AN ANSWER TO THE Provinciall Letters Published by the JANSENISTS, Under the Name of Lewis Montalt, Against the Doctrine of the JESUITS And School-Divines: Made by some Fathers of the Society in FRANCE.

There is set before the Answers in this Edition, The History of Jansenisme, and at the end, A conclusion of the Work, where the English Additionalls are shewed to deserve no Answer; Also an Appendix, shewing the same of the Book called, A further Discovery of Jesuitisme.

Printed at Paris, in the Year, 1659.

The PREFACE to the READER.

A French man not long since, un­der the counterfeit Name of Lewis Montalt, printed Satyri­call Libells, which he called Pro­vinciall Letters. His main drift was to establish the Heresie of Jansenius; that is, that Heresie, which denieth Christ to be the Redeemer of all men; and among other Enormities teacheth, that God commandeth things that are impossible, not onely to Sinners, but even to the Just. This, I say, was his main drift; for this was the occasion of his writing; with this his first Letters begin, in this he c [...]iefly labours, and with this his last Let­ters end. Yet to cloak this foul design with a pleasing out-side, he often makes Profession of sincere Faith, and of great Reverence to the Sea Apostolique; and condemneth verbally the Five Propositi­ons of Jansenius censured by the Church as Hereticall. Yet this he doth so as still to excuse Jansenius his Doctrine and the [Page] Jansenists from Heresie. He would be thought to drive at nothing, but (the old pretence of Innovatours) a Reform, in correcting abuses and errours crept into Divinity-Schools, especially among the Jesuites, and by their means into the Church of Christ. All this he doth with Raillery and Merriment.

The unwary vulgar, glad to make merry at any mans cost, sported with his Letters; not marking, that whilest they were invited to make a jeast of Charity, it was that they might lose their Faith in earnest. But the Learned, and all those, who with a sober judgement could pon­der things right, were struck with a hor­rour at these scandalous Libells; and fear­ing the sad events, which these prophane Railleries did bode, thought themselves obliged in conscience to suppresse them. For this reason these Letters were forbid to be printed in Paris, and the Parliament of Aix in Provence commanded the Se­venteen first Letters (for the Eighteenth was not then come out) to be publique­ly burnt by the Hang-man, the 9. of Fe­bruary, in the year 1657. On the 13. of July in the same year, the Archbishop [Page] of Machelen, Primate of the Low-Coun­treys, (to secure his Subjects) gave his Approbation to the Answers of the Pro­vinciall Letters: and a Moneth after, to wit, on the 13. of August the Vicar Ge­nerall of Liege did as much. And on the 6. of September then next ensuing, the universall Pastour of the Church, Pope Alexander the Seventh now sitting▪ condemned all the Eighteen Provinciall Letters, under the Penalties specified in the Councell of Trent, and the Index of Forbidden Books.

These infamous Letters then, branded with the ignominy of so many Censures, and banisht all Catholique Countreys, came for their refuge into England. And they found a Translatour, who either for his hatred to the Catholique Church, or private spleen to the Jesuites, or for love of Jansenisme, or for desire of gain, (for nothing sells better then a Libell) set them out in an English dresse: And that they might the better please those ears, which itch to hear something against the Jesuites, he baptized them by a new name of the Mystery of Jesuitisme; it being common to Fugitives that are forced [Page] to flye their Countrey, to change their name.

And the good Translatour presumed so much of his own Work, that in the Preface to his first Edition he could not hold from prophesying in his own praises, and telling us, what a strange Metamor­phosis there would follow in the world upon reading these Letters done by him into English. For speaking of his Book he saith, It must needs work a strange al­teration in mankinde. What Alteration? This. The Jesuites hitherto by all men held in esteem for Learning and Vertue, (if we believe this Translatours Poeticall Prophesie) will be looked on hereafter as the most abominable and despicable thing in the world. Surely this man taketh the Je­suites for an Army of Philistims, which he is to conquer with the Jaw-bone of an Asse. But Good Mr. Translatour, do you indeed think as you say? The world hath thought the Jesuites men of some worth. The Wisest of our Age have given them commendation; they have had learned Adversaries, both Protestants and Catho­liques, who opposed them so as not to despise them. Their Industry hath tra­velled [Page] through all Sciences, as well as their Charity through all Nations. Their Books are honoured in all Libraries; and their Persons reverenced in all the Coun­treys, Cities, and Towns, where Catholick Religion is in esteem. Must all the world now change their judgement? and must they that have hitherto had a good re­pute, be looked on hereafter as the most abo­minable and despicable thing in the world? But Why? How? by What Means must this strange Alteration be wrought in Mankinde? let's hear.

