THE Imaginary Heresie. The First LETTER.

I Would willingly send you some­thing that were new concerning Church-affairs: but what can be more said of them then that they are still where they were? They perpetually talk of the Five Propositions, and threaten to treat them as Hereticks who refuse to acknowledg them to be in Jan­senius: Some are preparing to persecute them by secret Cabals; and others to defend themselves as well as they are able by publick Writings, which men reade, and give their different opini­ons of. Some commend them and say they are good, others that they are too violent. 'Tis confess'd that they prove very well what they pretend. M▪ the [Page 50] Lieutenant Civil has made a very par­ticular judgment of them, as pronoun­cing them injurious to the Person of the King; whiles others find nothing in them but Elogies of his Majestie, and the defence of his sovereign Authority. This is all I can inform you of it in gene­ral; unless perhaps you would have me adde my own reflexions, and the truth is there is an ample subject for them.

I must needs confess that I have long since admir'd at the patience of men, and especially of the French, who were not wont to be reproch'd with that fault: 'tis now at least ten years that they have been continually talking of a thing that did not deserve to be dis­cours'd of one day. What does it sig­nifie whether the Five Propositions be or be not in Jansenius's book; whe­ther men believe any such thing, or whe­ther they doubt of it? In the mean time, the whole business of the Church seems to be engag'd in this pleasant Question: Nor do the Bishops who superintend the Clergy take notice of any other disor­der which they think worthy of their [Page 51] application. They discourse of nothing save this in all their Assemblies: the Formularie is almost the onely Canon which men are now oblig'd to obey: and the onely great Crime which is pu­nish'd among the Ecclesiasticks by pri­vation of their employments is, to but doubt of this matter of Fact. A small grain of anti-Jansenism purges all kinds of defects, as the least degree of Indif­ference in the Point sullies all their o­ther vertues: so as the most compen­dious way for one to make his fortune is, to appear something zealous for the Formularie; be the man never so Igno­rant or Scandalous, this zeal supplies and covers all. In summe, never was the Spanish Catholicon appli'd to so ma­ny uses as these Five Propositions.

Nor are they onely our men of Lear­ning who talk of these matters, the ve­ry Courtiers entertain themselves with nothing else: and though the most un­derstanding persons discourse of it as of a thing really ridiculous & to make sport, there are some S ^r Politicks that make a great business of it. One would ima­gine [Page 52] to hear them speak as if all Religi­on depended on it, and the whole State were concern'd; so that there happen no Inundations, Tempests, Storms, Shipwrecks, Poison or Plague which they do not attribute to this Foppery. But what does most of all surprise me (as I said) is, that men should thus per­severe to be alwaies talking of the same thing, and of so mean a subject. For my own part, I protest to you, I am so tir'd with the Five Propositions, and with all that Dispute, that their discour­ses of it would be insufferable to me, did I not look on the whole affair with a particular view, according to which it affords me a very strange pro­spect; and I shall impart it to you. There is nothing, in my opinion, more wonderfull in all the histories of the Ages past, or in what has happen'd in our own times, and of which we have been the spectators, then to contemplate the images of the Vanity of mens Fan­cies, and withall to consider the infinite troubles and agitations which the most inconsiderable Trifles have produc'd [Page 53] amongst them. Is it not (for example) a thing worthy of astonishment, to be­hold all the Kingdomes of the World engage themselves in a Quarrel betwixt Augustus and Antonius, the whole force of the Roman Empire and neighbour States re-united in their Armies, and these Armies together by the ears near Actium; when one shall consider that one Female was the sole cause and pre­text of this bloudy War, which was to decide who should be master of the Universe, and absolutely abolish the whole frame of the Roman State? This signal event, and which drew such a consequent after it, had for its beginning but the face of a Woman; and but for this weak passion Antony had taken other measures, and in all probability nothing of what succeeded it had hap­pen'd: though for my part I am glad it did, since by it I perceive what a piece of nothing Man is. Antonius, whiles he makes the whole World depend up­on him, does himself depend and dote up­on a silly Woman. See here the cause of all this stupendious Change, a pro­digious [Page 54] image of the Vanity of all hu­mane affairs.

You shall reade in some of the Indian Histories, that one white Elephant was the cause of the death of five or six great Princes, and of the desolation of several Kingdomes. There was, among others, a King of Pegu who assembled an Army consisting of a million of men, in which there were three thousand Ca­mels, five thousand Elephants, and two hundred thousand Horses, to take this Beast from the King of Siam. He de­stroy'd the whole Country of this poor King, ruin'd his chief City, which was twice as large as ours of Paris, and in fine forc'd him to kill himself after the loss of his whole Empire; and all this but for one white Elephant. Yet had this Conquerour three already, he wan­ted only a fourth for his Coach, and to procure that, he brought a whole King­dom to desolation.

We commonly look upon these Hi­stories as on the Follies and Extravagan­ces of Barbarians; but, in my judg­ment, we should think otherwise of [Page 55] them. I find nothing in them but what seems very worthy of Men, and excee­dingly proportionable to the stretch of their fancy, and so much the less vain, as indeed they serve to discover to us the vanity and emptiness of all those Enter­prises which the world, forsooth, would make pass for so glorious and impor­tant.

Do not imagine, Sir, that these Ex­amples are onely to be met withall in prophane Histories, as if that of the Church, which is the Kingdom of God, were exempted from them. This were not rightly to understand in what estate God has decreed it should yet remain in the world, which makes S. Paul say, that the Creature is subject to Vanity; Vanitati creatura subjecta est. She is yet, Sir, mingled with good and bad, Chaff and Corn; and so mingled in­deed, that the Chaff is a great deal more visible then the Wheat. Nor are those who govern her alwaies true Citizens of Jerusalem; they are oftentimes, saies S. Augustine, but Citizens of Babylon, whom God suffers to ascend the thrones [Page 56] of the Church, to render them Mini­sters of his indignation. In fine, there is ever amongst the honestest men some mixture of weakness, which they draw from their natural corruption, amongst those solid benefits which they receive from God. We are not therefore to won­der if amidst this multitude of Carnal men who fill the visible Church, and the remanent defects of the most Spiritual, we find instances of all humane disor­ders. Were there nothing but what were edifying and serious in the exteri­or Government of the Church, she would (as one might say) be too visible and easie to be discerned; by which the Faith of those who adhere and submit themselves to her should not be suffici­ently exerciz'd: But God, having by a just judgement left her alwaies sufficient marks whereby to make her known to all humble and rational spirits, is pleas'd to obscure her to the proud, and such as are carried away by the image of those visible disorders to look on her as upon an humane Assembly which does no o­therwise govern her self then other Soci­eties do.

[Page 57]For this reason it is that God permits that great troubles should be rais'd for things of no moment, as well in the Church as in temporal States. What was there (for example) more vain then the fancy which mov'd Justinian to con­demn the Writings of three Authors, for which he turn'd the whole Oriental Church topsy-turvy, and the Western too, per superfluas Quaestiones, as Pope Pelagius II ^d expresses it? and to what did all tend, but to the tormenting of se­veral Bishops, the banishing of some, im­prisonment of others, the exciting of a Schism in Italy, and all this to no pur­pose? For however this Emperor had caus'd his Opinion to be approv'd by a General Council and divers Popes; yet did all which was at that time done come to nothing of it self a little while after, since it both is and alwaies was permit­ted, that men might believe what they pleas'd touching those Authors Wri­tings. So true it is, that matters of Fact are not to be determin'd but by Reason and Truth, and not by Au­thority.

[Page 58]But such is the frequent conclusion of such enterprises: They seem to succeed for a time, and soon after dissipate and vanish of themselves. But the misery is, that men have commonly their spirits so narrow, they cannot stretch them be­yond their own Times. If they spie a Tempest coming against some particular Book or Person, they presently give all for lost, and that such as succeed after them will judge of it just as they do by the present face of the Storm which terrifies them. I cannot but strangely wonder that Experience should not yet disabuse them of this Illusion, and teach them to distinguish solid and stable Judg­ments▪ which proceed from an inspecti­on of immutable Truths, from those which spring onely from the blindness of a transitory Passion: since these sort of Opinions are as variable as the Passions from whence they rise▪ they are no soon­er at an end, but that which appear'd so important begins to seem horribly ridi­culous, and men are astonish'd that there should ever have been any so simple as to have amus'd themselves about them.

[Page 59]There's no question but that when the Cordeliers were at a difference be­tween themselves concerning the form of their Capuchon, when those who would be call'd the Spiritual Brethren would have their Hood narrower, and the others which they nam'd the Bro­thers of the Communalty would have theirs of a larger size, they thought their dispute wonderfull considerable: And in good earnest the quarrel lasted almost a whole Age, with infinite heat and a­nimosity on both sides; being at last, with much adoe, determin'd by the Bulls of four Popes, Nicolas IV ^th, Clement V ^th, John XXII ^th, and Benedict XII ^th. But now it looks as if really it had been onely to make the World sport, when men but mention this Dispute; and I verily believe there is hardly a Cordelier at present that cares a rush for the size of his Capuchon. For so in truth a wise Frier would have said when the Con­test was at the highest, Let us but have patience a while, and we shall both be laught at.

The same might likewise have been [Page 60] said upon another Question sprung up about the same time, and which is of a nature so thin and aiery, that it almost vanishes with the touch.

'Tis a certain truth, that what the Cordeliers eat or drink is as well de­vour'd as that which is eaten or drank by those who never made profession of their Rule: This is undeniable. But there sprung a Question among them, Whether the Right to those things which were so consum'd by the Usage, as Bread and Wine, appertain'd to them or not; or whether they had onely the simple Usage of them without any Right. The greater part, perceiving this to be a certain degree of Perfection which cost them nothing but their quit­ting of all right to those things which they devour'd by the use, (since this renunciation did not at all hinder the usage, for which they were onely interes­sed) greedily embrac'd the opinion, That the Cordeliers had indeed but the sim­ple Usage of things without any Title to them; That the Right appertain'd to the Roman Church, and that there was [Page 61] the Poverty of which J. Christ gave them an Example.

Nicolas the IV ^th, who had been ta­ken out of the Order of the Cordeliers, made a Bull wholly advantageous to this pretension, and defin'd, That in effect they had but the simple Usage, and that J. C. had given us the example of this perfect Poverty, which consists in the general renunciation of all Right to tem­poral goods.

Thus continued matters for some time: The Cordeliers ate and drank as well as other men, though without right or title. But John the XXII ^th, who was of a fiercer humor, being rais'd to the Pontificate, found himself impor­tun'd with this unprofitable Right which the Cordeliers attributed to the Roman Church, from whence he saw to come no profit, and therefore he took a fancy to end this Question without any regard to the Decision of his predecessor Nicolas.

The Cordeliers alarm'd at this, be­ing assembled in their general Chap­ter held at Perouse, solemnly protested [Page 62] to adhere to the Definition of Pope Nicolas the IV ^th.

But for all this, John took the ad­verse party, declaring by his Extravagant Ad conditorem, that he car'd not for this right to the bread and wine of the Cordeliers, and other things which they consum'd by the usage, since there ac­cru'd no profit by it to the Church of Rome: That the Cordelier Friers were never the poorer, and that their inten­tion was that none but themselves should derive any profit from it. Nec Fratrum ipsorum intentio fuerit quòd ad quemcumque▪ alium quam ad Fra­tres dictarum rerum perveniret com­pendium. That it was a dishonour that the Roman Church should interess it self for an Egg, or a piece of Cheese. That in things which they devour'd after that manner, the Usage and the Right of usage was not to be distinguish'd; and that all this aiery and spiritual refine­ment was but a pure illusion. In fine, he determin'd by the Extravagant, Cùm inter nonnullos, &c. That it was a plain Heresie to affirm that Jesus Christ pos­sessed [Page 63] nothing in this World, neither in particular nor in common, and that he should have no title to the things which he used.

These Decisions of John the XXII ^th appear'd quite repugnant to those of Nicolas the IV ^th, and the difference did so perplex Cardinal Bellarmin, as he re­ally profess'd they were not to be throughly reconcil'd.

He acknowledg'd that Nicolas the IV ^th did teach that one might separate the Right from the Usage; and that John the XXII ^th had declar'd the con­trary.

He confess'd also that Nicolas has de­termin'd that this is a holy Poverty; and on the other side, that John the XXII ^th look'd upon it as Hypocrisie. And up­on these two points, unluckily takes the part of Nicolas against John.

But forasmuch as in the third point that concerns the Poverty of J. Christ the Cordeliers Opinion is tax'd of He­resie by John the XXII ^th; that the two Popes should not seem at variance in a point of Faith, he endeavours to piece [Page 64] them together by distinguishing of the times.

He saies therefore that J. Christ did possess Temporal things at one time, and that he was absolutely be­reav'd of them at another: That so it is true, that as to one season he pre­scrib'd us an example of perfect Po­verty, by an absolute renunciation of the possession of all things, as saies Ni­colas; and that it is as true, he at ano­ther time possess'd temporal goods which he made use of, as John the XXII ^th had decided it.

But this way of according the Deci­sions of the two Popes does not appear so solid: For John the XXII ^th does not pretend that J. Christ was master of the temporal things he us'd at one certain time onely, but that he was so alwaies; as appears by the general principle which he makes use of to prove it, which is, That the Usage is unjust which is unac­companied with Right: Whence it is ea­sily inferr'd, That J. Christ having made use of temporal things, and never ha­ving us'd them injustly, he had alwaies [Page 65] a Right to the Use of them.

But however the matter was, divers of the Cordeliers did not take them­selves to be justly condemn'd, and maugre the Pope, they obstinately main­tain'd that their Bread belong'd to the Church of Rome; so as the Emperor Lewis of Bavaria being then at variance with the Pope about his Election to the Empire, they joyn'd themselves to him, and stoutly sustain'd his right against John the XXII ^th. The Emperor on his part upheld the Cordeliers, reproching to the Pope as a foul Errour his Decisi­on touching the Poverty of J▪ Christ ▪ In summe, the animosity of both these Antagonists came at last to that height; that the Pope (according to the style of that Age) excommunicated the Empe­ror, declar'd him Heretick, favourer of Hereticks, depos'd him from the Em­pire, and caus'd all the poor Cordeliers to be burnt that he could lay hands on. On the other side, the Emperor enters Italy with a puissant Army, seizes on Rome, declares Pope John (then at A­vignon) unworthy of the Pontificate ▪ [Page 66] creates a new Pope, or rather Anti-pope, namely a Cordelier call'd Peter Ramu­ceus of Corbaria, who chose the title of Nicolas the V ^th, and who for the first action of his Pontificate vacated the Bull of John the XXII ^th against the Cordeliers, himself excommunicating and deposing him.

But as all this proceeding was irre­gular and violent, our pretended Pope could not maintain himself against John XXII ^th, but was in conclusion deliver'd up to him; yet did not this determine the difference, there were after this Appeals to the Council, several Excom­munications against Lewis of Bavaria, and such an infinity of Procedures of Inquisitors against the Cordeliers, who were by this time revolted all the world over, and especially in Italy, that it would here be too long to reherse the particulars. And thus was the success of this pleasant Question, Whether the Cordeliers were owners of the bread which they ate: For so it pleased God to humble mens pride, by suffering them to bring the greatest Trifles to the [Page 67] very height and greatest of extremities; and by that to let them see that they were all but mere Vanity themselves.

Thus it is we judge of things at pre­sent, because we are now free'd from those passions which did then disturb them; but then it was that they pass'd for very serious matters indeed, and it had not haply been safe to have laugh'd at them. There's no doubt but it will be just so with our present Disputes, and that within these fifty years they will all be put among the long Hoods, and the Bread and Cheese of the Cordeliers. Verily, I have long since had these Ex­amples in my thoughts, and have look'd upon them as equally expedient to de­monstrate to us the trifling folly of mens imaginations: The sole difference which I can find is, that there are in the present controversie very many things less rea­sonable then in the others which I have alledg'd.

1. For in earnest there is some real difference between a large Hood and a narrow Hood; but 'tis not possible to find any between the Orthodox Faith [Page 68] and the Heresie of our Age. The same individual person, without any altera­tion of his Opinion, and all the world knowing he has not alter'd it, is Here­tick in the morning, and a good Catho­lick by after-dinner, A Curat who of­fers himself to sign the Formularie with protestation that he does not ingage in the belief of the matter of Fact, and that his Bishop has declar'd he does not in the least pretend to oblige any man to it, is imprison'd upon this as an Here­tick: Afterwards, having sign'd the Formularie without revoking his pro­testation, and solemnly refusing to re­voke it, is free'd out of prison as an ex­cellent Catholick.

