknowledge that you are subject to failings yet that as you have the weaknesse of men to be mistaken so have you their docility to be undeceiv'd and admit of purer lights Retract your errours re-enter Sorbon by a generous disavowment of your evill opinions and submit your private judgements to the Pope What ever else you do that is lesse then this I may say without Raillery You will never be good Catholiques An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Seventeenth Letter By Father Annat of the Society of Jesus Argument 1. THat the Jansenists quitting the defence of the other Accusations and Impostures laid to their charge endeavour to clear themselves in their last two Letters onely of the crime of Heresie and therefore by their silence are convicted of the other crimes viz. Imposture and Calumny 2. That the Summe of their excuse is reduced to two Mediums The first is the Pretext of Difference betwixt Decisions of Fact and of Right which is answered fully in the Tract called The Answer to the Jansenists Complaint of being called Heretiques 3. The second Medium which is by the Tomists opinion of Efficacious Grace which is Catholique to defend the Jansenian opinion is here refuted and it is shewed that Jansenius neither explicateth nor defendeth his opinion as the Tomists do but as the Calvinists do asserting what Geneva asserteth and denying what Geneva denieth Therefore Calvins Disciples allow of Jansenius as hath already been shewen and again is recapitulated but the Church condemneth him Consequently his Opinions are Heresies Dear Reader THe seventeenth Letter of the Secretary of Port-Royall is now newly arriv'd dated the 23. of January and published the 29. of February All the Interim was but requisite for its journey from Osuabruck where he affirms it was Printed the Jansenists being unwilling to put it to the Press at Paâ—â—s so obedient they are to the Civil State and to the Ordinances of the Magistrate It is a long Letter of the size of the other sixteen which like the precedent by me newly answered tends to prove that the Jansenists are no Hereticks For as to their merited title of Impostors and Falsifiers in their Letters to the Provincial which was all I pretended to demonstrate in my Book of The fair dealing of the Jansenists their Secretary yields us
submit to any authority either Humane or Divine Absurd Must your Senses be judges of all the objects which contain matter of Fact so that neither Reason nor Revelation nor the Word of God can contradict it Foolish My eyes report that a stick put half in thâ— water is brâ—kâ—n or bent at the Superâ—icies of the water may not Reason correct this errour of my senses Faith teacheth many things that Reason cannot reach unto though the object be not supernaturall must not Reason yield to Faith because the matter is an object within the extent of Reason For example to have a soul is a thing to use your own words pag. 347. liâ— 6 7. naturall and intelligible of all which things you say reason is to be judge Now suppose some one could not judge by any reason that occurreth to him that he hath a soul must that man never believe that men have souls Again to judge of the presence of a Body is an object of Sense I say there 's fire because I either see it or feel it I say there 's a man that speaks because I hear him I say this is bread because I taste it And yet Sir how far our Senses are out sometimes is evident in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar where all Catholiques believe as you professe you do also that there is no Bread after the Consecration though the Sight the Taste the Feeling carry us to judge that there is Bread as well after as before Consecration Truly Sir when I reflect upon your bringing this Argument to prove that which you often say as Let. 17. pag. 298 and Let. 18. pag. 351. and in many other places That there are no Heretiques in the Church and that the Church is without Heresie I cannot but take great compassion of your blindenesse I see you take for an argumenent that there is no Heresie that very thing which is the originall Source and Cause of all Heresie You would have every ones reason judge of all the objects of reason and sense of all the objects of sense and so you sweep away all submission all respect to authority all captivating the understanding in obedience to Faith and by this very means you put an answer into every Heretiques mouth to maintain his perversity with If the Antitrinitarians deny the Blessed Trinity they tell you 't is against reason If the Anabaptist refuse to baptize his Childe he telleth you 't is against reason If the Quaker refuse a civill respect as to put off his hat to any body he telleth you 't is against reason If the Protestant refuse to believe the reall Presence he telleth you 't is against reason and his sense dictates to him the contrary Now if you urge Scripture against these men they will answer with your own words in which you abuse the authority of St. Thomas and St. Augustin pag. 347. in fine When the Scripture presents us with some passage whereof the literall sence is contrary to what the senses and reason judge of it with certainty we must not endeavour to weaken the testimony of these that is of our senses and reason to submit them to that apparent sence of Scripture but we must interpret Scripture and finde out some other sence thereof And if you urge the Authority of the Church they will all finde some matter of Fact to elude the Popes Bulls and the Decrees of Councells and it will be impossible to finde any Decree of Councell or Pope which haâ—h not as much of matter of Fact as the condemnation of Jansenius hath since the very Decrees of Councells and Popes may be called in question 〈◊〉 â—his account that it is matter of Fact whether the Decree be truly the Decree of the Councell or Popes or no. Thus do you put a weapon into every mad mans hand and if any man will fancy himself to have certain reason to say as James Naylour did that â—he hath the Spirit of Christ or is a second Christ you will maintain that such a man is not to submit his certain reason to any body And so instead of making it good That there are no Hâ—retiques in the Church you maintain the ground of all Heresie and take away the Source of all Unity in Faith which is submission to the Church The Tenth Objection Those of Port-Royall that is the Jansenists condemn the Propositions which the Pope condemneth they maintain nothing against him or the Church Therefore they are not Heretiques This is the main subject of the little Letter which is put between the Seventeenth and Eighteenth and in a manner all the reason of it for all is a deducing of this in the example of the Arians Nestorians Euâ—ycâ—ians Monotheliâ—es Lutherans Calvinists c. who were therefore condemned bâ—cause they held Propositions which the Church condemned and confessed they held them which the Jansenists deny But I answer That the Jansenists do not condemn the Propositions which the Pope condemns nor maintain what he maintains Pope Alexander in his Bull saith We define and declare that the Five Propositions are taken out of Jansenius his Book and condemned in the sense intended by Jansenius and we do again condemn them as such and we condemn the Book of Jansenius The Jansenists or those of Port-Royall say the Five Propositions are not in Jansenius nor condemned in Jansenius his Sense that the Book of Jansenius is not condemned and coutaineth not Heresie What can be more opposite to the Popes Definition Now what you reply That this is not matter of Faith to know whether the Propositions be Jansenius's or no I have already answered you in the Second and Third Objection Again for what you say pag. 321. That if any one that hath eyes to read hath not met with the Propositions in Jansenius he may safely say I have not read them there and shall not for that be called an Heretique I answer That he may say so without Heresie for perhaps he understood not or maâ—ke not what he read or read not all Jansenius and meerly to say I have not found the Propositions in Jansenius is not to be an Heretique But to say they are not there * Pag. 300. as you do and to maintain That the Doctrine of the Book is good and wholesome Doctrine and not condemned that is to be a Jansenist and to defend Hereticall Propositions The sequell will shew the Truth of what I say and declare the aim of these turbulent spirits They do not say we have read the Book and cannot finde the Propositions there for to make the world believe that they are Dunces or cannot understand Laâ—ne for it were not for their purpose to be thought simple fools But they say so That the world upon their credit may judge that the Five Propositions are not there or which is equivalent that the Doctrine which is there is good Doctrine and not condemnend And so by saying this they do really approve the Doctrine and