Quid dignum tanto scret hic promissor hiatu.

The reason is, because a French man, whose Letters this Translatour hath done into English, saith so. But who was that French man? A man that by his own confession is no Church-man, no Priest, no Doctour, no Protestant, no Catho­lique. A man, of whom all the good that's known, is that he can write a Libell well, and challenge others boldly, with­out ever heeding whether what he saith be true or false, Catholique or Hetero­dox, sense or non-sense. A man, that's ashamed of nothing but of himself; for in all his daring Propositions he dareth [Page] not say who he is; in all his desperate ad­ventures he will not venture to shew his face.

And shall such a man as this work that strange Alteration in Mankinde? Shall a Libell be able to sway the judgement of the Wise, and ballance all that the Light of Reason can dictate to the contrary? The Catholique Church is full of men of all ranks and conditions, Rich and Poor, Noble and Ignoble, Religious and Secu­lar, Souldiers and Gown-men, who from their childhood to the severall ages they are now in, have been familiarly acquaint­ed with the Society, and had the first Tinctures of Learning and Vertue under them; must they now all change their judgements, and hereafter count the Society the most despicable and most abomi­nable thing in the world, because a French Libell turn'd into English speaketh them to be quite contrary, to what the world knoweth them, and seeth them to be? Ad populum phaleras. The world, as old as it is, is not yet come to so doting an age, as to think they must rather believe an infamous Libell, then their own eyes, their own reason, their own long experi­ence. [Page] The effect sheweth what spirit animated the Translatour in this Enthu­siasme. 'Tis two years since the Book hath been out, and the world hath seen no alteration wrought by this Work: the Jesuites have not lost one Friend by means of it. Had this Letter-writer endeavour­ed to keep within compasse, and to shew us that the Jesuites are not all such Saints, but that there are some faults in their lives, and that their Doctrine is not all so Sacred, but that some opinions of theirs may be impugned, and some reprehended, he might have been believed: and the Je­suites themselves, though they would have resented it, that their faults should be blazed about the world without ne­cessity, yet they would have acknow­ledged, that they are not impeccable nei­ther in Doctrine nor Manners. 'Tis a priviledge reserved for Heaven, that no faults can there be found: here on earth that Community is happiest, which hath fewest faults: none are without all fault. But to taxe the Jesuites Doctrine gene­rally as a monstrous Source of all Irregu­larities, and their Persons as the most abo­minable and despicable thing in the world, [Page] that is a meer Paradox, which begets a disbelief, giveth it self the lye, and by saying too much saith nothing. Over-reaching praises are laughed at, and too excessive reprehensions are scorned by all wise men.

The Jesuites have many that reprehend them, and so have all those that are emi­nent, and seem to overtop others in what­soever it be. For Glory and Envy are Twins; one is never borne without t'other. Honour should be, but in our Age Detraction is, the shadow of Vertue, which darkens its Lustre: Calumny al­wayes lodgeth over against Piety, to spy her Actions and defame her Glory. It was a Fable, that there was a Momus among the Gods in Heaven; but it is not a Fable, that the Heroes of this world are never without a Momus, to censure what soever they do. But as the Greek Pro­verb saith, [...], it is easie to play the Mo­mus, easie to reprehend, but hard to imi­tate; so I say to these Censorian spirits, Let them mend what they reprehend. Let them do something like that, which the Jesuits do; and see, whether they can [Page] do it, and not fall into more faults, then the Jesuites do. Let them employ as ma­ny hundred Masters in teaching Gram­mar, Poetry, Rhetorique, Arithmetique, Mathematiques, Philosophy, Divinity Po­sitive and Speculative. Let them trace the Jesuites scattered over the face of the whole earth, in all the Nations on which the Sun doth shine, for to convert Infi­dells. Let them Catechize, Preach, Ad­minister Sacraments, visit the Sick, at­tend the Hospitals and Prisons, comfort the Poor, direct Souls in all states: let them write as many learned Books, as the Jesuits do; and then let's see, whether they can do all this without deserving a Censure oftner then the Jesuits do. They that reprehend others, ought to be them­selves irreprehensible; at least in that which they censure. And yet this is the Jansenists misfortune, that they repre­hend the Jesuits Books; and scarce have yet set out one (of the many which they have printed) that is not censured.

