AS it is the duty of Bishops to cut off, whilst they are yet in the bud, the Errors that tend to the ruine of Faith; so is it no less the part of Divines, to make Discovery of them, and stir up their pastoral vigilance by giving them a timely advice thereof. For which Reason, My Lords, you will not I am confident, dis­approve the Information given you of a New Heresie publike­ly maintained by the Jesuites in their Colledge of Paris, by Conclusions, printed and defended the 12 of December past, which bear in Front this Title: Assertiones Catholicae de Incar­natione contra saeculorum omnium ab Incarnato verbo praecipuas haereses. Catholike Assertions of the Incarnation, against the principal Heresies of all Ages since Christ: Whereby they suf­ficiently intimate, that excepting some subtleties of the Schools, they would have us take for Catholike truths, whatever else they advance in opposition to these Heresies.

They propose then for the Heresie of the 10^th Age, the Schism of the Grecians, and pretend by the following words to pre­scribe [Page 4] us what we ought to beleeve, that we fall not into this Heresie.

This Conclusion contains two parts; One, the Primacy of the Pope; in which all Catholicks agree: The other the Infal­libility which the Jesuits attribute to him.

Nor is the question, concerning that Infallibility, which some Divines maintain, and which regards only the judge­ments of Popes touching the truths revealed by God in the Holy Scripture and Tradition.

It is well known what the opinions of the Gallican Church, and School of Paris are upon this Subject: and what is to be understood by their words Sententia Parisiensium, when one meets with them in the Books, even of Jesuits, upon this matter.

It is also known, that those among some modern Doctors, who would be most favourable to Popes, as Dr. Du Ʋal; were nevertheless of Opinion, that it is not a point of Faith, that the Pope is Infallible; Non est de Fide summum Pontificem esse in­fallibilem; and that the contrary opinion, is neither erroneous nor rash; Non est erroneum neque temerarium temeritate opinionis dicere summum pontificem in decernendo errare posse.

But these same Divines how passionate soever they were, to exalt the authority of the Sovereign Bishops, do acknow­ledge, as a thing certain, unquestionable, and agreed on by all Catholicks, that in matters of fact, they are not infallible, but may be deceived, and so really have been in sundry occasi­ons. All Catholicks are of Agreement, sayes Cardinal Bellarmin, that the Pope, acting as Pope, with advice of his Council, nay even of a general Council, may be deceived in particular affairs, depending on the information and attestation of Men. And, applying this gene­ral Maxime to a particular fact, altogether conformable to that of Jansenius, to wit, whether the Heresie of the Monothe­lites were contain'd in the Letters of Honorius, as the VI general Council, confirmed by so many Popes, had determined: A Ge­neral Council, sayes he, that is a lawful one, cannot erre in the definition of dogmatical points of Faith, wherein the VI Council likewise was [Page 6] free from error; but it may erre in questions of Fact. Generale Conci­lium legitimum non potest errare, ut neque erravit hoc sextum, in dog­matibus Fidei definiendis: tamen errare potest in questionibus de Facto,

And Cardinal Baronius sayes the same, upon the same sub­ject of the sixth Oecumenical Council. The Condemnation, even of General Councils, is not received with so much rigour, in what concerns mens persons, and their writings: For no man doubts, but that whoever he be, he may be deceived in matters of Fact: in which occasion, the saying of St. Paul is appliable, we can do nothing a­gainst truth, but for truth. In his enim quae facti sunt, unumquemque contingere posse falli, nemini dubium est.

All other Divines, even the more wedded to the interest of the Court of Rome, have hitherto contain'd themselves with­in these bounds. But the Jesuits will neither admit Bounds nor Examples in their excesses and extravagancie [...]. It is not enough for them to make the Pope infallible, in the manner as some other Divines have done; they must needs have it, that Jesuus Christ hath given him the same infallibility, which Himself enjoyed here on earth: and as this infallibility of Je­sus Christ reached to all things, and not only to matters reveal­ed, but also to such, as till then had not been reveal'd, and which he revealed by uttering them; so they will have the Pope to become infallible, not only in proposing to the Church the truths comprised in Divine Revelation, but also certain facts, which we are sure were never revealed by God: as, whether such Propositions be found in a Book compos'd in the 17^th. AGE.