2. Those spiritual Friers who were so far in love with their narrow Hood, that they could not be brought to obey in it either their Superiors or the Pope himself, were certainly in the wrong; because these exterior things absolutely depend on the power of the Church, which no man may presume to disobey on pretence of not being able to doe it, since 'tis alwaies in a man's power to [Page 69] change a Hood when he pleases: But so is it not in the present Dispute, where they command us to alter an Opinion upon a Question of no importance, or to renounce that exteriourly which they permit us to retain in our hearts; both of them equally impossible to conscienci­ous persons; Reason it self not allowing that one should change his Opinion without some new light and subject for it, and Piety not permitting us to belie our sentiment without really altering it.

3. It is manifest that in the dispute 'twixt John the XXII ^th and the Corde­liers, they could fix no reproch of He­resie but upon certain Points contain'd in the Scripture; and therefore this Pope expressly distinguish'd the Questi­on concerning the Right of the Corde­liers to temporal things from that of the Poverty of J. Christ, and shews that he onely appli'd the note of He­resie to this Question, as believing the Opinion of the Cordeliers upon this point to be repugnant to the Scriptures: But now they pretend here, I know not how, to found an Heresie on the refusing [Page 70] to acknowledge a pure and simple Fact, which every body knows cannot be establish'd or proved by Scripture.

In summe, they disputed in those daies in good earnest, Pope John the XXII ^th making them very well under­stand what he meant, and subtily an­swering the others reasons without at all dissembling them, or making as if he did not comprehend them: But in the pre­sent difference all the address is made to consist in saying nothing that is intelli­gible. They perpetually talk of the sense of Jansenius; but what is this sense of Jansenius? 'Tis a Mysterie which is forbidden to be revealed. Fa­ther Annat one day endeavour'd to doe it, but was like to have spoil'd all; for 'twas told him, that they had con­demn'd what he call'd the sense of Jansenius: so there was an end of the Question. And since that time men have been very tender of making any such offers, keeping themselves within the inseparability of Fact and Right, for that the world, which understands none of these terms, are not aware of the [Page 71] absurdity: If they were, they would be astonish'd that men should presume to publish such an extravagance, since, in one word, 'tis as much as to say, that 'tis the same thing to affirm Jansenius has not taught those Propositions, as to maintain in effect those Propositions: and that to say a friend of ours has not kill'd a man, is all one as really to have kill'd a man.

Behold here the sole foundation of the Formularie, which those who are the Authors of it have rais'd upon this Principle, That one cannot separate matter of Fact from matter of Right. But since no humane Reason is able to suffer such a violence upon it long, they have been forc'd to seek for other pre­texts to defend that which they had done. Most of the Bishops declaring in particular, that it is a most absurd and stupid thing to confound matter of Fact with Right, they pretend that they do not require our belief of the Fact: so as it seemed that after this there remain'd no­thing, and all were at an end; they con­test not the Right, nor require they our [Page 72] belief of the Fact: and yet, for all this, the Heresie remains intire, because in­deed the Heresie consists in nothing. For at the same moment that they in­dulge you not to believe the matter of Fact, provided you declare that you do not believe it, you are become an Heretick without remedy. There is therefore visibly something of more extraordinary in our disputes then was in those other Examples which I but now produced; but if the Vanity be equal, the Injustice is here incompara­bly the greater. And truly 'tis that which prevents a Reply I conceive some persons of the World might make▪ which is, That they are verily persua­ded there is nothing more frivolous then all this Contestation▪ and that all those who have any thing to doe in it are equally ridiculous; it being as much a wonder there should be people so obstinate as to maintain that Five Propositions are not to be found in a Book, as to see there are others so impudent to avow that they are there.

But however this Judgement may [Page 73] conform to the humor of the men of the world, 'tis certainly most unjust in the reality of the thing. For in differences which spring from mean and low con­siderations, the fault and the injustice is not alwaies of both parties; and of­tentimes one may be persecuted for a ridiculous matter, yet without being culpable or ridiculous. For Instance, Pope John the XXII ^th having simply in­joyn'd the Cordeliers to obey their Su­periors as to the shape of their Hoods, they were doubtless to blame for their obstinacy, though the thing in it self were but a trifle: But if he had com­manded them to say and acknowledge that their Hoods were large when as indeed they were narrow, their disobe­dience had been excusable, and had they been persecuted for so doing, they ought rather to have suffer'd patiently, then to have obey'd him. I affirm the same as to our Point in difference. If one should say simply to such as doubt whether the Five Propositions are in the B ^p of Ypres's Book, Speak no more to us of that, I should blame them for their [Page 74] disobedience: But when they shall com­mand them to acknowledge that those Five Propositions are in Jansenius's Book, and to condemn them too in his sense, they might reasonably reply, We do not know what that sense of Jan­senius means which you would have us to condemn, nor can we possibly meet with those Propositions in all his Book: If they should persecute them for this, the Persecution would doubt­less prove but ignominious to the au­thors of it. And the reason is plain, Be­cause 'tis never a small and mean thing to be sincere, be the matter or subject never so small in which one ought to appear sincere. So as all the evil in these rencontres reflects on those onely who would constrain men to render to their Opinion in such frivolous Questi­ons, since 'tis in their power not to doe it; whiles 'tis not so with persons of honour and integrity, to dissemble what they believe, be the matter never so inconsiderable.

But I think all knowing persons will judge more equitably of the matter, [Page 75] and that if Persecution be destin'd for one party, the derision will fall to the share of the other. This is the sense which, for ought I perceive, all discreet men are of at present. And therefore I believe I shall find but too many of opinion with me, who will look on all this affair as upon a Picture of the baseness of men. I could onely wish that they did enlarge their prospect a little farther, and discover the malice of the Devil, who serves himself of this Chimaera for the raising of infinite real evils to the Church; and, on the other side, the secret dispensation of God, who permits so many funest and unlucky consequences to spring from so frivolous an occasion. For 'tis a pro­digious thing but to consider the mis­chiefs which this unfortunate contesta­tion has already produc'd, and what it is yet likely to bring forth. Hitherto they have made use of it only to coun­tenance all sorts of licentiousness, and to render useless all those Divines who may be found able to oppose it. In the mean time all kind of Zeal for the [Page 76] purity of Manners is become suspected; nor is it now possible to doe any thing that is solidly good, but one is imme­diately accus'd of this Imaginary He­resie. Thus is this Affair, so far as it has respect to men at least, a perfect image of their Vanity; on the Devil's part, a subtile address and contrivance of his Malice; and as it concerns God Almighty, a terrible judgment of his Justice, who is pleas'd to exercise his Church, by this impertinent Dispute, with one of his most rigorous Chastisements.

I perceive that to satisfie you intire­ly, I must be forced to adde to these reflexions of mine on the present state of our affairs, some conjectures what may in likelihood be the event of it hereafter. See then the Prophecie, which I think one may safely pronounce, with­out being a Prophet.

Something I believe there is of cer­tain in the success of this Contest, and something of very uncertain. It is un­certain whether it will long continue, or be quickly at an end; there are pre­sumptions for both: Matters are too [Page 77] far engag'd to conclude so suddenly; and they are again too mean to subsist long. But what appears most evident is, that in all appearance they will within a while change face. This generation will pass, the Disputers of either part must shortly go to their long home, in domum aeternitatis suae, and there will spring up another generation of men who will not be concern'd with our Passions; and it is certain then, that all this Controversie will pass but for a Comedy and a vain amusement; that they will conceive a just indignation a­gainst the Authors of all these Troubles, so frivolous in their cause, and so perni­cious in their event; and that they will commiserate a world of gallant and sober men, who in another Age would have been reverenc'd, and which the present has treated with so much rigour and in­dignity.

The Second LETTER.

THE whole Affair of Jansenism is in the very bottom of it but a mere Trifle, think of it what you please; but there is no jeasting in the prosecu­tion of it. Father Ferrier (whose Wri­ting you lately transmitted to me) has unworthy designs on foot, and he pre­tends nothing less then to engage both the Church and the State in the unjust Passions of his Society. 'Twere time the business were therefore well look'd after, and to prevent it if possible.

The Question is not now, whether the matter in controversie be tractable, or so wild that there's no medling with it. The end of writing should not be to divert the World and make it sport, but to inform it of things which it con­cerns men to know. And therefore one should less regard upon this occasion the Niceness of those persons who reject all things that require any serious ap­plication, [Page 79] then the Utility of those who have need that we untangle certain terms which impede them, and may possibly engage them into dangerous surprises. But since the Father Fer­rier begins to signalize himself in this Affair, 'twere good one knew what he were, that so we be not mistaken; for we should deceive our selves to take him for an ordinary Jesuite. I assure you the Society do not look upon him for such, since they put it in his head, and have intrusted him with their most important affair, which is the persecu­tion of Jansenism. But otherwise, he is a Disciple and a particular friend of F. Annat's: And there be some people say, that this Father invited him to Paris in spem futurae Successionis, and with endeavour to resign a place to him, which he looks upon as a benefit of his Society. I referre my self to the matter it self. But certain it is, that he has done quite the contrary to what he promis'd at Tolouse, when they began to treat concerning an Agreement.

The Agreement there was, That [Page 80] they should not stand upon the subscri­ption to the matter of Fact, nor the For­mularie, but onely a respectfull Silence, according to the proper terms of the Project which M. de Comenges sent to Paris, written with his own hand, and bearing this Title, The Project of the Accommodation concerted between the Bishop of Comenges and Father Fer­rier the Jesuite. In the mean time the Father has so dextrously manag'd his negotiation, that he has brought it to this pass, that it should not suffice to sub­scribe the Formularie. Perhaps he has taken another resolution by the way, and another Conscience too, it may be. For your Doctors of the Probabilitie (such as is the Father Ferrier, who has written a book of it) have this privi­lege, They change their Conscience as men do their Clothes, and as the Rules of this Doctrine permit them: so as they have one for Tolouse, another for Paris, and another for Rome.

I shall not wonder at all, Sir, if this astonish you, for it is indeed most admi­rable: But you are to understand, that [Page 81] these Gentlemen, the Casuists, are a Corporation within themselves, who have their Laws, their Customs and Reasonings quite different from those of other people; so as the surprise is com­monly mutual on both sides. The World is astonish'd when they hear the Max­imes which they teach; and they as much wonder when they learn that the world does by no means approve of them. You were surpriz'd when I told you of the change of Conscience which these Casuists permit, and which they name Mutatio dictaminis; and the Par­liament were amaz'd also when Fa­ther Coton publickly declar'd, that as he maintain'd in France that the King was not subject to the Pope in Tempo­rals, so he would affirm the contrary if he were at Rome. But Caramuel is wonderfully troubled that the Parlia­ment should make any scruple at this double Conscience of F. Coton's, and therefore does handsomly and ingeni­ously maintain it in his Fundamental Theologie, n. 194. That F. Coton is no-waies to be blam'd for having in [Page 82] France embrac'd the opinion of the French concerning the Independence of Kings, and at the same time to have declar'd, that he should change his Sen­timent when he chang'd the Country, and that being at Rome he would be of the opinion that they were of at Rome. For this same chopping of probable Con­science is so certainly indulged, accor­ding to Caramuel, that he assures us 'tis as clear as the Sun at noon: Thesim istam (saies he) judico luce meridianâ clariorem, n. 285. Edit. Francoford. So as the poor Parliament, who took it seems offence at it, must needs be more blind then those who at mid-day see no light.

'Tis a prodigious thing, (saies one in the world) that the Jesuite L' Amy should dare teach that it is lawfull for a Religious man to kill any who shall but mean the publishing of the notorious Crimes of his Society, if there be no other means to hinder him: and that 'tis strange, according to Caramuel, that any one in the world should scruple at this pious doctrine of F. L' Amy; since [Page 83] it is not onely (saies he) probable, but the contrary improbable in the opinion of all the learned Casuists. Doctrinam Amici solum probabilem, & contrari­am improbabilem censemus omnes docti.

This was not an unprofitable Di­gression, seeing it serves to inform us what there is contain'd in the quality of your Casuists, and which is one of the most conspicuous of F. Ferrier's; for this Father is a wonderfull Casuist. And by this one may judge, that it is not altogether unlikely, but that as he came to Paris under pretence of pacify­ing the differences of the Divines, so he now promotes the same differences to the end he may still continue there. The Doctrine of Probability and of shifting Conscience may well be allow'd to goe so far, because the prime Rule which it follows is Utility. Now com­monly these Provincial Jesuites con­ceive it very profitable to come to Paris when they are not there, and to dwell there when they once are. What-ever it be, to tell you in one word who this Father Ferrier is; You must under­stand [Page 84] he is a great Jesuite, a great Casuist, and a great friend of F. Annat: he does all by corresponding with him, is his prime Minister, and the depositary of his most reserved and secret thoughts; so that he is to be consider'd as a person totally il­luminated with all that is in F. Annat: and when you speak of F. Annat, you have said all; for who should know any thing of this business, if he do not?

He is the sole Author of this For­mularie that has made such a noise. The late Archbishop of Tolouse was onely his property, and therefore it behov'd him to know what he thought when he did it, and on what grounds he settled it. He is the principal instigator of all those persecutions which have hap­pen'd to this pretended Heresie. He therefore ought to know it better then any man, and is the most capable to teach others to know it also: And it is indeed what the Father Ferrier pretends to effect by his orders, and what he pro­mises by the very Title that he has given to this flying sheet, THE TRUE IDEA OF JANSENISM.

[Page 85]He is to let us see that it is not an Imaginary Heresie, as they have so con­fidently publish'd, but an Heresie in good earnest: and in effect the Conclu­sions which he gathers from them a­gainst those whom he accuses are very real ones; for he causes them to be ex­communicated by the Church, and overwhelm'd by the Royal power; and these are indeed consequences to the purpose. The Question is whether the Principles thereof be also solid: for it were a very strange thing, if they should have no other support for these severe Conclusions but visible Falsities and palpable Equivocations. Doubtless men are never more concern'd to reason discreetly, then when they are upon positive resolutions of banishing per­sons from the Church and State.

If it should then appear that the whole Writing of F. Ferrier is but a mere extravagancy of spirit without ex­ample, what may one conclude of the Rashness of this Father and of his fel­low- Jesuites? and what are we to think of an Heresie which is founded [Page 86] onely upon these Imaginations?

But to understand them rightly, we are to consider the state of the Dis­pute when F. Ferrier did first enter upon it, and began to publish to the World his new lights.

The Jesuites accus'd the Divines of Heresie, because they did not con­demn the Five Propositions in the Sense of Jansenius: and these Divines re­plied, that this reproch was a visible, criminal and inexcusable Calumny: nor did they content themselves to have said it, they prov'd it by a reason which is without contradiction.

All Heresie does consist in a certain precise and determinate Dogme oppo­site to the verity of Faith reveal'd in Scripture and Tradition, and which may be known and express'd indepen­dently from the name of the Author; since all the Verities of Faith are co­evous with the Church it self, though they are not often oppos'd till a long while after the beginning of the Di­vine revelation. So that as these Verities of Faith were Truths long e're they [Page 87] were oppos'd; so the Errours which were repugnant to these Truths were doubtless Errours before any man had the boldness to maintain them.

This we generally find in all Here­sies. The Doctrine of Arius is an Here­sie; but it does not consist in the vain and indeterminate words of the Doctrine of Arius, but in this particular Position or Opinion, that the Son is not consub­stantial with the Father. It is the very same in all the rest: They all maintain a peculiar and distinct Dogme indepen­dent from the name of the Author; and when we do not know the Opinion any more, we say that we know the Heresie no more; and if a man had never known it, he might well say that it never was.

This is sufficient, say the Divines, to repell that unjust Reproch which they fling upon us, of being sectators of a new Heresie: For we sincerely protest, that we intirely acquiesce in the Au­thority of the Universal Church; that we embrace, without the least reservati­on, all the Dogms which She propo­ses to us as of Faith; that we submit [Page 88] all our Understanding and Reason to her; and that our hearts do not at all accuse us of holding any Doctrine which is repugnant to her Decisions: so as we can say before God with confidence upon this subject, Iniquitatem si aspexi in corde meo, non exaudiet Dominus. We do not conceal our sense, but are ready to referre it to the Pope and to the Bishops, and to accept them for our Judges: We have offer'd it several times, and have this consolation, that those who are the most prejudic'd a­gainst us, have nothing to object a­gainst us. In fine, we are so far from embracing any particular Doctrine on the Five Propositions, that though we do not acknowledge the Jesuites for the Rules of our Faith, yet it is most true that we hold no Opinion upon the matter of the Five Propositions, which they dare publickly accuse of Heresie before the Pope or the Bishops.

How clear and ingenuous, Sir, is this Declaration, how truly Catholick and exceedingly remote from all suspicion of Heresie? and that not onely for [Page 89] acquitting these persons of Errours, but for shewing that they could not be cul­pable of Heresie, if without their know­ledge and consent they should haply fall into some Errour; since all the world knows that the crime of Heresie does not consist simply in the Errour, but in the Obstinacy to maintain and dwell in an Errour against the judg­ment of the Church. Now how is it possible that these people should impu­dently maintain an Errour they are to­tally ignorant of, against a judgement of the Church which they know no­thing of?