But there is difference betwixt censure and censure. The Jansenists censure the Jesuits Books, and the Catholique Church censures the Jansenists Books. The Jan­senists [Page] censure the Jesuites Morall, and the Church censureth the Jansenists Faith. The Jansenists set out Libells against the Jesuites, and the Church thundereth Ana­thema's, in the Popes Bulls, against the Jansenists. So different are the Censures. Yet this is not all. The grand Difference betwixt the Censures is, that the Cen­sures, which the Church layes on the Jan­senists, fall on their reall Crimes: but the Censures, which the Jansenists give the Jesuits Doctrine, is grounded on false im­putation and meer Calumny. This is clearly shewed in the Book, which here is answered. All the whole Book of the Provinciall Letters, which casts so much durt on the Jesuits, that the Translatour calls it The Mystery of Jesuitisme, is a false and groundlesse Censure, given by an Heretique to Doctrine, which hath the generall Approbation of Schools. When I say an Heretique, I would not have our Protestants of England think themselves concern'd. I understand the Jansenian Heretique, who dissents as far from the Protestant, as he doth from the Catholique. This then is the aim of these Answers, to shew that the Censures, [Page] which the Provinciall Letters lay on the Jesuites Doctrine, are groundlesse Cen­sures, and false Calumnies, and meer Im­postures: and so the Translatour hath his Mystery revealed. It is but a Pacquet of lying Letters, which he calleth the Myste­ry of Jesuitisme; he might better have called it the Misery of Jansenisme. For it is the greatest misery of the world to be reduced to such streits, as that one cannot say any thing, either for himself or against his Adversary, which is not false. Now this is the Jansenists case.

This being so (as the Reader will finde it so) it appeareth how unreasonably the Translatour vomits up so much gall in the end of his Preface, in making a disgrace­full Character of the Jesuites; where he concludeth that the Jesuites are to be looked upon as the Vermin of all Humane Society. I do not desire to use foul lan­guage; yet if I may use this term of Ver­min to any Christian, I conceive it cannot agree with any man so well, as with the Authour of the Provinciall Letters. For who is the Vermin of Mankinde in matter of Faith, but he that denieth, that Christ is the Redeemer of all men; and so open­eth [Page] a way to desperation, and neglect o [...] Christian duty? This Montalt doth. Who in matter of Learning can be cal­led Vermin, rather then the Writer of Li­bells against Learning? who is but a Scold in print, and like a Moth, doth but corrode and disgrace learned Books; or like a Fly sucks at others sores; or like a Serpent, extracteth poison, where he might have suck'd honey. This Montalt doth. Who in civill community can be termed Vermin, but the Detractour? This Montalt is evidently proved to be; and so was he judged by the Parliament of Aix. Finally who among all men, noble and ignoble, deserves the name of Vermin, as unfit for any humane Society, either Christian or Heathen, but the Liar? This Montalt is convinced to be. Now if the Authour of the Provinciall Letters deserveth these Titles, his Translatour may judge, what part of these commen­dations reflects on him. I will not deal him any part; all I say as to him is, that I am sorry to see him mislead, and I wish him hereafter a better employment to practise his pen on, then the translating of condemned Libells.

[Page] Now as to the Reader, to give him some short account of this Work, it containeth severall Pieces made by the Jesuites in France in Answer to the Pro­vincial Letters; which though our Eng­lish Preface-maker despises, yet they do unanswerably convince the Letter-writer of being an arrant cheat, and of falsifying Authours. I will not say much of the Particulars, because I have put to the se­verall Pieces, Prefaces and Arguments, which may direct the Reader. Some Pie­ces are added in this Edition, as the Histo­ry of Jansenisme, the Answer to the Re­ply made in Defence of the Twelfth Letter, the Answer to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letter, and another in­serted, in the Second English Edition, be­twixt the Seventeenth and Eighteenth: Also the Conclusion of the Work con­cerning the Additionalls. These Pieces either not being at all made in France, or not come to my hands, I have supplied. The rest is taken out of the French An­swer made by some of the Society, with little alterations; which are noted in the places, where any considerable change is made.