These are not consequences drawn by others out of their Doctrine; They themselves infer them, and make them passe for Catholick Assertions, according to the Title of their Conclusions. There is then in the Church an infallible Judge of controversies of Faith, even out of a General Council, as well for questions of right, as of fact. And that we may not doubt of their meaning by questions of Fact, though the word it self of Fact, taken in opposition to that of Law or Right, doth sufficiently clear it; they alleage for an example, and a consequence of this new infallibility of Jesus Christ communicated to the Pope; [Page 7] that after the foresaid Constitutions, one may beleive with Divine Faith that Jansenius his book is heretical, and that the five Propositions are truly this Authors. Ʋnde post Innocentij X, & Alexandri VII, Constitutiones fide divina credi p [...]test, librum cui titulus est Jansenij Augustinus, esse haereticum, & quinque propo­sitiones ex eo decerptas esse Jansenii.

Behold the Proposition which they publickly advance in the face of the greatest City of the World: nor will it be amisse to take notice of the origin and date thereof: For these same men that now so boldly maintain it, had for some time agoe laid the seeds of it in their other writings: and it was easily discernable that their whole conduct was to be built up­on this error. They had severally exposed the Inferences in one place, and the Principles in an other; but still with cer­tain windings, and intricacy of words, that might as occasi­on served, be a cloak to them. It is now in fine that they dis­cover to the Church without any maske what they pretend to establish.

Let the whole Church then hear and take notice, that the 12 of December in the year 1661. was the day, on which the Jesuits brought to light this monstrous opinion, whereof they had been so long in labour: that this was the day, on which they proposed, as a Catholick assertion, that the Pope speaking out of his Chair, hath the same infallibilitie with Jesus Christ, not only in questions of Right, but also in those of Fact; and consequently that one may believe with Divine Faith, that the five propositions are the opinions of Jansenius.

It is not conceived needful, My Lords, to use many words, to make appear, that there is not here a simple Error, nor a simple Heresie, but a Source of Errors, and as one may say, a General Heresie, which overthrows all Religion.

For your Lordships know, that the first and principal ground of Christian Religion, is this, that our Faith doth not depend on the word of Men, but on the word of God, who is truth it self: that this is it which makes it inconcussi­ble and wholly Divine; whereas it would be purely humane, did it rely upon any Authority lesse than That of God: or that we could not bear the like Testimony to our selves, [Page 8] which St. Paul did to the Christians of Thessalona [...]a, to have received the word which God was pleased to propose to us by his Church, not as the word of Men, but as the word of God, as it tr [...]ly is. Non ut verbum hominum, sed sicut est vere, verbum Dei. All whatsoever is comprehended under the notion of Faith (saith St. Bernard) is founded upon the solid truth, per­swaded us by the Oracles of God, confirmed by miracles, and conse­crated by the Child-bearing of a Ʋirgin, by the bloud of our Redeemer, and the glory of Jesus raised from the dead. Totum quod in Fide est certâ ac solidâ veritate subnixum, oraculis & miraculis divinitus per­suasum, stabilitum, & consecratum partu Virginis, sanguine Redemp­toris, gloriâ Resurgentis.

Whoever then saith, A thing not revealed nor attested by God, (as, that certain Propositions are truly such an Au­thors of these later ages) is an object of Divine Faith, because the Pope hath declared it; either establishes for the ground of Faith, an authority purely human, and the word of a man, which is as much as to overthrow Faith; or makes a God of the Pope, and of his word, a divine word, and Holy Scrip­ture; which is not only an Heresie, but a horrible impietie, and a kinde of Idolatry.

For Idolatrie doth not consist onely in giving to man the name of God, but much more in ascribing to him the attributes proper to God, and the honour which is due only to him. Now this submission of our understandings and intellective faculties, implied in each Act of Faith; is nothing els than the adoration which we exhibite to the primary Truth: and so whoever pays it to the word of Man, what rank soever he holds in the Church; whoever professes he believes a thing with Divine Faith, on no other motive then because a Man hath said it; places a Man in the Throne of God, transferres the honour due only to the Creator, to a Creature, and, for as much as lies in him, makes a kinde of Idol of the Vicar of Jesus Christ.

And that, my Lords which will give you a greater horror of this Impiety, is this, that the Authors thereof imagin'd they should be able to foster it, under favour of the respect, which all the Catholicks bear the Pope; and that no man would [Page 9] have the boldness to oppose it, for fear of incurring his displea­sure; whereas on the contrary, could any one commit a greater outrage against the first Minister of Jesus Christ, then to imagine he could be honoured by a Blasphemy so injurious to Jesus Christ; that it could be pleasing to him to be made equall to his Master, by sharing with him the same Infallibility which he possesseth, and that men should yield to his words that Supream Worship of Divine Faith, which is due to God a­lone.