But this does not satisfie the Jesuites, and because they do not find their reck­oning in it, they continue their accusa­tion of Heresie: and this is it which has oblig'd the Divines to give them this defiance, and which is certainly very urging; Either set the Heresie you im­pute to us distinctly and clearly down; or acknowledge your selves Calumnia­tors, for accusing us of an Heresie which you cannot tell what to make of.

On this it is that the Jesuites have [Page 90] reveal'd the Mysterie of their Politicks, and the whole secret of the Heresie. In stead of endeavouring to set down & de­scribe the Positions, a thing which upon trial did never succeed with them; they intrench themselves, and have recourse to the uncertain expression of the Sense and of the Doctrine of Jansenius, with­out any farther advance: You hold (say they) the Doctrine of Jansenius to be Catholick; the Pope declares it heretical; behold then your Heresie. But as they had to doe with persons ve­ry well prepar'd to defend themselves, so never was there an Equivocation unriddled as this has been. They told F. Annat in express terms, that this was a Scholastical Sophism, unworthy an old Logician, as he was. Nunquámne intelliges, Dialectice senex, puerile ar­gumentationis vitium? and they prov'd it well too: For some of them, it seems, condemn his Sense and his Doctrine as heretical, whiles others defend it for Catholick, without the least difference between them concerning Faith; be­cause it is not the same precise and de­termin'd [Page 91] Sense which is thus condemn'd by some, and approv'd by others, though they both of them call it by the same name; and that is but what we daily meet with in the different explication of an Author. For there is ever in these encounters this opposition of words, that some affirm the Doctrine of an Author to be Catholick, and o­thers that 'tis heretical; though nei­ther of them disagree touching the true Faith. The Fifth Council pronoun­ces the Doctrine of Theodoret to be impious and heretical: Father Petavi­us and many other Jesuites deny it; are they therefore against the Faith of the Council? By no means; since they defend Theodoret but by interpreting him after another way then did the Council, and by giving him a Catho­lick sense.

'Tis the very same case in the present Dispute. The Pope saies the Doctrine of Jansenius is heretical; other men say, We find no such matter in Janse­nius. The words have indeed an ap­pearance of contrariety, but without [Page 92] implying the least contrariety of Faith; forasmuch as the Doctrine which these Divines maintain to be Catholick and of Jansenius, is not certainly the same Doctrine which the Pope condemns for heretical and as being that of Jansenius. And the proof which they bring is decisive. We do not (say they) main­tain on the matter of the Five Proposi­tions any thing save the Doctrine of Grace efficacious alone, as 'tis held by S. Augustine, and by the whole School of S. Thomas. Now 'tis clear that the Pope does no-where condemn this Do­ctrine, as he makes all the Church be­lieve, and indeed as both the Church and the Jesuites themselves do accord. It is then certain that the Pope does not condemn that which we understand un­der the notion of the Sense of Janseni­us; as we likewise do not hold what the Pope condemns under these terms; see­ing, this Doctrine excepted, we have nothing at all to doe with the rest, but reject it in general, as we are rea­dy to doe in particular, when-ever the Church shall please to describe it [Page 93] in particular, or to shew us where it is.

And thus you have the whole state of this ten-years Dispute; The Jesu­ites stand to their sense of Jansenius, and all men that will may perceive the Illusion and Equivocation of the terms. But in fine, F. Ferrier is come up from the very farthest part of all Languedoc to the aid of his Confraternity, and has been chosen by F. Annat to publish this Heresie, and to answer all those Wri­tings which made it plainly out that it is but a mere Chimaera: but especially, he undertook to replie to the Treatise of Just Complaints, which expressly clears this Equivocation of the Sense of Jansenius. Now therefore it is that we shall shortly come to know in what this wondrous Heresie consists, or else we must never hope to understand it whiles we live.

What saies this Reverend Father to us then? That 'tis expedient to publish the true Idea of Jansenism: in effect 'tis very expedient, and there it was it should indeed have been begun. For [Page 94] 'tis a wondrous strange thing, that men should make such a noise about a busi­ness which no body yet understands. And also (saies F. Ferrier) because these Divines complain in their Writings that we accuse them of an Heresie, with­out being able to determine what it is, I find my self oblig'd to say their com­plaints are very unjust. It has been told them a thousand times over that their Heresie consists in their belie­ving and maintaining that the Doctrine of Jansenius on the Five Propositions is Catholick, although the Church con­demn it for Heretical: which is (quoth he, pag. 3.) a true Question of Right, that presupposes matter of Fact, viz. That Jansenius establishes some Doctrine in his Augustine: and in this Questi­on one cannot divide the Fact from the Right; that is to say, one cannot hold the Doctrine which is condemn'd for he­retical, and at the same moment main­tain the Doctrine of Jansenius upon these Propositions not to be the same which the Popes have condemn'd.

This is all the illumination that [Page 95] F. Ferrier affords us upon this point, and to which all his Colours are re­duc'd. After this 'tis to no purpose to hope for any other, either from him, or from any else. He has done his ut­most, was too far engag'd, and we are not to believe that any body will ever be able to out-doe him. But in earnest, Sir, 'tis an Abuse beyond all humane patience, to promote (as F. Ferrier does here) a thing so invisible as is this Heresie without Dogme; and to make as if he understood nothing of so many convincing reasons, by which the falsity of this pretence has been made evident; to stand so obstinately in an Equivoca­tion that has been so fully detected, and to repeat in cold bloud, seriously and gravely, Absurdities which have been a hundred times overthrown, as if they were infallible Oracles. I profess to you, Sir, I know not what to think of all this; unless perhaps the Jesuites may imagine, that being (as they are) pow­erfull in the world, they may lawfully say and doe what they please them­selves; as being no more subject (like [Page 96] other men) to the dictates of Reason and common Sense.

Was there any need that F. Ferrier should himself have discovered the My­sterie of this Heresie without Position, or, to say better, this Heresie without Heresie? Did not the Cordelier Ju­bilé doe it before him, and fully as well? Every body derided it in this Frier, and so will they doe in this Jesuite: so as if this be all that he has to doe at Paris, he may e'en goe back again to his Pro­vince: His staying at Paris will be no advantage to his Cause, and most cer­tainly blemish his Reputation.

But, saies F. Ferrier, 'Tis a Questi­on of Right, to understand whether the Doctrine of Jansenius be Catholick or Heretical; as it also is to know whe­ther the Doctrine of S. Augustine be orthodox or not. But I maintain that whoever saies so, knows not what a Question of Right or a Question of Fact signifies.

We must doe all we can then to pe­netrate through these natural or volun­tary Obscurities of F. Ferrier; and after [Page 97] this, if he render not up himself, I shall esteem him for a desperado.

We are not to imagine that so soon as ever the words of Catholick Do­ctrine and Heretical Doctrine come in­to a Question, it is presently a Question of Right; since if so, several Contesta­tions would likewise be reduc'd to Que­stions of Right, which are merely but of Fact, being expressed by these terms: And for instance▪ they would affirm that there is a Question of Right between the Fifth Council and Father Petavi­us, seeing the Council condemns the Doctrine of Theodoret as Heretical, and this Father maintains it to be Catholick; which in the language of F. Ferrier one would name a Right.

But to know in very truth whether a Question be of Right, or of Fact, or of both of them together, you are one­ly to consider what both parties agree in, and what they contest: for 'tis evi­dent that the Question ▪ does not fall upon that which is accorded, but whol­ly on that which is disputed. When therefore two persons are agreed that a [Page 98] certain Dogm or Position is heretical, and question onely whether this Dogm be of such an Author or not, the dispute is onely concerning the matter of Fact. The Jesuites and the Sixth Council do consent that 'tis an Heresie to say There is but one Will in J. Christ; but they are at variance whether this Heresie was taught by Pope Honorius: The Council affirms it, the Jesuites deny it. This is only a Question of Fact, though it be ex­press'd by terms which look like matter of Right. The sense of Honorius is here­tical, saies the VI ^th Council; The sense of Honorius is Catholick, say the Jesuites.

When men agree on the contrary that an Author has taught a certain Do­ctrine, and the dispute be whether this Doctrine be Catholick or heretical, the Question is of the Right, not the Fact; because the Effect is agreed upon, and the Right is contested. The Monothe­lites and the Sixth Council agreed that Pope Honorius taught that there was but one Will in J. Christ: but the Mo­nothelites pretended that this Doctrine was Catholick; the Council maintains it [Page 99] for Heretical ▪ This is a Question of Right express'd by the same terms with the other. The Doctrine of Honorius is Catholick, say the Monothelites; The Doctrine of Honorius is heretical, saies the Sixth Council.

But when they are not agreed concer­ning a certain Doctrine, whether it be Catholick or Heretical, or has been pro­moted by some Author, there the Que­stion is concerning Fact and Right toge­ther, because both of them are disputed.

The Monothelites affirm that 'tis a Catholick Doctrine to say there is but one Will in J. C. as Pope Honorius teaches; the Jesuites reply, the Doctrine is not Catholick, and that 'tis falsly im­puted to P. Honorius: Here the Que­stion is both of Fact and Right. But that which is strange is this, that when they dispute in this manner concerning matter of Fact and Right, they both accord in the expression. For the Je­suites, who neither agree with the Mo­nothelites either in the Fact or Right, do yet consent with them in this ex­pression, contrary to that of the Council, [Page 100] that the Doctrine of Honorius is Ca­tholick.

'Tis an easie matter by this Rule to detect the Illusion of F. Ferrier, who maintains it generally in his Writings, that these are Questions of Right, viz. to know whether the Doctrine of S. Au­gustine be orthodox or not, or this of Jansenius heretical or Catholick. For 'tis evident, that insisting upon the ge­neral terms, one cannot distinguish whether they be Questions of Fact or of Right; whiles 'tis possible to form upon the Doctrine of S. Augustine, and on that of any other Author whatso­ever, Questions purely of Right, and Questions both of Right and Fact, and Questions purely of Fact; as will ap­pear by these Examples.

The Semi-pelagians affirm that the Doctrine of S. Augustine concerning Grace was not orthodox. The Calvi­nists, on the contrary, maintain that it is. The Jesuites say the same. And the Church saies so too.

Whiles we dwell here, one shall ne­ver come to know whether these Que­stions [Page 101] are of Fact or of Right: but we shall easily discover it by the same Rule.

The Semi-pelagians acknowledge with the Church that the Doctrine of the Necessity of Grace efficacious of it self for all good actions, was really S. Augustine's; but they reject this Doctrine as not true, at least in regard to the inception of Faith. And the Church, on the contrary, maintains it against them, that it is both certain and very true, as well in respect of the be­ginning of Faith, as of all other acti­ons of Piety.

So as since the matter of Fact was not contested, and that the dispute was one­ly concerning the quality of the Do­ctrine, the whole Question between the Church and the Semi-pelagians was purely concerning Right.

They say with the Semi-pelagians that the Doctrine of efficacious Grace per se is not true: but, as they are a great deal less sincere then the Semi-pelagians, they adde, that this Doctrine is not S. Augustine's, which the Semi-pelagians do not affirm. They are there­fore [Page 102] agreed upon the Right with the Semi-pelagians, and differ onely upon the pure Fact: whereas they nei­ther accord with the Church about the Fact, nor the Right; though they consent with her in this uncertain ex­pression, that the Doctrine of S. Au­gustine is true; because in particular they maintain that the Doctrine of effi­cacious Grace per se is false, and not S. Augustine's, albeit the Church has ever acknowledged both the one and the other of these two Points.

No wonder at all then, if in speaking to persons who were at variance, not about the Doctrine of S. Augustine in general, but the particular Doctrine of efficacious Grace per se, it has been said to them in a certain Writing, (which F. Ferrier has abus'd) That it was a Crime, an Attempt and an Heresie to condemn the Doctrine of S. Augustine of Heresie, which the Church has ap­proved: forasmuch as treating of the particular Dogm of efficacious Grace, they had reason to affirm that they could not brand it with Heresie, without er­ring [Page 103] in matter of Right and of Faith; whether one attacque it for not avowing it to be S. Augustine's, as do the Je­suites; or acknowledg it for S. Au­gustine's, as did the Semi-pelagians, and as those persons would seem to doe to whom this Writing is directed.

So that the difference which is 'twixt the Church and the Jesuites upon the Doctrine of S. Augustine forms a direct Question of Faith, together with a dispute of Fact. And of the very same nature is that between the Church and Calvin on the same Doctrine of S. Au­gustine. For he attributing this Er­rour to S. Augustine, That God is the Author of Sin, and that he compells the Will to good and evil, the asseve­ration which he makes of this general Proposition, that the Doctrine of S. Au­gustine is orthodox, does not excuse him from a double Errour both of Right and Fact; since he takes that for a Truth which is an Heresie, and attributes to S. Augustine a Blasphemy which was in­finitely remote from his thoughts.

But it may be that the Question con­cerning [Page 104] the Doctrine of S. Augustine might be purely of Fact from another supposition. For if a man led by a false persuasion, as was Calvin, that S. Au­gustine teaches God to be as well author of Sins as of Good actions, should at the same time condemn the Blasphemy which Calvin approves, and by a consequent of this Opinion refuse to acknowledg S. Augustine's Doctrine to be orthodox; one could not justly accuse him of Er­rour in point of Faith, because he should condemn what the Church condemns; but of an extreme Temerity onely, to have father'd so impious an Opinion on S. Augustine. But what would be strange in this encounter is, That he who should affirm in the sense of Cal­vin, that the Doctrine of S. Augustine were orthodox, would notwithstanding be an Heretick, because he did not doe it but as approving an Errour which he imputed to S. Augustine; whereas he that should say, as this person does, that the Doctrine of S. Augustine is not or­thodox, should be Catholick, because he would say it without any Errour: [Page 105] so little regard there is to be had, to be able to judge whether a man be Catho­lick or Heretick, and whether the Que­stions concern matter of Right or of Fact, to these wild and indetermin'd Propositions, which approve or condemn anothers Doctrine without so much as shewing it.

'Tis what S. Augustine has himself decided, and in respect to himself, by these words full of unction and charity: Whilest men (saies he, L. 1. de Trinit. c. 3.) imagine that I have held some false Opinion in my Books, which in truth I never held, and that they con­demn this Opinion; the law and di­ctates of Charity advertise and com­mand me, but with an injunction full of sweetness, to be rather willing to be reprov'd by him who condemns this Errour, in attributing it to me without reason, then to be prais'd by those who would maintain this Errour, because they believ'd I had taught it. For though the first did wrongfully, to at­tribute an Errour to me which I ne­ver committed; they had reason yet to [Page 106] condemn it: But the others are under a double mistake, since they praise me for an Opinion which the Truth condemns, and approve an Opinion which is con­demn'd by the Truth.

True it is, that this person who should thus impute an Errour to S. Augustine would be oblig'd to say, that the Church has not compris'd it in approving of his Doctrine; which would be very rash and scandalous, be­cause he would say it without and a­gainst all Reason: whereas there are some occasions wherein one might doe the same thing without temerity or scandal, because one does it not but up­on great reason: the only Rule for these kind of things being, That 'tis lawfull to doe them with Reason, but by no means without it. And therefore

It is lawfull to accuse of Suppositi­on the Council of Sinuessa, and it is not so in reference to the Council of Nice: It is lawfull to say that Theodoret has been ill understood by the Sixth Coun­cil, but it is not lawfull to say that Nesto­rius was so by the Council of Ephesus: [Page 107] It is lawfull to affirm that they did not understand the Doctrine of Pope Ho­norius in the VI ^th Council, but it is not so of the Doctrine of Pope Leo in the Council of Chalcedon.

That which makes that some of these things are permitted, and others of them forbidden, is, that there is Reason to say it of some, but none at all to say it of the other.

So that 'tis a very frail consequence which F. Ferrier derives in his Wri­tings, That if it be lawfull to say the Pope did not well understand Jansenius in condemning him, one might as well say of the Church, that she did not right­ly comprehend the Doctrine of S. Au­gustine in approving it; since it being not permitted to doe either of them without Reason, it were lawfull to doe both when Reason requir'd it. And the truth is, that one of them, which is, to affirm the Doctrine of Jansenius was never throughly understood at Rome, is very lawfull, because there is great Reason to believe it; and the other, that the Doctrine of S. Augustine was not [Page 108] well comprehended, is very unlawfull, because there is also no Reason for it; as will be demonstrated in another Treatise.

One cannot therefore know in gene­ral whether it be lawfull or not to affirm that an Author has been ill understood by the Church, since it depends on the particular Reasons which induce one to say it: Nor can one also know in ge­neral, whether those who dispute whe­ther the Doctrine of an Author be Ca­tholick or Heretical, are at variance up­on the Right, or the Fact; since it may be upon either of them: but one may clearly understand it by examining in Particular what is agreed upon, or con­tested, both by the one and the other.