S. Paul and S. Barnabe, perceiving the people went about to give them the same honours which they were wont to pay to their false Gods, tore in pieces their garments, thereby to ex­press the extream displeasure which they resented; and cast themselves into the midst of the Assembly to hinder it: And we may with reason believe, that the Pope himself, were he truly advertised of this horrible excess, would not fail to im­ploy his whole Authority to suppress these profane worship­pers, and would abhor it as a crime able to cause the loss of himself in the sight of God, to give way to the least compli­ance in so detestable a flattery. He would with trembling re­flect on the just vengeance of God, upon that last King of the Jewes, for only suffering the tumultuary acclamations of a giddie brain'd people, who, hearing him speak, cryed out, It was the voice of a God, and not of a man; Dei voces & non hominis: For the Scripture teacheth us that immediatly the Angel of our Lord stroke him, because he had not given to God the honor due unto him: Confertim autem percussit cum, Angelus Domini, eo quod non dedisset honorem Deo. And yet how much lesse criminal was the flattery of that people, then this of the Jesuites; theirs might have passed for a sudden transport of joy, not regulated by reason; and sometimes the Holy Scripture it self gives the Name of God to Supream Judges and Princes: But here is given to the Pope deliberate­ly upon a laid Defign, and by way of establishing a Dogmati­cal Assertion of Theologie, not an empty and insignificant name, but one of the most glorious Attributes of God, and most in­communicable to a creature, to wit, that his Word should have entailed upon it such an infallibility, as to deserve that submis­sion [Page 10] of divine Faith, which cannot without Idolatry be ren­dred to any but the first and soveraign Verity.

For the like cannot be said in this question, which those who maintain the Popes infallibility in matters of Faith, are wont to answer, That in beleeving the decisions of the Pope, they do not build their Faith on the word of a man; because he doth but propose what hath been formerly revealed by God in Holy Scripture and Tradition, and so their faith relies still on the Word of God. Nothing I say, like this can be applied to the matter in hand, in regard whereof the Jesuites pretend, That the Pope is as infallible as Jesus Christ, and that his de­cision is an Object of Divine Faith. For when the Pope shall propose a fact of the 17^th Age; as that certain Heretical Pro­positions were taught by an Author of those times; it can­not be pretended that he proposes a matter revealed in Scrip­ture or Tradition: He may well say, I judge it to be thus; but he cannot say, God hath revealed it. He may speak as from himself, but he cannot say, God hath spoken; Dominus locutus est: And, as it is a man that speaks, and not God, all they who hold that one may beleeve with divine Faith, a decision of this nature, do most visibly commit the like abominable excess, which that blinded people did, by crying out with them, Voces Dei & non hominis.

And albeit the Popes piety be a sufficient Antidote to pre­serve him from being poisoned with this sacrilegious opinion, nevertheless, they who present this poison unto him cannot ex­cuse themselves from being as guilty towards him, as were those wretched Sycophants towards their King, of whose death, they were the cause, by their impious flatteries. For a man is not then only esteemed a murderer either of the soul or body, when effectively he takes away the life of one or the other, but also when he lays a cause, which of its own nature is sufficient to work the death of either, though the effect do not follow. So S. Cyprian calls those Christians Parricides, who through fear of persecution, offered up to the Idols their sucking In­fants; because although they could not really deprive them of the life of Grace, which they had received in Baptism, by this Idolatry whereunto they were in no sort consenting, as S. Au­stin [Page 11] remarks; they did notwithstanding what lay in them, to bereave them of it. In illis quidem interfectionem non faciunt, sed quantum in ipsis est, interfectores fiunt. Flatter not your selves, saith S. Austin, speaking to those who give occasion to others of committing sin, upon account that your brother is not dead by the scandal you gave him; it is true, he is not dead, and yet you are murderers: Et ille vivit, & tu homicida es. One may say the same to the Jesuites, in respect of the Pope, whom they go about to poison with so pestiferous an opinion: Non sibi blandiantur, quia ille non est mortuus, & ille vivit, & isti homicidae sunt.

But it is not the Pope only, before whose feet they cast this stumbling block, but even the generality of the faithful, by per­swading them to build their belief on the word of a man, and to submit their judgements thereunto, as to the first Verity, which as hath been shewed, cannot be done without a kinde of I­dolatry: Insomuch that the Jesuites are near upon the same impiety with those Hereticks, who would have Divine honours exhibited to the Blessed Virgin; for, as the true respect and veneration due to her, as the most holy of Creatures, took not any thing off from the crime of those Hereticks and their followers; even so the reverence which all the faithful ought to bear to the Head of the Church, will in no sort exempt them from a heavy sin before almighty God, if through the deceit of the Jesuites, they give unto the words of a man how emi­nent soever he may be in the Church, that soveraign difference of divine Faith, which cannot without impiety be given to any thing but the Word of God himself.

Worldly men make small accompt of these kind of sins, because, being wholy buried in flesh and blood, none but grosse and material Objects make Impression on them. Deluded de­votes permit themselves to be easily carried away with these ex­cesses; because they imagin it to be a part of their false Piety, to imbrace blindly whatever contibutes to the honour and ad­vantage of those things and persons, for which they ought to have a respect, and from this root are sprung all those opini­ons, which they call pious, without ever examining whether they be true or false: as if a falsity could be the object of piety, [Page 12] or that God, who is truth, could be honoured with the un­clean Sacrifice of a Lie. But you, My Lord, know that all those who have been nourished with the true spirit of Christi­anity, make a far different judgement hereof: they equally hate a lie, to whose advantage soever it redound, whether of the Pope, or the Blessed Ʋirgin, or of Jesus Christ himself: which yet would a little startle a man to hear, had not St. Austin ex­presly taught it: For this Holy Father fears not to maintain that, if a lye or calomny, which one makes use of to take away the temporal life of Man, be a detestable crime; That is yet a far greater, which tends to the destruction of his spiritual life; as all manner of lyes in matter of Religion, even though employed in giving false prai­ses to Jesus Christ. For which reason, the same Father says, that a Christian would commit a notorious folly, who would not rather expose himself to all manner of indignities, even those that strike the greatest horror into pious Souls; then condescend to the insolence of a person, that would force him to corrupt the holy Gospel, thereby to be­stow false praises upon Jesus Christ.

Since then, according to the Judgement of this great Fa­ther, it would be a crime of abomination to give false honours to Jesus Christ himself, who being God, is above all our praise and honours; how much more abominable is it, to give a mor­tal Man, invironed with infirmities, as the Scripture sayes, the honours that appertain to God alone? But into what a labirinth of errors will not men run headlong, if one grant them the freedom to cloak their capricious fancies with the mantle of piety? For if opinions must be born with, how false soever they be, because a false piety judges them pious; and if this be a plausible reason to exempt Popes from the common defects of humane nature, that one may piously believe, that God, having entrusted them with the Government of his Church, will have a care to preserve them from falling into defects prejudicial to the good thereof; as the Jesuits from this ground conceive they have a right to invest the Pope in the same state of infallibility with Jesus Christ, even in matters of Fact, when they propose them to the whole Church: Why may not others lay claim to the same right, of attributing to him the same impeccability which Jesus Christ had, in all such [Page 13] affairs as concern the Government of the Church, and the Functions of his Soveraign Pontificate? Why shall this latter opinion be lesse pious, than the former? doth it not appear more advantageous to the Church, that the Head thereof should be in this sort impeccable, then that he should be infal­lible in matters of Fact? And have not an infinity of Souls, redeem'd with the Sacred Blood of Jesus Christ, received dama­ges incomparably greater, by the evil Government of some Popes, then they can possibly receive by their want of under­standing or due attention in the perusal of a particular Au­thor.

Some one that should have lived in the first ages of the Church, catching hold of these seeming conveniences of mans weak understanding, would he not have thought him­self well grounded to assert.

That God would never permit the seat of St. Peter to be possest, for the space of almost an Age together, by persons most unworthy of that dignity; As Card. Baronius acknow­ledges with grief to have hapened, during the far greater part of the tenth Age, by the power of the Marques of Toscany, who tyranising, what with arms, what with mony, over the Clergy and people of Rome, caused them to enthrone in St. Peters Chair, Men not only vicious in their own persons, but also notoriously dammageable to the Church; into which they brought most horrible disorders; as that in particular of John the Tenth, whereof Baronius sadly complains, who made an Infant of five years old Archbishop of Rheimes; on which the Cardinal makes this reflexion: Tantum nefas, quo Iura omnia Ecclesiastica sauciantur, ejus pontificis authoritate intro­ductum, quem infamis faeminae infami operâ in Petri solium in­trusisset.

Would he not have believed, that God Almighty would never have suffered, the Vicar of Him, who made that solemn Protestation, that his Kingdom was not of this World; to attempt the disposing of Temporal Kingdoms; to take them from some, and confer them on Others; as Julius the second did That of Navarre, which, to the prejudice of our Kings, the Kings of Spain possesse upon me no other title, than a pre­tended [Page 14] guift of the Pope, in taking it from its lawful King?

Would he not have thought, that God would never have permitted Schisme to have crept even into the Chair of Unity; in such sort, that the Church for almost 40 years should not have been able to discern its true, from its false Pastour; groan­ing under the oppression of two Mercenaries, strugling for the right Title, and agreeing only in this joynt design, to keep the Church in this dismal division; as in effect it happened a­bout the end of the 14^th. Age, whilst one of these Anti-popes kept his seat at Avignon, the other at Rome?