And hence it is they easily prove, that the present Contestation about the Doctrine of Jansenius is a pure Questi­on of Fact. For it would in truth prove a Question of Right, if there were a certain precise Dogm maintain'd by some for Catholick, and condemn'd by others for heretical.

But seeing the contrary is true, that [Page 109] there is no precise and determin'd Dogm in the present Contestation▪ as appears clearly from F. Ferrier's not being able to specifie any, 'tis visible that the Que­stion is but concerning matter of Fact.

And therefore it must be acknow­ledg'd, F. Ferrier has not altogether fail'd of the promise which he makes in the Title of his Treatise, to present us with the true Idea of Jansenism. For this true Idea consisting in concei­ving an Imaginary Heresie, his Treatise is of excellent use for the forming of this Idea; since in Heresie without Position, and without any Question con­cerning Faith, (such as is what he pre­sents us) is the true Idea of an Imagi­nary Heresie. 'Tis true indeed, this is not his intention in it, but many times men doe things contrary to their inten­tions. Nor was it doubtless his design, to shew us that the Jesuites be Here­ticks: how-ever one might invincibly prove it by an argument like that which he produces against the Divines whom he strives to render Hereticks.

He acknowledges no other matter of [Page 110] Fact in the Pope's Decision, which de­clares that the Doctrine of Jansenius on the Five Propositions is heretical, then this, Jansenius teaches some Do­ctrine on the Five Prepositions, which is certain: he will have all the rest to be of Right; and thence concludes, That the Divines whom he accuses, not de­nying this Fact, That Jansenius did teach some Dogm upon the Five Proposi­tions, and yet refusing to own that his sense is heretical, deny a Right, and are Hereticks.

If this argument be valid, behold the Jesuites arrant Hereticks without re­medy: For there is no more to be said but the same, That it being certain the Sixth Council has condemn'd the Do­ctrine of Honorius, this Decision com­prehends no other Fact then this, That Honorius teaches some Doctrine con­cerning the Will of J. Christ, which is indubitable: and by consequent the Je­suites, who do not deny this Fact, yet denying Honorius's sense to be hereti­cal, deny a Right, and are Hereticks.

This obligation therefore the Jesu­ites [Page 111] have to F. Ferrier, that he has made them rank Hereticks, if you will believe him. But it were yet a great charity to draw them out of this Heresie; they have a world of others, where it is impossible to warrant them. The expedient is easie, it being onely to shew them after how extraordinary a manner their F. Ferrier is mistaken. For it is very certain, the matter of Fact which he specifies, That Jansenius has taught some Doctrine, is to be found in this Question, whether the Doctrine of Jansenius be Catholick or Heretical: But there yet occurrs another also very distinct and far separate from Right, and which has been the whole subject of this Contestation; and this it is he dis­sembles.

Perhaps F. Ferrier imagines, that when one submits a Book to the Pope, to judge whether the Doctrine in it be Catholick or heretical, 'tis sufficient for him to know that the Book teaches some Doctrine upon a certain matter; and that thereupon addressing himself to God, he reveals to him, that this Do­ctrine, [Page 112] of which he all this while knows nothing, is Catholick or Heretical. If Ecclesiastical judgements were made after this sort, there would in effect be no need to examine any other Fact then this ▪ whether the Author in controver­sie do teach some Doctrine upon a cer­tain subject: and this Fact being al­waies evident, there would hardly be ever any Questions of Fact, because men seldom dispute, whether an Author have some Doctrine upon a subject no matter what.

But because this Imagination com­prehends in it a very gross Errour, since it supposes particular Revelations in the Pope, which should be the foundations of these Decisions, it is evident that Ecclesiastical judgements are not made in this manner. Neither the Pope nor Bishops can judge whether the Doctrine of a Book be Catholick or Heretical without comparing it with Tradition. Now 'tis impossible they should com­pare it with Tradition, without they distinctly know it. Men never compare a Doctrine with Tradition which they [Page 113] know not but under the general Idea of the Doctrine of an Author. For 'tis neither Catholick nor Heretical, as Do­ctrine, nor as Doctrine of an Author. The Doctrine of God is essentially true as being the Doctrine of God, because God is the essential Truth. But the Do­ctrine of the Devil himself is not false as being the Doctrine of the Devil, because the Devil is not false from his Essence, and because he sometimes speaks truth, as when he acknowledg­ed that J. Christ was the Son of God. A fortiori, the Doctrine of a Catholick Author is not Heretical because it is a Doctrine, and because it is his.

Of necessity therefore ought both the Pope and the Bishops, to judge right­ly whether the Doctrine of a Book be Heretical or Catholick, pass through the examen of this point of Fact, That it is the Doctrine of this Book; and to reduce it to some precise Position distinct and determinate, from whence first to establish this Judgment of Fact, namely, that This Dogm and Position is of such an Author; and after that this [Page 114] Judgment of Right, This Dogm is He­retical, or Catholick.

It is of this distinct Dogm that they affirm these two things, viz. That it is of such an Author, That it is Here­tical. But they affirm it by two very separate and remote Judgments, and form'd upon most different Reasons.

They judge that this distinct Dogm is of an Author, by the very view of the Passages, and the connexion of his Principles.

They judge it to be Heretical, or Ca­tholick, by the comparison which they make of it with the Scripture and Tra­dition.

Thus it is the Pope and the Bishops should proceed indeed in condemning the Doctrine of Jansenius. It was not enough for them to know that Jansenius teaches some Doctrine on the Five Propositions; since 'tis ridi­culous to conclude from thence that this Doctrine is heretical: but they should necessarily have reduc'd the vain, uncertain Doctrine of Janseni­us to a precise Dogm by a judgment [Page 115] purely of Fact, in judging that this di­stinct Doctrine is of Jansenius, to be able afterwards to pronounce the judg­ment of Faith, which insinuates the Doctrine to be heretical.

There are not in the whole World things more separate and distinct then these Conclusions, This Dogm is Janse­nius's, This Doctrine is heretical. The one is matter of Fact, the other of Right. The one is true ever since the Church has been the Church, the other cannot be true but since Jansenius has written, and was before that false. It may be true that this was such an Author's Position, without his being an Heretick; and it may be as true that a Position is heretical, without being such an Author's; be­cause it is not therefore heretical for be­ing such an Author's, nor therefore such an Author's for being heretical.

Now these two Judgments, more remote from each other then are the Heavens from the Earth, are both comprehended in this single Proposition, The Doctrine of Jansenius is heretical, which is the result; and thus it com­prehends [Page 116] a Right and a Fact really sepa­rated, though confounded in the ex­pression. It may be deny'd as to them both; and, were onely the Fact de­ny'd, they are not those who fall into the Heresie that doe it, but those who accuse them of Heresie under this pre­text, as does the F. Ferrier.

For 'tis certain that of one part the Pope has form'd this Judgment, name­ly, This is Jansenius's Doctrine; but this is onely a matter of Fact, and a Fact not revealed either in Scripture or Tra­dition. It is also evident this Fact is wholly separate from Right, and that it is compris'd within the Pope's Deci­sion, which declares that the Doctrine of Jansenius is heretical. When there­fore F. Ferrier accuses those of Here­sie who deny it, he falls himself into the Heresie of establishing a point of Faith upon a thing which is neither contained in the Scripture nor in Tra­dition.

He has therefore the choice after this, to say that this Fact has been either re­veal'd to the Pope, or not reveal'd. If [Page 117] he acknowledge it has not been reveal'd to him, he falls into this Heresie of ma­king an Article of Faith of a matter of Fact which is no-where revealed. And if he pretend a Revelation of the Pope's, he falls into a double Errour; one for admitting particular Revelations in the Pope, which were to open a gate to all manner of Illusion; and another for founding of Points of Faith upon these particular Revelations, which is repug­nant to the essence of the Catholick Faith, which is onely established upon Divine Revelation contain'd in the Scripture and in Tradition.

He is therefore guilty of Heresie, whether he do admit of these Reve­lations, or whether he do not.

And, on the contrary, the Divines whom he accuses, for that they pretend Jansenius has not been well under­stood at Rome, and that they attribute to him a Doctrine which he no-where maintains, are Catholicks, whether they be, or be not mistaken in this their pre­tension.

For it is no way necessary (to exempt [Page 118] them from errour of Faith) that the Pope should fall into an errour of Fact. They are acquitted, whether the Pope be mistaken in the matter of Fact, or whether he be not. If this be true, that the Pope did not well understand Jan­senius, they had reason then not to ac­knowledge the Doctrine of Janseni­us to be heretical. And if it be true that he did well understand it, all that one ought thence to conclude is this, That these Divines did ill understand it, and too favourably explain'd it, in attribu­ting to it a Catholick sense which it has not, and in overseeing another heretical sense which it truly had; all which a­mounts but to a simple errour of Fact, which is neither a Crime nor Violence, but the most pardonable Mistake in the world, and the most worthy of Man, according to that of S. Augustine, since it all consists in taking the words of a great Bishop in a good sense: Qui error (saies the Saint) non solùm humanus est, sed etiam homine dignissimus.

All the cruel Conclusions of F. Fer­rier, and the Phantasm of his Heresie [Page 119] being founded upon these false Prin­ciples, That the Question is de jure; That a Fact is inseparable from Right; That there is no other Fact in the judg­ment of the Pope, then to know whe­ther Jansenius has taught any Doctrine on the Five Propositions, are not onely false, but criminal. Let him make choice of other Subjects to dispute ill upon as long as he pleases: This is a thing which cries for vengeance before God and man, to demand of the King (as he does) Declarations so far remote from his Goodness and Justice upon Argu­ments so contrary to common Sense. Let him distinctly specifie, if he can, what this Heresie is which he accuses these Divines of, and express it under other terms then the ambiguous and uncertain words of the Sense of Jan­senius, by which no man can know them. And if he cannot doe this, let him hold his peace, and repent of these Extravagances; or rather make them some publick reparation, as indeed he is obliged.

This Argument is infinitely more pres­sing [Page 120] then what he emploies against these Divines, pag. 5. in this manner.

The Jansenists (saies he) cannot de­ny that they mock God and the Church, when they demand that one should shew them this Sense or Doctrine of Jan­senius upon the Five Propositions. And why, I pray, do they mock thus? Be­cause (saies this Father) if they do know what the Sense of Jansenius is upon the Five Propositions, they are ridiculous to enquire of a thing which they know al­ready. If they do not know what the Sense is, they are doubly to blame, to publish that they are convinc'd that the Sense of Jansenius is Catholick, when as they do not know what it is; and for re­fusing to submit to the Church in a mat­ter which is otherwise unknown to them.

They replie in a word to F. Ferrier, That the Divines, who are bound to act according to knowledge, and who are not obliged to render the Bishops more then a reasonable obedience, have cause to enquire what the Sense of Jan­senius is which they would have them to condemn, whether they do know it, [Page 121] or whether they know it not. If they be ignorant of it, they have reason to ask, to be instructed before they be urg'd to condemn it; because supposing they do not understand it, they can neither true­ly averr that they do reject it, nor pro­mise truely that they will not embrace it; for peradventure they may be en­gag'd to doe it without knowing of it, and perhaps fall into it before they are aware.

Now if we suppose that these Di­vines do know what the Pope and the Bishops understand by this Sense of Jansenius, they have so much the more reason to demand, because they onely know it by particular waies and such as are not authentical: so that if they should themselves determine what the Pope understands by the Sense of Jan­senius, (as these Propositions are susce­ptible of various senses) the Jesuites would not fail presently to say, that this were not yet what the Pope under­stands, and what they ought to con­demn; in fine, that 'twere some other thing, without saying what; and so [Page 122] one should never have an end. It were therefore much better they should make their addresses to those who have the power to determine this Sense; that if they once did it, it might clearly appear by condemning this Dogm together with them in which they had compre­hended the Sense of Jansenius; that one be not enwrapp'd in any Errour.

But the plain truth is, These Di­vines both do know, and do not know the Sense of Jansenius. They do very well know a Doctrine in Jansenius to be very holy, very Catholick and most Orthodox, which is that of Efficacious Grace per se, which infallibly causes the Will to act without imposing of a neces­sity. They acknowledge the Catho­lick Doctrine of the free Predestinati­on of the Elect, receiv'd by the whole Church, and maintain'd by Bellarmine himself as a point of Faith: and they do acknowledge no other Point upon the subject of the Five Propositions.

But since it is evident by the univer­sal consent of the Church, that this is not that which the Pope and the Bishops [Page 123] mean by the Sense of Jansenius which they condemn, but a certain Sense which was never known to our Divines be­fore Baius and Jansenius, according to those Gentlemen the Bishops of the As­sembly; a certain Sense contrary to the Doctrine of all the Catholick Schools, as these very Bishops do assure us; a certain Sense different from efficacious Grace, repugnant to S. Augustine, and which has been constantly condemn'd by the Dominicans and the Jesuites, as F. Annat and M. Hallier have so deeply protested, before the Constitu­tion of Pope Innocent: It is this cer­tain Sense which these Divines do not understand, or at least which they but very confusedly know. They know all that the Jesuites and the other adver­saries of Jansenius have said of it in di­vers Books: But they see that their Ex­planations do not agree together, whiles some of them place it in one Point, and others in another.

All that they know of this Sense is, that it is different from Efficacious Grace, and by consequent that they [Page 124] do not hold it, and that they reject it, because they hold but this Doctrine, and that whatsoever Doctrine is repugnant to it is false. So as in the necessity to which they are reduc'd for the justifica­tion of their Faith, and to avoid the re­proch which they cast on them touching this uncertain, unexplicable Sense, they have reason to appeal to the Bishops, who ought to know it, since they con­demn it, and to the Pope, who could not have condemn'd it without knowing it, to conjure them to explain it, that so they may be inabled to confound their Accusers in shewing the world how free they are from any Errour.

This is the onely reason which makes them require with so much earnestness the Explication of this Sense; for they have otherwise no such hast to know it. They hold the truth of the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace per se, and reject whatsoever Errour is repugnant to it: whether it be in attributing too little to Grace, as the Molinists; or in destroy­ing its liberty, as this pretended Errour of Jansenius's Sense should be. This [Page 125] suffices them; so as men molest them not with the indetermin'd Sense of Jansenius, and they will soon leave en­quiring what it is. But if they continue their Persecutions thus upon this point, they will be forc'd to continue the pressing of them to explain this Sense; nor can they refuse to doe it without an evident sign of Oppression. For the Bishops cannot in conscience make them condemn it, without they know it; and if they do know it, 'tis a fool­ery not to be understood that they should refuse to declare it.

But, Sir, it is now time we took off our spirits from these subtile matters, and which smell of the School, to op­pose another Illusion of Father Ferrier not a whit less dangerous, but some­what more intelligible. This Father does upon all occasions represent the present Church as divided in two Par­ties. The one pompous and triumphant, as compos'd of the Pope, the Bishops, and of all both Ecclesiastical, Secular, and Regular, who condemn the Sense of Jansenius as heretical, who believe that [Page 126] matter of Fact is inseparable from mat­ter of Right, and that therefore it is not to be deny'd without being an Heretick. The other poor and abandon'd, as con­sisting but of a small number of Divines, who refuse to acknowledge that the Sense of Jansenius is heretical, who hold that there is a Fact separate from Right in the Decision of the Pope which condemns it, and that therefore one may by consequence refuse to believe it with­out being an Heretick.

This is the Idea which F. Ferrier gives us of the Church in his Treatise. But as there is nothing more prodigious then this Idea, so is there also nothing more false. God will never aban­don his Church to that degree, as to suf­fer so gross and visible an Errour to reign in it. And every man may by him­self be convinc'd of the falseness of this phantastick Supposition.

For unless a man wilfully shut his own eyes, one cannot deny but there are in the Church no less then four different Opinions upon the Formularie.

The First is that of the Jesuites, [Page 127] who affirm that matter of Fact is in­separable from that of Right, and that quatenus so it cannot be deny'd without Heresie.

The Second is that of a considerable number of Divines, who believe that though it be no Article of divine Faith to hold that the Sense of Jansenius is heretical, and that the Fact may very well be separated from Right; yet that Christian humility obliges us never­theless to prefer the Sense of the Pope to his proper Illumination, and so they ought to believe the Fact by humane Faith, and under that notion sign the Formularie.

The Third, and the most embrac'd, consists in affirming that a man is not oblig'd to believe the matter of Fact as decided, either by divine or humane Faith; but that one may for all that sign the Formularie without violating his Conscience, because the Signature does never concern or fall upon the Facts.

The Fourth is the opinion of seve­ral other Divines, who are persuaded of [Page 128] one part, that it is most false the Fact should be separated from Right, or that it should be a point of Faith to hold the Doctrine of Jansenius heretical, or that a man is obliged to believe it by humane Faith; but who believe on the other part, that the Fact being contain'd in this Formularie, those who scruple it cannot sign it without restriction, since the declarations which men make to the Church ought to be intirely sincere, and free of all duplicity.

It is visible that in this difference of Divines each party condemns the o­thers, but after a sort very different.

The Jesuites, who make the first, ought by the necessary consequence of their Opinion to condemn for Heresie, not onely the last, who absolutely refuse to sign that the sense of Jansenius is heretical, but those likewise who do not believe it of humane Faith, or that be­lieve it not at all, albeit they sign it. For Heresie consists in the opinion of the spirit, and not in the omission of an exterior action of the hand. A person who should not believe but with an hu­mane [Page 129] Faith that the Body of J. Christ were in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or that should sign it in infidelity, would be never the less an Heretick then he who should absolutely refuse to sign it.

So as all those many Bishops that have caus'd none to sign, or that receive restrictions concerning the matter of Fact, or that declare they do not re­quire the belief of the Fact, or that pretend not the Fact can be otherwise believ'd then by humane Faith, are as much Hereticks in the judgement of the Jesuites and of F. Annat, as these Divines whom they particularly perse­cute. True it is, their Politicks oblige them to distinguish of two sorts of He­reticks in France, some of which they treat civilly, and others most outrageous­ly. They place the Bishops, Sorbonists, the Fathers of the Oratory, the Benedi­ctines, &c. in the first order, and whom they do not yet attacque but by conse­quence, though by a very necessary one; whiles they range in the other those whom they immediately design for [Page 130] ruine, that so they may with the greater force surprize the other.

Therefore it is sufficiently evident, that all those persons who have sign'd the Fact, either of humane Faith, or without believing it, shall be never the more acquitted for that, but be all He­reticks in their turn, when they have left off oppressing the others, seeing they must of necessity be so in the opinion of the Jesuites.

But on the contrary, all these three last parties, who accord in this point, that this Fact of Jansenius is very separable from Right, that it does not in the least concern the Faith, and that one may safely deny it without Here­sie, ought, from a necessary consequence of this their mutual Opinion, condemn the Jesuites both of Calumny and Er­rour.

It is certain these four Parties reside in the Church; and that if one would now consider which of them were the most numerous, one might safely affirm that there are none more profligate and aban­don'd, and who have fewer sincere [Page 131] approbators, then that of the Jesuites. Nor is this an aiery Supposition, but a real Verity, to be discern'd by every one that has a mind to it, that the Je­suites stand almost single in this pre­tension, that matter of Fact is insepara­ble from matter of Right, and that one cannot believe (without being an Here­tick) the Doctrine of Jansenius not to be heretical.

The most devoted to the Jesuites of the Bishops ask for whom the World takes them, that they should believe them capable of so monstrous a Folly, as is that of affirming that a Fact should be inseparably joyn'd to Faith. They express as much as one would wish in words, that they do not require the as­sent of Fact. They receive the Subscri­ptions of those whom they very well know do not believe it, and who declare as much before they sign. All the Cu­rats of Paris do solemnly approve, and by an authentick Act, the Distincti­on between Fact and Right contain'd in the first Mandat of Paris: In fine, they proceed with confidence that the [Page 132] Jesuites cannot find six Bishops in all France, and ten Divines of the least considerable persons, who will sign this Proposition which F. Ferrier maintains, and which is the basis of all his Trea­tise, The Fact of Jansenius is insepara­ble from Faith, and one cannot reject the Dogm which is condemned, without acknowledging it to be Jansenius 's. And in particular they affirm, that he could not make M. Grandin sign, nor M. Mo­ret, nor (amongst the Doctors) M. Cha­millart, nor Monsieur de Rouën amongst the Bishops.

It is certain therefore that the Je­suites are in a manner alone in their erroneous opinions. And 'tis as true, that the Divines whom they perse­cute are almost wholly united to the Church in this difference which is be­tween them.

I confess they have yet some dispute with the other Divines, because against the one they maintain, that one owes not so much as humane Faith to De­cisions de facto when there is any cause of doubt administred; and against the [Page 133] other, that it was not altogether sincere in them to subscribe a Formularie which clearly comprizes a Fact, without be­ing fully persuaded of the Fact.

But this difference has relation to Manners onely, and not to Faith; and in this very difference they may make use of the authority of the one, to de­fend themselves against the other.

Those who sign the Fact as of hu­mane Faith, approve of their Doctrine touching the Sincerity of Subscripti­ons.

Those who sign the Fact without believing it, approve what they affirm, That the Church obliges none to believe the Fact by way of command; so as to the truth they have this consolation, that in every of the Points whereof they are accus'd, they are united in Opinion with the greatest part of the Divines of the Church.

Whoever shall take the pains dili­gently to inform himself of the bottom of these particulars, will clearly find that what I say is most true: And if any man ask why the contrary appears to [Page 134] the World, that the Jesuites domineer every-where, and the Divines are op­press'd▪ it is not very difficult to give a reason for it: They are onely to consi­der what Post F. Annat holds, and what Power the place in which he is affords him, both at Rome and at Paris, to doe what he pleases as to this matter▪ They know nothing at Rome but from the Instructions which he sends them: and he stands at the gate of all the Be­nefices of France, to exclude who-ever stands in his way in any thing. Every one has his particular business at Court; and those who have no other, either for themselues or their Communalty, en­joy their repose in which they will not be molested. Jansenism is the onely affair of Father Annat; so as that peo­ple may not be cross'd in their particu­lar businesses, they let F. Annat alone with his.

Not that this Reverend Father with all his credit is yet arriv'd so far as to be able to procure the Bishops or the Pope by any formal Decisions to support these particular Absurdities of his So­ciety; [Page 135] That matter of Fact is insepara­bly annex'd to Faith, and, That he who denies it is an Heretick: He is not so weak a man as to attempt that at pre­sent. He satisfies himself that every one signs the Fact simply, without ta­king notice of his intention, to make use of these Subscriptions when time serves, and as may best conduce to his ends: nor for the most part does he find any difficulty in it; since their spirits furnishing them with expedients to sign, without believing the Fact either of divine or humane Faith, their Interests easily persuade them to embrace them. They fansie themselves not oblig'd o­penly to oppose F. Annat; but that they may safely shelter themselves from this rowling tempest: and therefore suf­fer him freely to oppress those against whom he is particularly animated; be­cause they conceive it their own fault that they do not seek their safety, as they doe, by a Subscription which (as they affirm) engages them to no­thing.

By this means those who refuse to [Page 136] sign remain expos'd to the unjust vio­lence of the Jesuites: Those who a­gree with them in certain Points, and condemn them in others, blame them highly in those particulars about which they contest with them; but they are very wary to defend them when they think they have reason on their side. How infinitely are these Gentlemen mis­taken (saies honest M. Moret in all his Sermons) not to believe the Decision de facto with an humane Faith? But he is wary enough not to adde, that the Je­suites are mistaken, who require we should treat those as Hereticks who acknowledge no Fact, which we can onely assent to but by humane Faith.

Yet is this manner of acting more tolerable then that of those who say nothing at all in publick concerning their intention, but joyn simply with the Jesuites by an exteriour signature, however different and remote in their sense. If they did but say clearly what they reprove in those who do not sign, the diversity of their opinions would render their authority less considerable: [Page 137] but whiles they say nothing at all, such as onely judge things by the out-side take them for approbators of the Opini­ons of the Jesuites.

'Tis not therefore an universal Il­lusion, but an universal Baseness, which makes these Divines to be oppress'd; or rather, 'tis the Oppression of the Church in general which renders their Oppression particular. Let every man speak as he thinks, and they shall be ful­ly justified: Let every man also con­demn them as he thinks, and they shall yet be more fully justified; seeing it will appear that in all the Points on which they are accus'd they are united with the greater number of the Divines of the Church. But the terror and dread of F. Annat keeps all mens tongues bound to defend them, and lets them all loose to condemn them; uniting in one equi­vocal expression persons that are ex­tremely distant in Opinion, that so F. Annat may seem to be follow'd of the whole Church, whenas in truth he is in effect condemn'd by the whole Church.

[Page 138]Were there indeed no other Life be­sides the present, nor any other Judge save Men, it must needs be confess'd that F. Annat were a marvelous able man, for knowing how to conceal with so much address the weakness of his Party. How victorious in appearance is he, whenas in effect he is abandon'd by all the World? But this Father, whilest he thinks to cheat others, cheats himself first; because the business in agitation here is of things which depend upon the truth, and will be judged by the truth and not on appearance. It is not a deceitfull union in an equivocal expression which renders one orthodox, but a real and veritable conformity of ones sense with that of the universal Church in matters which concern the Faith.

So as these Divines, maintaining no other Doctrine upon the Fact of Jan­senius but that of the whole Church, which is, that this Fact has no relation to Faith, continue Orthodox, what­ever Cabal they contrive to oppress them. And both F. Annat and the [Page 139] Jesuites, who would make it a point of Faith, are not Orthodox, for all their power and credit, forasmuch as in this they are really repugnant to the sense of the Church, into which they do intro­duce a Real Heresie, under pretence, for­sooth, of destroying an Heresie which is but Imaginary.

One may therefore justly applie these words of J. Christ to the Jesu­ites, which he spake to a Bishop in the Apocalypse; Dicis, quòd dives sum & locupletatus, & nullius egeo; & nescis quia es miser, & miserabilis, & pau­per, & cacus, & nudus. You conceit your selves indeed rich, and aboundant by the number of your Sectators; whereas in the mean time you are mi­serable, and objects of compassion: You are poor, abandon'd, blind and naked; since all those who seem so much to fol­low you, do in effect condemn you.

And one may on the contrary applie to these persecuted Divines those other words of our B. Saviour to another Bishop, in the same Book, Scio tribula­tionem tuam, & paupertatem tuam; sed [Page 140] dives es, & blasphemaris ab his qui se dicunt Judaeos esse, & non sunt. I know the Oppressions which you suf­fer, and the poverty which they reproch you of; notwithstanding ye are rich, because the most part of those who ap­pear against you are in truth for you; and you are born down but by people who pronounce themselves Orthodox, but who are indeed replete with Er­rours.

Since this Letter was finished, I have receiv'd a large Writing of F. Ferrier's, intituled Relation veritable, &c. A true Relation, &c. I conceive as to what re­lates to the Heresie of which he con­tinues to accuse the Divines who are more Catholick then himself, you will find nothing in it which is not here o­verthrown before-hand: But as to the prodigious number of Falsities with which his Relation abounds, this Fa­ther deserves to be particularly answe­red; [Page 141] and I am assur'd there will some body be found out that will so doe it, as the Jesuites will hardly find the ad­vantage they expected of their Impo­stures.

The Third LETTER.

I Have already told you, and I repeat it again, that within one fifty years men will look upon this pretended He­resie of Jansenism but as a rare example of the Vanity of mens spirits, and rank the whole Dispute with that of the Cowls and the Cordeliers Bread. They will then ask with astonishment what this Father Annat and F. Ferrier were, that spake such impertinent things in the Age they liv'd in; and who those silly persons were that suffer'd them­selves to be led by their Dotages. But these, you'l say, are Prophecies, and 'tis no hard matter to make others like [Page 142] them, by taking 50 years time to prove the event of them. I could easily an­swer you, that they are true, having already prov'd, that the whole Concern­ment is but a Trifle, as I conceive I have sufficiently done; and that as one cannot pronounce the same of all sorts of Disputes, one cannot reasonably make the like Predictions of them.

But it being beyond my power to advance and hasten the future, to shew you the truth of my Prophecy, I chuse to leave it off, or rather present you with a picture of what is past, which is certain and invariable, and that will afford us the most certain conjectures how one may foresee what is like to fall out up­on the like encounters.

'Tis a Glass which very few persons consult, from I know not what weak­ness natural to mens spirits. For as men live but in the time that is present; so they are likewise concern'd but with things that are present. What-ever is remote from the instant which takes them up, vanishes and comes to no­thing in respect of them; and if possi­bly [Page 143] there remain any traces in their memory, they are so weak and indis­cernable, that they serve them but in little stead for the reforming of those deceitfull impressions which they re­ceive from the present Objects. If a man seem to have the advantage du­ring the moment which employs them, he loses the remembrance of all the past, which might have made him know that this advantage is false and but imagina­rie. Thus, because the Jesuites make a great bustle, and every-where cry out on Heresie, men are astonish'd at the bruit; and because there are but few that oppose them, men easily imagine that they are in effect victorious.

In the interim, it is evident that this manner of boulstring their Judgments but upon the present, subjects it to an infinity of Illusions. The passages of the World discover not themselves to us in every moment, but by some of their parts as they succeed one another; for­asmuch as being thus consequent, they do not subsist together: in the mean time 'tis by the union of the whole Body, and [Page 144] of all its Members, that we ought to form a Judgment.

It would be sometimes very diffi­cult to see the Church victorious over Heresies in all its brightness, did we consider it but in a small part of its permanency, during which she may be so overcast with a mist of Errours, that one can hardly tell who has the better of it, Truth or Falshood. Did not Ari­anism seem a conqueror at Rimini, and the Catholick Doctrine so obscure that (as S. Hierom saies) All the World was astonish'd how they should become Arian?

To discover then the advantage of the Church over Errour, our memories have need of a larger comprehension of time: And then it is we shall see, that after a swift and transitory blaze, Er­rours do wither away of themselves and come to nothing; whiles the Doctrine of the Church subsists, and conserves it self in the bosome of the Church, and in the hearts of her legitimate Children.

And thus, Sir, to judge rightly of the present Contestation between the [Page 145] Jesuites and their Adversaries, we must not limit all our prospect at the Question of Fact and of Right, to which 'tis for the present totally reduc'd: But we should consider the several steps of every of its parties, the various Points agitated between them, the success of their particular Disputes, and by what progress they are arriv'd to the Point where they now stand, seeing 'tis by this onely we shall be able to discover who have lost or gain'd, advanc'd or recoil'd, whom we may believe sincere, and whom for Cheats and Infidels. In fine, 'tis from hence one may form rea­sonable conjectures of the Success of the remaining Contestation.

This is the Design which I have pro­pos'd to my self in this Letter, wherein I will present you with a compen­dious Image of all this tedious Warr of the Divines, which though it be not bloudy, is no less considerable then the temporal Warrs, and whose Successes are altogether as great and important.

It was in the year 1626 that it be­gan, upon occasion of a Book published [Page 146] by a certain Jesuite nam'd Garasse, inti­tled Somme de Veritez capitales de la Religion Chrestienne, A Summe of the principal Verities of the Christian Reli­gion, &c. The late Abbot of S. Cyran having noted therein a prodigious num­ber of Falsifications of the Scripture and of the Fathers, together with divers he­retical and impious Propositions, con­ceiv'd that the honour of the Church requir'd him to undertake their Refu­tation, though at the same time also his modesty made him resolve to conceal his name, as he has alwaies done in the rest of his Books. While the first part of this was under the Press, and the noise of it spread into all parts, it gave occasion for a more through examination of Garasse's Treatise. The Rector of the Universi­ty complain'd of it to the Faculty, who nam'd Commissioners to examine the Book. But this alarming the Jesuites, they quickly gave us to understand that it was not so easie an enterprise to cen­sure a Book of a Jesuite: For they so wrought with the Magistrates by their Cabal, that M. de S. Cyran's Treatise was a long while stopped.

[Page 147]Moreover, to traverse the Censure, F. Garasse bethought himself of a Su­percherie as worthy of the Jesuites as any thing had been practis'd during all the process of these Contestations. There was a bruit in Paris that the Au­thor of the Refutation was to shew a­bove Fifty heretical Propositions or Er­rours in Garasse's Summe; and it was true: but that part which contain'd the conviction of Garasse's Errours was not yet come out of M. de S. Cyran's Study▪ However Father Garasse conceited he had found out a way to know what they had to object against him. He chose Fifty Propositions in his Book, the most easie to defend that he could find, and of which number there was not three of them of those which M. de S. Cyran had accus'd in his Work. In conse­quence of this he form'd a Censure ac­cording to his own fancy, and by this address dazzl'd the world for a time, and disturb'd the Examination of his Book which was doing at the Sorbon; so as his Examinators were much confounded, and they began every-where to say that [Page 148] they extremely wronged de Garasse, to accuse the Summe of so many Errours.

M. de S. Cyran had a thousand diffi­culties to take off the impediments which the Jesuites had contriv'd to hin­der the publication of his Refutation, and to disabuse the World of that wick­ed artifice of F. Garasse. However, he at last obtain'd it, and maugre all the Ca­bals of the Society, and the tedious de­lays which they granted F. Garasse to make his Retractation, his Book was in fine censur'd for containing divers he­retical Propositions, Errours, Scandals, Temerities, many Falsifications of pas­sages of Scripture and of the holy Fa­thers falsly cited, and perverted from their true and genuine Sense, with an infinite of words unworthy to be writ­ten and read of Christians and Di­vines.