Would he not have thought, that God would never have permitted, that he, whose principal charge it is to keep all Christians in Unity, should by rash and precipitate excom­munications, be the Cause, that whole Kingdoms should fall off from the Communion of the Church; whereby an infi­nite number of Souls should miserably suffer shipwrack against the Rocks of Schisme and Heresie; as it happened to the King­dome of England, by the precipitancy of Clement the Seventh; as Cardinal Peron most pregnantly represented to Paul the fifth, to keep him from falling into a like oversight in the cause of the Venetians; adding the example of Leo the Tenth in regard of Germany, and remonstrating to him, That he ought to consider, he was then in the same Crisis, and at the same point, in which Leo the tenth was the ruine of Catholick Religion in Germany; in which Clement the seventh destroyed It in England, in which Clement the eighth preserved It in France.

It is certain, that, to confine our discourse to what may ap­pear advantageous to the Church, and to what we (according to our weak understanding) would be apt to judge fitting to be done; had any of those that appear the wisest among Men, been admitted in to the Council of God, when he was casting the models of his Church; they would all have concurred in this judgement, that it would be in no sort expedient, to per­mit those who were to supply his place upon earth, to fall in­to disorders so opposite to the duty of their Charge, and so prejudicial to the Souls of Men, committed to their conduct▪ But the Counsels of God are intirely different from those of Men; and he was pleased out of his inscrutable judgements [Page 15] by the succeeding events, quite to confound our pretended wisdome. For he permitted all that, which we would have conceiv'd he ought to have prevented: So that Persons truly pious ought to be convinced, by so many deplorable exam­ples, of this important verity, that God would not have the firm subsistance of his Church depend on the Saintity, wis­dome, or clear-sightednesse of any one single person, though he were the Head and Soveraign Pastor of it. This is the pi­ous reflection which Cardinal Baronius makes upon the dis­orders of the 10^th. Age: To the end, sayes he, that God might make appear that his Church was not the contrivance of Man, but an Institute purely divine, it was necessary he should shew, that the vices of bad Popes, should never be a­ble to destroy It: as Kingdomes often are overthrown by the vicious lives of their Kings. Ʋt enim Deus significaret eandem suam Ecclesiam nequaquam humanum esse figmentum, sed plane di­vinum inventum, oportuit ostendisse eam nequaquam pravorum Antisti­titum operá perdi posse, & ad nihilum redigi; sicut de aliis diversarum gentium regnis & bene statutis Rebus-publicis fastum constat.

It is the same case of this kind of Infallibility, which by a new and unheard-of error the Jesuits grant to the Pope: which God hath permitted to be disproved by so many evi­dent examples, that not any Divine can give credit to it, without condemning himself of formal Heresie; for if all the decisions of Popes, touching matters of Fact, were as many Articles of Faith, there not being one able Divine, that doth not impugne some one of them, there would not be one that did not impugne a point of Faith.

For example, who is there now a dayes that doth not esteem the Letters imputed to the first Popes, not only not to be Theirs, but contrariwise, a Rapsody collected by some For­ger and Impostor. And notwithstanding both Pope Nicholas commanded the Bishops of France to receive them, and his Successors inserted them into the book of Decretals, which by their Apostolical authority they proposed to serve for a rule to the whole Church, wherein they speak, at least, as much out of their Chair, as in their ordinary Bulls. How then can one, without Impiety, believe, that these letters are sup­positions, [Page 16] as now all the ablest Church-men do, even the Je­suits themselves, if there be an obligation to hold the same In­fallibilitie in the Popes, as in Jesus Christ, even in matters of Fact? would the infallibility of Christ permit that one should propose to the Church false pieces instead of true ones?

There are scarce any matters of Fact of more importance to the Church, then to know whether a Council be General or no, whether Lawful or illegittimate. Neverthelesse, did the Kingdom of France become Heretick, for not acknowledging the Council of Florence to be Oecumenical, notwithstanding all the Bulls of Eugenius the fourth, and all his declarations prefixed at the head of this Council, to oblige the whole world to receive it as a General one? Did the Cardinal of Lorraine fall into Heresie, when he openly declared to Pope Pius the fourth, his, and the whole Kingdome of France's opinion on this subject, in the following tearms: For as much as concerns the last of the Titles to be given to our Holy Father, taken out of the Council of Florence; I cannot deny but that I am a French man, bred up in the Ʋniversity of Paris, in which it is the common Tenet, that the authority of a Council is above the Pope, and all that bold the contrary are censured as Hereticks: That in France the Council of Constance is held Oecumenical in all its parts: That they adhere to That of Basile, and hold That of Florence neither for a Lawful nor a Gene­ral One: and it were an easier work to kill all French men, then to draw them from their said perswasion. This Letter which the Cardinal of Lorrain writ to his Secretary at Rome, to be com­municated to Pope Pius the 4^th. is to be seen in the collection of Memorials concerning the Council of Trent, published by the deceased Mr. Du Puis, and printed by Cramoisi.