Nevertheless did the Jesuites testi­fie upon this encounter some kind of Prudence. For we must not refuse to give them their just merits when they deserve them, since the occasions are so very rare. They did not persist in the [Page 149] justification of Father Garasse, but rele­gated him a good distance from Paris to one of their Houses, where they heard no more talk of him, and by this means made an end of the business. Happy had it been that in allaying this diffe­rence they had from their hearts also smo­ther'd the resentment which they con­ceived against M. the Abbot of S. Cyran, who has since that engag'd them into such horrible excesses.

But they would not doe it, and have since sufficiently testified that they were not of the number of those wise men who love their Reprovers, and that by warning them of their Faults give them occasion to reform them. They nou­rish'd in their breasts a violent aversion against him who had done them this service, and which was yet exceeding­ly augmented by another obligation of the same nature which he rendred them some few years after, and which affords us the second remarkable accident of this Warr.

Pope Urban VIII ^th, touched with the miserable condition of the English [Page 150] Church, which had been for thirty years without According to their false reckoning. Bishop, having sent thither the deceased Mr. Smith, Bishop of Chal­cedon, with the Jurisdiction of an Or­dinary; he, being there establish'd, would make use of his power in obliging the Regulars to have his approbation to inable them to hear Confessions. This was an heavy Yoke to the Jesuites, who were wont to live in that Country in an absolute independence. Therefore they made complaint to the Bishop by their Provincial, and amongst other reasons they represented to him that this Regu­lation did diminish their reputation, ☞ and the Presents which the Catholicks were us'd to make them. But when he would not suffer himself to be wrought on by such perverse Arguments, they stirr'd up so many troubles and factions a­gainst him, by decrying him to the Mi­nisters of State of the King of England, that the Bishop was constrain'd to quit the Kingdome to seek his own security. These clandestine practices were accom­pany'd with the publication of two Books which the Jesuites wrote in En­glish, [Page 151] against Episcopal Jurisdiction, and the necessity of the Sacrament of Con­firmation; and the Clergy of England having sent these Books to the Sor­bon, there were thirty two Propositi­ons censur'd by them the 15 of Februa­ry 1631.

This Censure had been preceded some daies before by that which M. the Archbishop of Paris publish'd against the same Books the 30 of January in the same year; and by that of all the Arch­bishops and Bishops which were then in Paris, who condemn'd them by a Pa­storal Letter addressed to all the Bishops of France the 15 of February 1631.

These strokes were very sensible to the Nicety and Pride of the Jesuites; and accordingly did they rise up against these Censures after a terrible manner. They writ against M. the Archbishop of Paris, against the Bishops, against the Sorbon, and thought for a time that they had quite laid them on their backs. But this boldness of theirs was not at all to their advantage in the sequel: For this produc'd against them that fa­mous [Page 152] Book of Petrus Aurelius, which defended the Bishops and the Sorbon, and refuted the Errours of the Jesuites with so much force, eloquence and per­spicuity, that the Church was fully re­veng'd, and the Jesuites confounded.

Notwithstanding this Confusion, in stead of humbling, did but the more exasperate them: They undertook Au­relius's Book by all the waies they could possibly devise, by secret Calum­nies ▪ by publick Sermons, by huge Vo­lumes, by small Treatises and Pam­phlets, by Works in Latin and French; giving it commonly no other Title then that infamous Book of Petrus Aurelius. And as the publick voice had attributed this work to M. de S. Cyran, what-ever pains he took to take off from himself so glorious a suspicion, they fix'd it up­on his person, and strove to asperse him by a thousand kinds of Calumnies; and from that time forward form'd a con­stant resolution to decry as Hereticks both him, and all those who favour'd his Opinion. These were the several Con­tests of this Hierarchical Warr; but the [Page 153] event and conclusion of it is remarkable, because it is the picture of the success of all their other Disputes.

It pleased God to permit that the noise which was spread against M. de S. Cy­ran should so prevail upon the spirit of a Minister of State, that he was made prisoner at the Chasteau de Vincennes, where he was kept five years, without other procedure then that of a certain irregular Information, which they were forc'd to give over. But at the same time he so order'd it, that the Truth tri­umph'd at a greater height, even by the oppression of that person who had so gloriously defended it. The Book of F. Celot (the most considerable of those who undertook to oppose Aurelius) was condemn'd in the Assembly of Mante, and this Father was compell'd to disavow his Errours in the Sorbon. That of Aurelius was approv'd by three consecutive Assemblies, printed twice at the charges of the Clergy, and they order'd a most magnificent Elogy to be made him by an injunction of the last of these Assemblies.

[Page 154]See here the issue of this Hierarchi­cal Dispute, which I have recounted without interruption, though during the time it continu'd there sprung up another, which was follow'd with grea­ter consequents: Namely, that concer­ning Penitence, which took birth from the Book of Frequent Communion, compos'd by M. Arnauld, Doctor of the Sorbon, for the justification of M. the Abbot of S. Cyran his friend; in which he oppos'd several Points of the Mo­rale of the Jesuites, and particularly their facility to give Absolution for all sorts of sins. For he maintain'd a­gainst them in this Book, That it was expedient to deferr it upon divers occa­sions, and men were oblig'd to doe it in case of Relapses, habitual Sins, and on the proximate occasions of Sin. There was nothing did more sensibly touch the Jesuites then their being thus at­tacqu'd upon this so nice a Point; be­cause it is chiefly by this facility of Ab­solution that they draw so many people after them. Whereupon they conceiv'd it their principal concernment to over­whelm [Page 155] both the Author and the Book of Frequent Communion, together with all those who were either ally'd to his sense, or had any friendship with him.

Upon this there follow'd on a sudden an horrible and universal insurrection of all the Jesuits, who broke loose through all the parts of France, yea and through all Europe, against this Book. There was every-where nothing but furious Declamations, bloudy and outrageous Injuries, treating those who approv'd the sense of this Book with no other name then that of Fourbs and Traitors: And for the Author, he was an Heresi­arch, a Schismatick, an Heretick de­clar'd: and nothing less would appease them then the Bloud and the Life of those whom they call'd Cyranists and Arnaudists.

Great ones, (saies their Father Se­guin, in his Book intitled Sommarie de la Theologie de l' Abbé de Saint Cyran, & du Sieur Arnaud) to whom God has imparted the power of judging men, you know better then I, and your Piety is a publick testimony, that the prime [Page 156] Justice is that which we render to God. Open your eyes, and behold the mischief which threatens the State as well as Religion, since the change of the one does never arrive without the destruction of the other. 'Tis the worst of all remedies to temporize with a new-born Heresie. The Church is assaulted at the Heart, and you ought to join the Royal Sword with that of the Church to exterminate this Mischief in our daies.

In this style were the Jesuites wont to speak in those times, nor is it at all unlike their language at present. And for the Heresie of these Arnaudists, they made no question of that, they reproch'd them an hundred for one: and as they were all of their own invention, they daily forg'd new ones. Nor did they ever trouble themselves to colour them over by any passages drawn out of their Books; but when occasion was, they invented also as well passages and Books as Heresies.

Was there ever seen a more circum­stantiated Imposture, and propos'd after a more terrible manner, then that which [Page 157] F. Seguin reproches against these pre­tended Arnaudists? My hand (saies he) trembles with horror, when it finds it self oblig'd (to disabuse the minds of those which have been prepossess'd with this false Maxime) to describe the bold impiety unto which this unhappy project is arriv'd, to detourn, and, as I may so say, to snatch away Souls from the holy Communion. I should not say it if the Piece had not been publick; the Scandal is not yet altogether taken away; they call'd it the Chaplet of S. Cyran, which contain'd the spiritual exercises that he gave to some persons of his own School. One of these Instructions intimated, That it was lawfull for a Soul to wish he might at the article of death be depriv'd of the holy Commu­nion of the Body of Jesus Christ, that so he might imitate the despair of the Son of God upon the Cross, when he was a­bandon'd by his Father. Is this the mouth of a Man, or of an organ anima­ted by some Demon that has compos'd this Exercise, and vomited up this Blas­phemy? Calvin himself never conceiv'd it with more horror.

[Page 158]Who would ever have believ'd (up­on hearing what this man has so confi­dently said) that this Book, this Pas­sage, and this Practice should ever be in rerum natura, or have a being? And yet there is nothing more certain: The World has been advertis'd of it, the Jesuites have been themselves confoun­ded upon the point; and yet would they not desist to re-produce this abomina­ble Imposture upon several occasions, by changing the Title of this Imaginary Book, sometimes naming it the Rules of the Port-Royal, and sometimes the Constitutions of the Nunns of the holy Sacrament.

After this, no man is to wonder they had so many Heresies to charge on their Antagonists: For being so firmly re­solv'd to make them Hereticks what­ever it should cost them, they could not fail of finding such as these: And so we see new ones every day appear, which disappear again of course when they are worn out, to give place to others.

There were some of them which it had been easie for them to justifie, because [Page 159] they were so gross & sensible. For when Father Brisacier by an example accus'd them in his I. Book, p. 15. for condemn­ing the Chaplet ▪ in shewing his own Chaplet and in saying they were exem­pted; when he reproch'd them for ha­ving no Images; there was no more to doe but to lead the people to Port-Royal, where they might have beheld enough with their own eyes. When he accus'd them for rejecting low Masses, they needed onely to desire their assistance at those which are every day said in that House.

But the Jesuites did not value the being convicted of Imposture, because they knew that those Calumnies being publish'd by so many mouths, would not fail of leaving their Effects, some for some persons, and others for others. Therefore they were diligent to accu­mulate them, that so there might be some for every body. Thus F. Brisacier ac­cus'd them all at once, part. 4. p. 24. for being the Devil's Prelats, the Gates of Hell, and for erecting the Treasure of Antichrist; because (saies he) they [Page 160] abolish Indulgences, the Cult of the Virgin, the Sacraments of Penitence and of the Eucharist, all the Vertues both Theological and Moral. What will you have more?

There were certain Jesuites who, not to fail in matter of Heresie, and hin­der them from all possibility of Salva­tion, conceiv'd it a more compendious way to affirm, that they design'd the destruction of the Eucharist, Sacra­ments, Incarnation, Gospel, Jesus Christ, the Trinity, and, in summe, to form a new Religion of Deists: and in order to this they invented the dia­bolical Imposture of the interview of Bourgfontaine, where they feign'd that M. Jansenius, M. Caspean Bishop of Lisieux, M. du Bellay, M. de Saint Cyran, and M. Arnauld (whom they plainly meant by the first letters of their names, and many other circumstances) met together to confer about the way how they might destroy the Incarna­tion and the Sacraments; and that in order to this design M. Jansenius un­dertook to write his Book of the Grace [Page 161] of Jesus Christ, and M. Arnauld the Treatise of Frequent Communion. The person who was made choice of to vend this horrible Calumny was one Fi­leau by name, one of the King's Ad­vocates at Poictiers, who assur'd some friends of his, that he receiv'd it of a Jesuite, as the Jesuites took the care to spread and maintain it. And although, by the dates, they have made appear that M. Arnauld was but nine years old when they suppose him to have under­taken the composing of the Book of Frequent Communion; yet did not the Jesuites fail to insert this detestable Im­posture twice more in two several Books: the one in a Treatise of their Father Meynier intitled, Port-Royal of intel­ligence with Geneva; the other in that of a certain Jesuite of Bourdeaux. Yea and one of these Fathers preaching in Bourdeaux, recited the whole story to his Auditors out of de Fileau's Book.

These were here yet but accessory Heresies, and which onely tended to make what M. Arnauld had taught (of being oblig'd in certain cases to refuse [Page 162] the giving Absolution, till they had given proofs of a solid Conversion) to pass the more easily for an Heresie. And it was this Doctrine that they every-where assaulted with most vio­lence. One cannot (saies F. Brisacier) alter the nature of Satisfaction by trans­porting it before Absolution, without losing this illustrious title of Catholick. This is (quoth he) the very gate of Desperation, 'tis the high-way of Ob­duration, 'tis the wide gap for men to die in final Impenitence, and without Sacraments; 'Tis the Cullender of Hell; 'tis the leven to corrupt all the Priests, and to make them abuse the Discoveries which they receive in secret.

All these Accusations were far more important then those which they now form upon the Case of Jansenius. The Jesuites dispers'd them with the same assurance; they treated their adversa­ries after the same sort with Heresiarchs, Hereticks, Sectaries and Schismaticks; they gave them the names of Sects, as they do now at present. But let us see the event.

[Page 163]These bruits and Accusations gave a thousand traverses to the poor Divines whom the Jesuites did in this manner decry: for they are alwaies successfull in that. The Divines have continu'd to be oppress'd, and the Jesuites have alwaies been very powerfull in the World. Their Calumnies yet destroy'd themselves, have been confounded be­fore the face of the whole Church, but still without any punishment; they were still hearkning to people so altogether unworthy of belief: nor was there e­ver yet found one Jesuite of those which appear'd in the world who has had the Conscience to testifie the least regret for the Extravagances of his So­ciety; a thing prodigious to consider. For what Salvation can they hope in, that thus calumniate without Repen­tance? On the contrary, they have re­warded those who help'd to vend and distribute their most execrable Impo­stures, whither within or without their Society. They procur'd for le Sieur Fileau, for publishing the Fable of Bourgfontaine, a Brief of Pope Inno­cent [Page 164] in his commendation, with Letters from some Noblemen in France. They made Father Brisacier Rector of their chief House, because he was trans­ported to excesses which were altoge­ther inhumane. By all which we may see sufficient marks of their puissance, having been able to support themselves in a Cause in which any else besides themselves had certainly been over­thrown.

But God has in the mean time been pleas'd to shew that his Truth is infinite­ly stronger then all the men of the World; for in spight of all the Jesuites credit, maugre the abandoning and op­pression of these Divines, not onely the Calumnies of the Jesuites are dis­sipated, but the sincere Doctrine, which they so furiously attacqu'd in the Book of Frequent Communion, has been more and more authoriz'd and practis'd in the Church; and on the contrary, the Er­rours of the Jesuites have been formally condemn'd there. They have censur'd in the Apologie of the Casuists the very same Doctrine which is oppos'd in the [Page 165] Treatise of Frequent Communion. The Doctrine touching proximate Occasions and Habitudes of Sin, (saies the Church of Paris in her third Censure) in which the Author affirms one ought not to re­fuse Absolution, is false, rash, scanda­lous, and inductive to an evident peril of sinning. And the 29. Censure of M. the Archbishop de Sens upon the same Propositions, and on that of Recidiva­tions, is, These very Propositions are per­nicious, they have been invented to en­tertain men in a desire to sin; they are injurious to Vertue, and to the Sacra­ment of Penance: They destroy the ju­diciary Authority which resides in Priests as Ministers of J. Christ, and render them partakers with other mens Crimes.

Divers other of the Bishops did ex­pressly mark in their Censures the preci­pitate Absolutions practis'd and autho­riz'd by the Jesuites, as one of the grea­test Disorders of the Church; and those Five Illustrious Bishops of Languedoc call them in their Censure Sacrilegious Absolutions.

[Page 166]And not onely is this Doctrine of the Book of Frequent Communion au­thoriz'd by these Judgements of the Church; but 'tis well known that ma­ny great Prelats injoyn the practice of it, as amongst the rest M. the Bishop de Alet testifies in his Apologie which he has recommended to all the Confessors of his Diocese: for see how he speaks of it, pag. 11. As touching the delay or refusal of Absolution, it is true that M. de Alet recommends to all the Confessors of his Diocese the carefull practice of the Rules of the Church in the dispen­sation of the Sacraments, and especial­ly that of Penance, that the use of it be not prophan'd; which is, that they by no means absolve those who are in the proximate occasion of any Sin, or that perceive themselves in a dangerous con­dition, in which (in respect of their dis­position, and upon experience of their life past) it is morally impossible for them not to offend God: such also as re­main in any habitual mortal sin, and do not reform themselves, nor give a­ny sign of their sincere amendment; [Page 167] since it is the constant Doctrine of the Church, and whereof the practice has been carefully recōmended by S. Charles, in the advice which he prepar'd for the Confessors of his Diocese.

In fine, the Sanctity of this Doctrine is so universally acknowledged, that they oblige those who but dare to op­pose it to most solemn Retractations. I will shew you an Example, both new and curious, which I have taken word for word out of a Letter from Tolouse, where the thing happened.

A Religious person of the Order of S. Francis, of those whom they call de la grand Observance, preaching this year in Tolouse January the 27, main­tain'd that Confessors were not to refuse or defer the Absolution of Penitents, provided they assur'd them that they were very sorry for having offended God, though they had never so of­ten confess'd the very same sins before; in the belief, said he, that they ought to have, that the moment in which they should refuse it them might be that of their Conversion. The whole City, not [Page 168] accustom'd to this dissolute Doctrine, being scandaliz'd at it, the great Vicar oblig'd this inconsiderate Preacher to make his publick Retractation Februa­ry the 17. in these very terms which were prescrib'd him. When, about three weeks since, I affirm'd in my Sermon of the Cure of the Leprous, that the fa­cility and the promptitude with which Iesus Christ stretched forth his hand upon him, was an instruction to Confes­sors of the obligation which lay on them to give prompt and speedy Absolution to all Penitents, provided they profess themselves sorry for having offended God, and that they would reform in the future; I did not mean to say that Con­fessors were oblig'd alwaies to believe the Deposition of Penitents, which were to invalidate the authority which Priests have receiv'd in their Ordination, as well to retain as to remit sins: But I pretended onely (generally speaking) that when they are indeed sincerely repentant, and that the prudence of an honest Con­fessor does judge them so, he may then absolve them. WHICH I HAVE [Page 169] SPOKEN WITHOUT PRE­JUDICE TO THE CHUR­CHES CANONS, and to the In­junctions of this Diocese, which ob­lige Confessors to defer Absolution to Penitents; especially in case of Habi­tudes and proximate Occasion in a seri­ous matter, &c. WHICH I AC­KNOWLEDGE OUGHT TO BE INVIOLABLY OBSER­VED.

Thus has the Dispute concerning Penance and the delay of Absolution had the same success with the rest. The power of the Jesuites has pro­cur'd them impunitie for their Ca­lumnies and Errours. M. Arnauld and those who have supported the Cause of Truth have had Persecutions for their share: But the Truth has in fine both triumph'd over these Errours, and all the power of the Jesuites besides.

The Fourth Contestation, which is that of the Morale of the Casuists, is the most considerable of all the rest for the greatness of the events. Every one knows what authority the Casuists had [Page 170] acquir'd in the Church; and that albeit the honest men did alwaies govern them­selves by Rules which were totally con­trary to their Maximes; yet they were, I know not how, got into possession of magisterially deciding the Morals of the Church, and to make the Opinions pass for indisputable which they pleas'd to agree upon, and those for probable and safe in Conscience which they thought good to doubt of or to controvert.

It was above fifty years that this reign of theirs continu'd in the Schools: and though this their licence was be­come odious to many knowing persons; yet the small resistences which had been made against them from time to time, were too feeble to remedy so great an evil as had been fomented by all the power of the Jesuites. It was not till the year 1656 that any body under­took to attacque them in good earnest. He who made the first onset thought the best way to accomplish his design would be, to represent them as they are in their native colours, and render them ridicu­lous to all the world. And whereas they [Page 171] exalted themselves like Masters of the Church, he treats them as the very ab­jects and last of men, and, without trou­bling himself with opposing Casuist to Casuist, he confounds them pel-mel, Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, Lessius, Fi­liutius, Escobar, the head and the tail of the Jesuites, undertaking to ren­der them all alike odious and despi­cable.

There was never any design that to the Jesuites appear'd more rash, who, looking upon themselves as elevated to a degree so eminent in the Church, loo­ked down as from their sublime Throne on this Incognito, that durst presume to attacque the whole Body of their Au­gust Society, (which is the name they give themselves) and to accuse them for having corrupted all the Christian Morality.

Nor were they ever heard to cry out so hideously through all France; The Author of the Provincials was an He­retick, I, and more then an Heretick; He borrow'd all his reproches against them from Hereticks; He assaulted amongst [Page 172] the Jesuites Morals the most undoubted Maximes of the Christian Faith. In fine, to answer Fifteen of his Letters, it was enough to say, according to the R. F. Annat, that they were Fifteen Heretical Letters. For this has ever been a common Reproch with this good Father, to brand those withall who disapprov'd the Doctrine of his Companions.

But above all, he could never suffici­ently exaggerate the excess of boldness of this Incognito, who should dare thus to condemn so many grave Authors. And Father Ferrier does triumph in his Book of Probability, in setting out this his Council of Casuists, and in opposing them to this unknown Theologue.

But in spight of all these fine Argu­ments of the Jesuites, maugre the in­finite numbers of their Partizans, and the weakness of this Adversarie, they were astonish'd to find themselves in so little a time the Fable of all France, and all the world declaring against them, as themselves are forc'd to acknowledge in their Apologie of the Casuists. I do not [Page 173] question (saies Father Pirot, Author of that Book) but the Banishments and Martyrdoms have not been less grievous and more easie to support, then the A­bandoning which this Society finds it self constrain'd to suffer amongst these Railleries: since in all their retreats the FF. Jesuites were still entertain'd with honour in the Provinces which receiv'd them, they had a respect to their Pati­ence and their merit; whereas on this encounter, what-ever countenance they preserv'd, they are basely treated.

The Book of Escobar, having been 39 times printed for an excellent Book, was printed the fourtieth time as the most wicked and abominable Book that was ever publish'd, and to satisfie the curiosity onely of those who had a de­sire to search out the passages which the Author of the Provincial Letters had ci­ted out of him. The Curates of Paris, of Rouën, and of divers other conside­rable Towns of the Kingdome, rose up against these detestable Maximes. A very great number of Bishops condemn'd them by authentick Censures, so as the [Page 174] Jesuites could not so much as find one single Bishop who would openly take upon him their defence; which, consi­dering all the circumstances of this Af­fair, ought to be taken for an infallible mark of the universal Consent of the Church in the Condemnation of the Ca­suists.

The Jesuites at first vaunted, that the Pope disapprov'd what was done in France. But the Pope has himself taken away this pretext so injurious to the Holy See and the Church, by condem­ning likewise the Apologie of the Ca­suists, and in so manifestly consenting with the Judgments which the Bishops had express'd against the Jesuites Mo­rality.

I tell you here nothing but old sto­ries, having onely a design to recall them to your memory; but I will now shew you some newer ones, and that are more rare, to let you see that the Mo­ral of the Jesuites is as well disapprov'd at Rome as elsewhere. A certain Pro­fessor of Boulogne, nam'd Antony Me­renda, having conceiv'd a very just hor­ror [Page 175] at the unbridled licentiousness of these Casuists, compos'd a considera­ble Work against them not many years since, in which he chiefly opposes their Doctrine of Probability as an Inventi­on of the Devil, Commentum Diaboli. A Dominican Inquisitor of Pavia, nam'd Mercorus, publish'd soon after a Book against the same Doctrine, and divers other Loosenesses of the Casu­ists. And in fine, after these last con­testations touching the Moral, a famous Prelat of Rome, call'd Prosper Fagnani, a person that the Pope honour'd with a particular friendship, has inserted in a great Volume which he has compos'd upon the Decretals, a large Treatise a­gainst the Probability of the Casuists, where he represents this Doctrine as the fountain of all sorts of Corruptions and Disorders, and treats it with Merenda as a Diabolical Invention, Commentum Diaboli. In this Treatise he mentions with an Elogy the pursuits which the Curats of Paris and of Rouën have made against the Casuists: He inserts the Ex­tracts which they propos'd to the As­sembly [Page 176] of several dangerous Propositions of these Authors, and the Censures which have been given them in the Low-Countries: and had he been but ac­quainted with what has been since done in France, there is no doubt but he would likewise have mention'd the Censures of the French Bishops, as he does those of certain Bishops of Flan­ders.

This was all done by consent of the Pope, and the Book it self is dedicated to him; so as one may well judge it was not very welcome to the Jesuites. Yet durst they never attacque him openly. But they made use of two Artifices to have ruin'd this Work.

The First was, To bring Merenda's Book to the Inquisition, and endeavour to have it censur'd upon some pretext, which in that Country they never fail of, when they desire to blast a Book. And accordingly they soon succeeded, and we have seen the Book of Merenda in the list of such as the Inquisition has condemn'd.

The Second was, To instigate Cara­muel, [Page 177] now a Bishop in Italy, to write against Fagnani. He undertook it, and after his manner acquitted himself, that is to say, with his ordinary Impudence. For he maintains in his Book the Do­ctrine of Probability as an Article of Faith oppos'd to the Heresie of the Jan­senists: He will have all the Curates of Paris and of Rouën, together with all those Bishops who censur'd the Casuists, to be arrant Jansenists, and of whose authority there is no regard to be had. This put him well with the Jesuites, who were marvellously satisfied with these goodly beginnings; but they were not so with the consequence. For the Pope being clearly advertis'd by Fagnani of these Intrigues, caus'd Me­renda's Book to be fetch'd out of the Inquisition, and condemn'd that of Caramuel, which continues so censur'd without remedy.

And thus, Sir, finish'd the Warr a­gainst our Casuists, by which it ful­ly appears that they are stuff'd with an infinity of pernicious and impi­ous Maximes; that above all the [Page 178] Doctrine of Probability (which is the Source) is an Invention of the Devil; and that therefore F. Ferrier, who has defended it, and as many Jesuites as have maintain'd it, are Co-operators and Predicators of that Serpent, Praedicato­res Serpentis, as S. Augustine saies; and that, on the contrary, those who have oppos'd the Casuists, have done the Church one of the most considerable services that Divines are capable of ren­dring her. Their Doctrine continues still victorious, as that of the Jesuites quite wither'd and come to nothing in the contest: But so is it not as to their Persons. The greatness of the Service which these Divines have render'd to the Church has diminish'd nothing of the Persecutions which they have for so long time suffer'd; nay, on the contrary, it does but augment them, in provoking the Jesuites to pursue them with the greater violence. Nor have the so ma­ny Censures of the Moral of the Je­suites abated ought of their temporal power: 'Tis known they still persevere in the very same Maximes that have [Page 179] been condemn'd, nor do they them­selves conceal them, yet in the mean time they are permitted the administra­tion of the Sacraments. Men would never suffer that the Physicians of our Bodies, who had been known for Em­poisoners, should continue to exercise their faculty; whiles yet they permit these Physicians of Souls, convinc'd to have govern'd them with their enve­nom'd Maximes, to prescribe this pre­tended spiritual Medicine, without gi­ving any mark or caution to the Church that they have sincerely renounc'd them.

But it is an Effect of the depth of God's Judgements, who imparts his Graces on his Church according to mea­sure, and boundaries them within the sight of mens Sins. A great one it is which he has bestowed on her, in cau­sing the Moral of the Jesuites to be con­demn'd by so many Bishops, and by thereby giving all men an opportunity, who sincerely pursue their own Salva­tion, to renounce their Conduct. But he has not altogether accomplish'd this favour; but suffers the Jesuites to [Page 180] enjoy the same Authority, and to pre­serve themselves in the same Credit which they formerly had, to the end they may serve him as ministers of his Wrath, that those who deserve to be misled may be misled, and by their Per­secutions to prove those who are wor­thy to be prov'd. This is their emploi­ment and office in the Church, not un­like to that of the King to whom God directs these words in the Scripture, Vae Assur, virga furoris mei.

But I beseech you, Sir, do not imagine that it is the difference of Opi­nions upon the quarrel of Jansenism which imports me to embrace these opi­nions. The most Religious persons of the Church, and who have never been so much as suspected of any kindness for that which they call Jansenism, have, I assure you, no other Idea of the Jesuites. And amongst others the late M. the Bishop of Cahors, being upon his Death-bed, expressly ordered M. the Abbot Ferrier, great Vicar to my Lord Bishop d' Alby, to say from him to M. de Alet, M. de Pamiers, and M. de Co­menge, [Page 181] That he had done all he could to reduce the Jesuites from their Errours, but that he knew them for people in­corrigible and without remedy; that he held them for the greatest Enemies of the Church; and did earnestly desire that these Gentlemen would never have any thing to doe with them. This per­son perform'd his Commission, and said the same things to some persons of great Quality, from whom we have receiv'd that which we here mention.

I suppose, Sir, that you expect what I should say of the Contestation con­cerning Jansenism, which is the most tedious and refractory of all the rest; and that you haply think I could not say as much of that, that the Cause of these Divines has had its Triumphs also; see­ing the Jesuites produce whole Vo­lumes of Decrees, Briefs, Constitutions, Arrests, and Declarations which they have obtain'd against them; and that the Letters of these Gentlemen make a great part of those which have furnish'd the Inquisition of Rome any time these ten years. But all this shall not hinder [Page 182] me yet from assuring you before-hand, that the success of this Warr will not be at all inferiour to that of the others; and that you will there likewise see these Divines oppress'd, the Jesuites unpu­nish'd, and the Truth triumphing over their Errours. You are onely to follow me, as I do that of the various faces of this Dispute.

It began first in Flanders at the Uni­versity of Louvain, it being there that the Jesuites publish'd those famous Theses against Jansenius, where they accus'd him of an infinity of Errours. But the Doctors of Louvain repell'd them with so much vigour, that whiles they insisted on their Books, the Jesu­ites had no cause to boast of their advan­tage.

A little after the Dispute came into France, upon occasion of the Sermons of M. Habert a Parisian Divine, who in the Pulpit did publickly accuse this Prelat's Book of no less then Fourty Heresies. But the first Apologie for Jansenius having taught him a little to moderate his Zeal, he reduc'd these [Page 183] Heresies to the number of Twelve, of which he continu'd to accuse him in a Treatise which he writ against this A­pologie.

The second Apology for Jansenius, which appear'd a little after, made him yet to cut off Seven more: For Mon­sieur Cornet (how-ever enemy against this Bishop's Book) durst propose but Five Propositions to the Faculty, and that without naming them, though with a design of one day causing his Book to be re-censur'd.

This abatement is very considerable, since we have already Thirty five Here­sies retrench'd of the number, and that the Disciples of S. Augustine had but to justifie themselves of Five which re­main'd, and those are the Five fa­mous Propositions. And this was easie for them to doe: For they protested that they maintain'd upon the Five Pro­positions but what was the Catholick Doctrine of Efficacious Grace per se, which might there be included; and that (seeing they were captious) it was reasonable they should except the sense [Page 184] of Efficacious Grace before they con­demn'd them. It was on this design they went to Rome, not absolutely to defend these Propositions, but to sup­plicate the Pope that he would distin­guish concerning their divers sense; and to except that of Efficacious Grace per se. This was the scope of the Memo­rial which they presented to the Pope upon this Subject, in which they pray'd his Holiness to cause them to distin­guish, and examine the various sense of the equivocal and maliciously-forg'd Propositions which had been presented to him; ut distingui, & sigillatim ex­aminari faciat varios sensus Propositio­num equivocarum, & ad fraudem fi­ctarum.

The Dominicans of Rome were touch'd with the same apprehensions, lest they should invelop the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace per se within the Cen­sure of the Five Propositions; and up­on that sought for Audience seventeen times, without being able to obtain it, & presented several Writings to the Pope, as they are since printed in the Journal [Page 185] of M. de S. Amour, wherein these Fa­thers maintain the sense of Efficacious Grace in these Propositions as the Au­gustine Doctors doe, with this onely dif­ference, that the Doctors spake nothing of Jansenius in the Writings which they produc'd at Rome, whereas the Do­minicans, who had not receiv'd the same order, expressly defended it, in main­taining that it was conformable to their Doctrine upon the Five Propositions.

Had Pope Innocent granted what these Doctors desired, by excepting formally the sense of Efficacious Grace per se, it could not have been denied but they had had all the advantage, since that was all they demanded. But God was not pleas'd to permit that they should ob­tain a thing which would have put an end to a world of Troubles. The Cen­sure of the Propositions was publish'd without distinction. But that the Truth should not suffer, God supplied this o­mission, as well by divers particular De­clarations of the same Pope Innocent, who upon all occasions testified, that he would by no means either touch the [Page 186] sense of Efficacious Grace per se, or the Doctrine of S. Augustine; as by the general Consent of the Church, where the Constitution was receiv'd but in this sense, and with exception of Efficacious Grace per se, as being no way violated by this Constitution.

After this the Doctors made no dif­ficulty to submit to the Constitution of Innocent; because they obtain'd by this Consent of the Church the same thing which they had desir'd should have been inserted in the Bull it self, which is, the exception of Efficacious Grace. And this sense being excluded by the consent of the Jesuites themselves, and by that unanimous accord which regu­lates the language of the Church, it was very evident they had no more any thing which was good in them, and that one might absolutely condemn them, as most sincerely they did, and as they have done ever since.

By this means those pretended Er­rours whereof they accus'd the Divines were wholly destroy'd, from Fourty they were come to Twelve, from [Page 187] Twelve to Five, and from Five to no­thing. The Jesuites had but one ima­ginarie advantage, and these Divines had this real advantage, that the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace per se was more and more acknowledg'd for orthodox by the whole Church.