During the first disagreement betwixt Pope Eugenius the 4^th. and the Council of Basile, he put forth a most authentick Bull, by which he declared that he transferr'd this Council to Bolog­nia, and that all those who should maintain this Translation was just and lawful, were both out of the Truth and Catho­lick Faith. Fuit igitur a Basiliensi civitate legitima pro tunc nostra Concilii dissolutio, & asserentes contra sunt penitus ab omni veritate & fide Catholica alieni. All which notwithstanding the Fa­thers of the Council of Basile, maintaining that this Transla­tion [Page 17] was injust and invalid, Eugenius was forced by another Bull equally authentick, to acknowledg that the said Transla­tion was in effect null, and that the Council had been duely held from its beginning to that very time. Both these Bulls are to be seen in Raynald; the first in the year 1433. the other in the year 1434. Now, shall the one and the other of these Bulls be Articles of Faith? and shall we be obliged to believe that the same Council was at the same time, an unlawful con­venticle, and a Lawful Synod of the whole Church, assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost.

The same Raynald makes mention of an other Bull of Eu­genius the 4^th. against the Cardinal of Arles who presided over the Council of Basile; where he is called Iniquitatis Alumnus, atque perditionis filius. If the voice of Popes, in the judgements which they make of persons in their Bulls, ought to be esteem­ed as infallible as that of Jesus Christ, we should be obliged to look upon this Cardinal as a most wicked person: but what if God hath judged otherwise, and if, from obliging us to ab­hor him as a Child of Iniquity, and a Son of Perdition, he would have us bear respect and veneration to him, as one of the Blessed, confirming his Saintity by publick Miracles, au­thorized by an other Pope, to wit, Clement the Seventh, who by an authentick Bull has enrolled him in the number of the Blessed, declaring, not that he did penance after having been a Son of Iniquity, but that he had ever a celestial, chast, and imma­culate life; as it is to bee seen in the Bull of his Beatification, re­ported at length by Ciaconius.

These few examples may sufficiently shew the falsity of the Jesuits pretension. But without seeking further, the very Authors themselves, of this new Doctrine, fall into Heresie, by the undeniable sequele of their error. For in these very same Conclusions, they maintain, that Pope Honorius, in his Letters taught nothing but what was most consonant to the Catholick Faith, touching the two wills, and two operations in Jesus Christ. Duas in Christo voluntates & operationes fuisse profitemur; nec aliud a nobis sensit Honorius dum operationem Christi unicam esse scripsit. Now, if it be a point of Faith, as the Jesuits pretend, that the Book of Jansenius is Heretical, and [Page 18] the five Propositions are his, because two Popes have af­firmed it, and that one ought to consider what they say with the same regard as if Jesus Christ had said it; with how much more reason may one say the same of the letters of Pope Ho­norius, which were both strictly examined, condemned and burnt by the Authority of a General Council of the whole Church, in which the Pope presided by his Legats, and which in this very point was confirmed by two following General Councils, and by a great number of Popes? For if ever Popes speak out of their chair, it is then chiefly when they speak in General Councils, and in the confirmation of them by their A­postolical power.

And so consequently one cannot doubt, but that Leo the second spoke out of his Chair, when in divers Letters which he wrote in confirmation of the sixth Oecumenical Council, he in particular ratified the Condemnation of Honorius, pro­nouncing an Anathema against him, because in stead of inlight­ning the Church [these are his words] by the Doctrine of Aposto­lical Tradition, he suffered it to be defiled by a profane corruption. Qui hanc Apostolicam Ecclesiam non Apostolicâ Traditionis do­ctrinâ lustravit, sed profanâ traditione immaculari permisit. And consequently, if, when the Popes speak out of their chair, of what matter soever they speak, whether of right, or of Fact, they injoy the same Infallibility with Jesus Christ, and that all they so pronounce is an Article of Faith; it ought to be a point of Faith that the Letters of Honorius are Heretical, and he that denies it, especially after having asserted this General Maxime, bears in his forehead the most notorious mark of an Heretick, according to S. Paul, which is, to be condemned by his own pro­per judgement.

Nor will it serve, to have recourse to the pretended falsify­ing of the Acts of the sixth Council, and of the letters of Leo the second; For as this pretension is both unsustainable, ridi­culous and extravagant, (as in the last Assembly of the Clergy, the Bishops even most addicted to the Jesuites did acknow­ledge) if there were no other then this poor evasion to excuse men from beleeving with Divine Faith, that Honorius was just­ly [Page 19] anathematiz'd, and his Letters legally condemned, as full of Heresies; one must needs have renounced all common sense, to make any other judgement of this Pope, or not to hold his Let­ters for heretical.