There remain'd now but one Diffi­culty upon the matter of Fact, viz. whether these Propositions were, or were not in Jansenius; but as that was not of consequence, no body could ever have thought that such a Trifle should have disturb'd the Peace of the Church. Yet it did so notwithstanding, by means of that blind passion which possess'd the Jesuites to find out Heresie in their Ad­versaries. For seeing all other means fail them, they consulted how to erect an Heresie of a new kinde, which had no other foundation but this question of Fact. And upon this design it was that they promoted these extravagant Pro­positions, That the matter of Fact was inseparable from the Right in the affair of Jansenius; and, That whoever should deny that these condemn'd Propositions [Page 188] were in this Prelate's Book, and should refuse to condemn them as so in his Sense, were Hereticks.

They inclos'd this new Heresie in this mysterious word, of the Sense of Jansenius, which is, according to them, I know not what of Unexplicable, and 'tis impossible to express it but by these words. This is as it were the Quintes­sence of the Heresie, the Secret where­of is onely in the Jesuites breasts. 'Tis a certain conceal'd Poison which onely these Fathers know, though, for its being Catholick, it be necessary, accor­ding to them, for all the World to reject it without knowing it. For though they sometimes explicate this Sense of Jansenius as they think good; yet is not this Sense of Jansenius thus explain'd by them that which makes the Heresie of Jansenius, but a certain other Sense of Jansenius which they do not explain at all. And to demon­strate this to you, it is afterwards that you have rejected all the Dogms in which they comprehend this Sense of Jansenius, that they yet require you [Page 189] to condemn the Sense of Jansenius, as something distinct and separated from all those particular Dogms. For in­stance, F. Annat in his new Book en­closes the Sense of Jansenius within these two Principles; That this Prelate condemns all Sufficient Grace; and re­quires us to believe that one cannot re­sist Efficacious Grace. Who would not say to this Reverend Father, Well, Father, seeing this is, according to you, the Sense of Jansenius, I reject these two Principles; I receive Sufficient Grace after the same manner as does the School of S. Thomas; I acknowledge one may resist Efficacious Grace, though in effect one does never resist it, and that this power to resist does in the mean time subsist with this Grace? See there your Sense of Jansenius condemned. But you must yet condemn the Sense of Jansenius, otherwise there will be Yea and Nay between you and the Church, and you will for all that remain an He­retick.

Therefore F. Ferrier, who after his manner explains the Sense of Janseni­us [Page 190] three or four times in his Relation, when he would describe in his Idea in what the Sense of Jansenius does pro­perly consist, is very cautious not to make it consist in any of those determi­nated Dogms which he had attributed to Jansenius; but pretends that it is sole­ly comprehended in this general Pro­position, The Sense of Jansenius is Ca­tholick. So as, according to the new Philosophy of these Fathers, besides all particular Dogms, be they what they will, yet the Sense of Jansenius must in general be condemn'd, and it is this general and unexplicable Sense of Jan­senius in which (according to the Jesu­ites) consists the Heresie of Jansenius.

It must be confess'd that since men did ever reason together, there was ne­ver the like Extravagancy. But the con­sequence is yet infinitely more strange. For albeit the greatest part of the world laugh'd at it in particular, yet they so carried it in publick, as if they were of it; and the Jesuites have the credit to establish this unheard-of Absurdity, to introduce the practice of a Subscription [Page 191] which was never yet heard of in the Church, unless it were amongst the He­reticks, who are blam'd for it by those who have defended the Church against them. For 'tis requisite we should know, that since the Church was a Church, one has never oblig'd either Religious men, or School-masters, or Clerks, or so much as simple Priests to sign. They were the German Luthe­rans of the Confession of Ausburg who for one time onely caus'd their Confessi­on of Faith to be sign'd by the Princi­pals of the Colleges, and the Masters of Schools: And they are reprov'd for it by Cardinal Bellarmine, as of an insup­portable Vanity and a Novelty unheard­of in the Church of God ever since the Apostles.

Now, that so strange a thing as this practice, to which there was never any recourse in the most damnable Heresies, should be introduc'd in France, that is to say, in a Church the free'st of the world, and the greatest enemy to these Servitudes, and upon occasion of such Trifles; this is what is most stupendious [Page 192] indeed, but in that manner which we admire the extraordinary effects of the Fantasticalness of men. It is certain yet that the Jesuites could not have better publish'd to the world the excess of that credit which they have in the Church, then by this means. 'Tis nothing to e­stablish reasonable things; no man can tell whether it be Reason or Force which has made them to be receiv'd: but to make their power appear indeed, one should chuse such things as these, which are most excessively irrational.

I can say no more to exalt the power of the Jesuites; and we must acknow­ledge that having succeeded in this De­sign, they are able to doe what-ever is not impossible. But in this, as ill luck would have it, the Heresie of the Sense of Jansenius, which they would uni­versally establish, is one of those im­possible things; since to persuade the world of it, they must of course change the common Sense of men: so as, in spight of them, the Cause of their ad­versaries must of necessity vanquish in this last point, which is as it were [Page 193] the ultimate Redoubt of the Jesuites.

I do not onely say that it must needs be so for the future, and that all the pretensions of the Jesuites up­on the question de facto of Janseni­us should pass for ridiculous; but I say, 'tis already so, because they do pass for such already amongst all persons who have any cognisance of those matters, and that there are very few of them but are disabus'd. This I have demon­strated by other proofs in my precedent Letters; and therefore I satisfie my self for this time with a concluding one.

There are divers Bishops in France who have boldly declar'd in the face of the Church, that matter of Fact and matter of Right are different things in the affair of Jansenius; that all Heresie consists in a precise Dogm; and that one cannot with the least shadow of Justice treat those as Hereticks whom they do not reproch with any parti­cular Heresie, because they do simply question whether any such Propositions are in a Book or no. M. de Alet, M. de Vence, M. de Beauvais, and M. d' Angers [Page 194] clearly promote all these Propositions as certain and indubitable; and you may find them all comprehended in M. de Comenge's Letter to the King, which is alone sufficient to ruine all the Impo­stures of Father Ferrier, and all the Errours of the Jesuites. In the mean time these Fathers with all their credit cannot find Five other Bishops in France that dare formally to promote the Propositions, contrary to those which are maintain'd by these Prelates. They may find some that may speak of the conceal'd venome of the Heresie of Jansenism, because they are words which signifie nothing, and which they willingly yield to the strongest party. But they could never yet find any that durst affirm that matter of Fact and mat­ter of Right were things inseparable, and that there was ever any Heresie with­out some particular Dogm; because there is a certain stop to common Sense which hinders those who have never so little wit from such a degree of Extra­vagance.

But you will say at least, that the [Page 195] Jesuites Cause has all the advantage at Rome, because the Briefs are all in their favour. But let me tell you, Sir, 'Tis true, the Calumnies of the Jesuites have render'd the Divines odious there, because they are opposite to the unjust pretences of the Roman Court against the Sovereignty of Kings, and the Juris­diction of Bishops; and therefore per­haps they are not displeas'd at Rome at the Oppression which they suffer. But since they have common Sense at Rome as well as at other places, all that these Divines maintain here is receiv'd there, and as well believ'd as in other places, & indeed more generally then in France it self; because Passion has not so much disturb'd their Reason and their Judge­ment. I do not love to report things without proof; and therefore I shall alledge one which is very decisive upon this particular, viz. That even the In­quisition of Rome has newly & authen­tically approv'd all that those whom they call Jansenists have taught in France upon the Question de facto & de jure, which is so ridiculously oppos'd by the Jesuites.

[Page 196]I conceive you will not require of me to shew you that the Inquisition has given this Judgment in favour of them under the express names of Jan­senius and Jansenists. You know well enough what Reasons they have to hinder them from rendring them this exact Justice. But you ought to be satisfied that I shew you wherein they have render'd it in a Cause so like it, that it differs only in the name. And now judge whether I do not make it good.

What do these Divines pretend? There is (say they) a very wide difference between defending of condemn'd Opini­ons and such as are repugnant to the Ca­tholick Faith, which they attribute to Jansenius Bishop of Ypres, and maintai­ning that Jansenius Bishop of Ypres has not taught those condemn'd Opinions. The First would be prejudicial to the Church, and to their selves; but the Se­cond is not in any kinde so. For, as all Divines acknowledg, there is a great deal of difference between saying that the Ge­neral Councils & the Church can erre in jure, in condemning an Opinion which [Page 197] does not deserve to be condemn'd; and affirming that it can erre de facto, in judging that such or such a Propositi­on has been taught by a certain parti­cular person. The Errour of General Councils or the Church in matter of Fact can cause no prejudice to the Church; but the Errour of a Council in matter of Right would be extreme­ly prejudicial to the Church. There­fore do we not pretend to defend the Errours of the Five Propositions attri­buted to Jansenius; but that which we pretend is, that there is no harm in be­lieving that Jansenius is innocent, and at least to acquit him from this igno­minious Aspersion.

You see what these persons say, 'tis a summary of all their pretensions. Now hear my History, and observe if you can where the difference consists which distinguishes it from the affair of Jan­senius. In the Council of Lateran, the fullest of all the Councils since, there were no less then 1280 Prelates at it, they examin'd the Works of Abbot Jo­achim, so famous for his Prophecies, and [Page 198] among the rest a small Treatise which he compos'd on the Holy Trinity a­gainst the Master of the Sentences. The Council finding in this Writing a corrupt Proposition, condemn'd him for an Heretick, and the Condemnation is inserted in the Canon Law. There was at the same time another Abbot, call'd Gregory de Laude, Doctor in Di­vinity, who having undertaken to write his Life and interpret his Prophecies, thought himself oblig'd to justifie the Heresie which was imputed to him by the Council of Lateran. This was an otherwise bold undertaking then that of justifying Jansenius of the Errours which were charg'd upon him. He did it yet without fear in the 67 Chap. pag. 281. of his Book printed at Naples in folio, 1660. where he thus discour­ses. That none may be scandaliz'd at what we are about to affirm, they are to know, that there is a vast difference be­tween defending an Opinion condemn'd, and repugnant to the Catholick Faith, which is attributed to Joachim Abbot de Flore, and the maintaining that Joa­chim [Page 199] Abbot of Flore has not taught those condemn'd Opinions. The First would be prejudicial to the Church and to my self; but the Second not at all. For, as that most Learned person Dominicus Gravina (according to his custome) saies, There is a great difference between say­ing that General Councils can erre in matter of Right, by condemning an Opi­nion which merits not that Censure; and affirming they may erre in matter of Fact, by judging such or such a Pro­position was taught by an Author. The Errours of Councils in matters of Fact can doe no prejudice to the Church; but the Errour of a Council in matter of Right may be highly injurious to the Church. And therefore we do not in the least pretend to defend the Er­rour attributed to Joachim by the Coun­cil of Lateran; but that which we pre­tend is, to defend the innocence of Ab­bot Joachim, and to discharge him from this stain and ignominy. Benetamen in­tendimus Joachimi innocentiam defen­dere, & eum à tali labe & ignominia vindicare.

[Page 200]Well, you will reply to me, this is the Opinion of this Author ▪ He speaks the Jansenists very language, and the wonder is not great there should be a Jansenist at Naples. But how shall I know that this is the Sense of the In­quisition at Rome? This is that you are to make good. This Book has past the Inquisition, where they have examin'd it with extraordinary care. For the Pro­phecies which he authorizes are ex­tremely curious. But haply this passage escap'd them? No, They particularly examin'd this 281 page, finding all the rest very sound, and have chang'd onely one place, which I shall sincerely turn you to, as it stands in the page of the Corrigenda of the Book, printed by or­der of the Inquisition the 6 ^th of March this very year 1664. You see I bring you no old stories for news.

In stead of these words in this 281 leaf, line 11, where 'tis said, Bene ta­men intendimus Joachimi innocentiam defendere, that is, We pretend to clear the innocency of Joachim; the Inquisi­tion ordains you should put, Conabi­mur [Page 201] tamen, si fieri potest, Joachimum defendere, that is, We will endeavour, if it be possible, to defend Joachim.

O, how easie would it be to make Peace in the Church of France, were the Jesuites but as reasonable as the In­quisition of Rome is upon this point! I cannot devise why they should be so troubled to find Expedients to termi­nate this difference. See here one to your hand, and the easiest in the world. There is no more to doe then to bid the pretended Jansenists for the future to say, that they will no more defend the In­nocency of Jansenius; Bene tamen in­tendimus Jansenii innocentiam defen­dere, but content themselves in saying, We will endeavour, if we can, to de­fend Jansenius, Conabimur, si fieri po­test, Jansenium defendere. I dare pawn my word, Sir, that there would not be a man of them who would refuse this Condition, and that would not be yet satisfied with less; so reasonable they are and moderate. And with what justice can it be refus'd them? Is it that Joachim's Book is more consider­able [Page 202] then that of Jansenius, which was without controversie one of the most knowing Prelates of his Age? or that we owe more respect to a Constitution of P. Alexander, ☞ then to the Decision of the most Universal of all the Councils?

Conclude we therefore, Sir, that the Jesuites have succeeded in the Dis­pute concerning Grace, as they have done in that of all the rest, to torment men, which is no such great wonder: 'Tis but the natural effect of violence. The Law of the World is, That the weak suc­cumb to the strongest; and therefore we are not to admire, that a small number of Divines, who have nothing on their side save Truth and Innocence, should be overthrown by the Jesuites, that is to say, by an Army of thirty thousand men, who have for so long a time been so cruelly resolv'd upon their Ruine. But what is most admirable is, to see in the mean time the greatest part of the world persuaded of the justice of the Jesuites, and that yet the Doctrine of those Divines should have more appro­bators then ever it had, in which pro­perly [Page 203] consists the Victory of Truth. This miserable Question de Facto, this Sense of Jansenius, of which the Je­suites make such a noise at present, is but a wretched corner of ground to which they are retir'd after their having been beaten out of all their other holds, which have hitherto been the subject of the Dispute; nor are they yet able to make that good. They must either render, or precipitate themselves: that is, they must either acknowledge that the matter of Fact (which is the present Controversie) being no matter of Here­sie, there can be no Heresie in all this; or, that obstinately defending this Er­rour, they fall into Heresie themselves.

I know very well yet, that this dis­tinction between the Advantage of Persons and that of a Cause is too nice and subtile for many persons, that being gross and carnal, judge onely of things by the external, and by the noise; and that one cannot easily make them com­prehend that the Cause of those who seem to be oppressed is in effect victori­ous, and that of their Oppressors over­come.

[Page 204]The Miracles and incomparable San­ctity of the Primitive Christians could not for 300 years abate this impression of their Senses in the spirits of a world of Pagans, nor persuade them that the persons whom they kill'd had any Rea­son on their side. There is nothing more ordinary then this Argumentation; He is persecuted; It is therefore he is in the wrong; because he has not the imagi­nation which commonly joines the Idea of Pain with that of the Crime. But God would make us see the errour of this in the Christian Religion, on which subject this has been most experienc'd, in causing, on the contrary, that this Oppression of the Christians during 300 years, which incourag'd those Pa­gans to despise them, should prove one of the brightest and most divine marks to distinguish it from the false Religions. For whereas the Kingdoms of the World were established and subsisted by Tem­poral advantages of those onely who founded or maintain'd them; God would on the contrary have his Empire, which is that of the Truth, should be [Page 205] founded and augmented by the Suffe­rings and Death of those persons whom he employ'd to establish it; to shew that he was stronger then the World, in sur­mounting the World by that very Vi­ctory which the World conceiv'd they had over his Servants.

The Cause of Truth has almost gain'd the same advantage in these our Times, both from the excessive power of the Jesuites which attacqu'd them, and the extreme weakness of the Divines who defended it: all which contributed to its Establishment, and to the making it appear with the greater Splendor; since there is no man but must conclude, that the Jesuites Doctrine must needs be ve­ry naught, and their Morality extremely corrupted, since all their power has not been able to hinder it from being blast­ed by so many Censures: And that, on the contrary, the Doctrine of the Di­vines must needs be very orthodox; since they have made the Church ap­prove it, against so mighty an Oppositi­on. The more puissant the Jesuites be, the more the Censures which have past [Page 206] concerning their Doctrine should appear legitimate, just and authentick; since, in regard of the Credit they have in the Church, it should not be hard for them to procure reparation of the Church for the wrong which has been done them by her unjust Censures. And the more the Divines are oppress'd and abandon'd, the more ought that which has been done against them to be suspected, and what has been done to their advantage e­steem'd just and legitimate.

Thus, by a most admirable effect of the Divine Providence, the power of the Jesuites is the confusion of Jesu­ites; since 'tis an evident Conviction of the Falseness of a Doctrine which the Church has condemn'd in their Authors. And the oppression of these Divines, defenders of the Hierarchie, of Penance, of Morality and of Grace, is in the mean time the reproch of the Jesuites, who have so inhumanely persecuted them; and the glory and establishment of the Truth, which they have maintain'd with so much success against this insolent Society.