But, as it is the property of Error to destroy it self, the same person, that by this new Opinion of the Jesuites should be in­gaged of necessitie to maintain these Letters of Honorius to be Heretical; by the same principle would be obliged to acknow­ledge the falsity of his own opinion, For how could he be­leeve that all the Popes wer indued with this infallibility of Je­sus Christ speaking out of their chair; seeing Honorius fell into an error, in a conjecture where it is hard to conceive how he should not speak out of his chair, since he spoke as Judge of controversies of Faith, for the adjusting the greatest variance that then raigned in the Church, and which had divided all the Patriarks of the East. And nevertheless, without insisting on the judgement of the Sixth Council, and supposing, which yet is most absurd, that the Acts of it were corrupted; how can any one pretend that Honorius in this occasion, was assisted with the Infallibility of Jesus Christ, since having by his Let­ters approved the letter of Sergius Patriarch of Constantinople, either he understood it rightly, and then he fell into an Error of right, by approving an heretical Opinion of one only Will in Jesus Christ, which he must have acknowledged to have been contained in the letter of Sergius: Or else he mis-understood the said letter, taking in a Catholike sence, that which Sergius writ in an heretical one, in which case he must needs have erred at least in a matter of Fact.

So that the Jesuites can in no sort avoid being Heretikes, for if it be an heresie, as questionless it is, to ascribe to the Popes, speaking out of their chair, the same infallibility which Jesus Christ hath, as well in matters of right, as of fact, in such sort that their decision even in matters of Fact, may be believed by divine Faith, then they must needs be Hereticks, because they are engaged to maintain not an heresie only, but a blasphemy: And if they pretend this opinion is true, they are likewise Heretikes, because they impugn faith, by impugning the decision of so many Popes and General Councels touching the condem­nation [Page 20] of Honorius, whom, according to their erroneous Opi­nion, one is bound to beleeve by divine Faith, to have been most justly condemned, since it was by the sentence of Judges, as infallible, both in matters of right, and of fact, as Jesus Christ himself.

My Lords, I dwell too long upon the refutation of so visible a folly, but permit me to lay before you one other pernicious consequence thereof. Your Lordships have seen the design of their Conclusions, and how glorious a Title they prefix before them: Assertiones Catholicae contra saeculorum omnium praeci­puas Haereses. What can a man rationally conceive, when he sees what Doctrines (in pursuance of that Title) they oppose to these heresies, but that their meaning is to obtrude them upon us for Catholick truths, maintained by the Church against He­reticks, and which we are bound to embrace under pain of He­resie, and of falling off from the Communion of the Church. Wherefore according to the Jesuites, the Catholike Church can never receive the Grecians back into Communion, nor re­unite its members cut off by so deplorable a Schism, otherwise then by obliging them to confess that Jesus Christ hath given to the Popes the same infallibility which he himself had, in all they propose to the whole Church, even particular Facts. And as all Heretikes of these latter Ages have embraced the Error of the Grecians, touching the Primacy of the Holy Seat; so like­wise neither can we open the Church doors to any of them, up­on other terms then by extorting from them a profession of this new Article of Faith.

But admitting the Church should not tye them to such hard measure, yet what a World of Obstacles are by this opinion cast in the way of their conversion? What scandall doth it not give them? What a fair pretext doth it afford their Ministers, to decry the Catholick Church in their Sermons to their abu­sed flock, and render it odious and contemptible, and confirm them in their ancient reproach and calumny, so often cast upon Catholicks of equalling the Pope with God almighty?

It is well known that this was the principal Engine to work so many people to a revolt from the Church. Is it possible, that even Religious persons should concur with them in so per­nitious [Page 21] a design, and furnish them with armes to fight against us, giving them a just occasion to look upon the submission which all faithful Christians yield to the Pope, as an insup­portable yoak imposed on their consciences, even in matters that no ways concern the Catholick Faith, nor whereof the knowledg doth in any sort contribute to Salvation.

This is it, My Lords, that hath chiefly forced us to speak in this ranconter: It was absolutely necessary that Catholick Di­vines should make all hast to cry out against this impiety, lest these uncircumcised should take occasion to insult over the Hosts of the living God: We were obliged to prevent them, that it might appear to all the World, that these excesses were no lesse detested in the Catholick Church, out of the love of truth, then they seemed to detest them upon the accompt of justifying their guilty separation.

But if, to have exposed their complaints to the publick, be enough to acquit Divines of the duty incumbent on them; it will not suffice for the honour of the Church, and an entire re­paration of this scandal, that they alone should speak in this occasion. 'Tis your part, My Lords, who ought to be inflamed with a pious zeal for the purity of Christian Doctrine, whereof you are the Depositaries; for the safety of Souls, whereof you are the Spiritual Fathers; for the Sanctity of the Church, whereof you are the Bridegrooms; for the honour of Jesus Christ, whose chief Ministers you are; to consider before Almighty God, what service you owe him, in an occasion of this importance, where the Faith of the Church is violated by a capital error that strikes at the very roots thereof, where the Faithful are in danger to be poysoned by an opinion, that tends to change into Idolatry the veneration which they owe to their Soveraign Pastor; where the Church is profaned by an impiety, that dishonours and exposes it to the outrages of its enemies; and finally where Jesus Christ is horribly blasphemed by a Sacrilegious parity, which they endeavour to establish betwixt his sacred words, and those of his Minister, by ma­king the one, as well as the other, the object of Divine Faith.

Some one [...] say, it is an extravagance, which deserves not to have such notice taken of it; and this without [Page 22] question will be the pretext to move you to connive at such an excesse. But you ought to consider, My Lords, that how ex­travagant soever the opinion may be, It is advanc'd by persons who may give a just occasion to apprehend strange consequen­ces of it. For clearly, it is not by chance, or the blind passion of some one private person, that it now comes to light; but of old there have been dispositions laid for the introducing it: nor was it ushered in with such pompe and ceremony, but just at that nick of time which they conceived most favourable to procure it a successeful acceptance, and in which they thought, not any one would have the boldnesse to hold up his hand in opposition to it.

Their pretensions perchance are not yet ripe enough to draw a formal approbation of it from the Bishops; but their hopes are, since we must speak the plain truth, that their credit, and the power, which of late they have got, of doing both good and bad Offices, will at least be able to keep them in silence; so that not one shall dare attempt the condemnation of it, for fear of drawing on his head the vengeance of so potent a So­ciety; and that the Sorbone, which now they think they have brought to their beck, will never have the confidence to cen­sure it, what aversion soever it may have inwardly for it.

They hope then, under the favour of this silence, and whilst the whole world shall seem buried in sleep, dum dormirent homi­nes, this cockle, which they have sowed in the fields of the Church, will take root and grow up by the advantage of the season; In the mean time they will leave it to grow to maturi­ty, according to their manner of expression, relinquent tem­pori maturandum; and when it shall be fully ripe, they will ex­tract the natural consequences; that necessarily must spring from it. For the present, they tell us modestly, one may be­lieve with Divine Faith such like particular Facts; but we shall shortly hear, that we are bound to believ them; which grad [...] ­tion will be easie for them to establish, because it follows by a necessary consequence out of their principle; it being certain that no man can believe with Divine Faith, but what is a matter of Faith: and what is such, ought of necessity to be believed in that nature, when it shall be sufficiently proposed. It i [...] [Page 23] enough for their turns at present, that the Bishops do not condemn this opinion: but we shall see them ere long inveagle them in, to be the approvers of it, according to an other of their Maximes, which is; That the Church doth approve all such Doctrines, as [...]t suffers without making opposition.

It highly concerns you, My Lords, to reflect on the danger whereunto not only the Church, but you your selves are also exposed; lest one day the Jesuits bring you in for abettors of their Heresie, and God himself lay it to your charge. For though it be a most false error, that the Church approvs all o­pinions which it doth not suppresse, it is notwithstanding a constant truth, confirmed by Popes and Councils, that God imputeth to Pastors the approval of errors, which they did not in due time oppose. Error cui non resistitur, approbatur Qui non corrigit resecanda, committit. Which made the second Council of Tours declare, that the Shepheard seem'd to side with the Woolf, as often as he did not hinder the slaughter of his flock, having the power to do it. And St. Leo, speaking of those that were negligent in applying remedies to the grievances of the Church, lays them all at their doors: Qui multam saepe nu­triunt pestilentiam, dum necessariam dissimulant adhibere medicinam. But these are reflexions altogether needlesse to be suggested to you, My Lords, whose zeal and Pastoral vigilance is of greater force to represent you what is expedient for the good of the Church in these occasions, then all the discourses that can be made you. It is enough for private Divines to lay before your eyes the emergent evils, and deep wounds inflicted on its Do­ctrine, and only to say to each of you in particular the same which a Prophet said to God, Vide, Domine, & considera. See and consider what Doctrine is taught in the Church, whereof you are the Masters. Their duty extends no further, and this done, they may take up their rest, and lament before Almighty God in Silence and Humility.

Paris the 1st. of January 1662.