[Page] If these Answers seem to have some­thing too much of the Picquant, the Reader will reflect, that 'tis necessity, which putteth the Author on that strain. The light of nature teacheth, that he that wrongfully impeacheth an innocent person, giveth him right to challenge his Accuser of unjust dealing. 'Tis no inci­vility to call that man an Impostour, a Cheat, a Liar, who by grosse calumnies, and notorious falsities is proved to wrong another man. The Authour of the Pro­vinciall Letters begun first, and treated the Jesuites as Sycophants, as Corrupters of the Doctrine of the Church, as Abet­tours of all sorts of Crimes. The Jesu­ites argue him of falsly calumniating them and their Authours, of Forging and Im­posture, of wrongfully taxing good and solid Doctrine, whilest in the mean time he venteth Heresies. If this seems hard, he must thank himself; 'tis but a just re­torting on him those terms, which he un­justly cast on the Society, and on all School-Divines. This I thought fit to ad­vertise the Reader of.

All the favour I desire is, that the Learned Reader will shew no favour to [Page] either side, but as an equall Judge hear both Parties; and (if he have leisure to view the Authours) I entreat him to do Truth so much right, as to say what he findes. For example, the Doctrine of Probability is by the Authour of the Pro­vinciall Letters, called an Invention of the Jesuites to palliate crimes, and give scope to Libertines. The Jesuites an­swer, that the Doctrine of Probability is no Invention of theirs; they cite for that Doctrine a great number of learned Au­thours, none of them Jesuites, and ma­ny of them dead, long before the Jesuites were in the world. That which here I desire the Learned Reader to do is, to ex­amine the Authours which the Jesuites produce for this Doctrine, and as they finde them cited, so to pronounce who is the cheat and who hath wronged t'other.

This I desire of the learned. For the unlearned, or those that will not take the pains to look into Books of Divinity, I expect so much reason at their hands, that they will not prejudicate; but rather cre­dit the Answers here given them by men of known worth (who cite their Authors, and give their reasons) then an idle Pam­phleter, [Page] who bringeth neither reason nor authority for himself; but with a pre­sumptuous boldnesse, professing himself to have no skill in Divinity, undertakes to censure all Divines.

As for those Readers, who are bred to such Idaea's of Catholique Religion, that they confound Rome and Babylon, the Pope and Antichrist, Saints and Idolls, Sacraments and Sacriledges, to whom a Jesuit and a Monster are two words that signifie the same thing; for those, I say, I commend them to the Man in the Moon to cure their Phrensie. When they have either more wit, or lesse passion, they will accuse those who lead them into illusion, and abuse their ignorance to make non­sense of their Faith. This Book hopes no favour, nor fears no censure from such. 'Tis not meant for those, that either can­not, or will not judge right. 'Tis present­ed to the impartiall Readers, either Pro­testants or Catholique; who when they have read it, will (I hope) finde satisfacti­on: for 'tis a satisfaction to upright mindes to see Impudence put to a just confusion, and Innocency defended.

THE HISTORY OF JANSENISME.

BEcause it will be necessary for the under­standing of this Work, to have some generall Notion of the Transactions in matter of Jansenisme, I have taken some pains to gather together those things, which I hope will satisfie the Reader. And for to make the Relation Authenticall, I have not taken any thing on report onely, or out of those Authours who have made Invectives against the Jansenists; but out of the Publique Acts known to the whole world, or out of the Jansenists own Writings. If the things that I set down be scandalous Enormities, I hope the Rea­der will judge, that the blame ought not to reflect on Catholique Religion. In the Primitive Church there were dives Heretiques, Ebionites, Marcionites, Nicolaites, and others, whose Maximes lead men to most foul Crimes: yet the Primitive Church had not then the lesse fer­vour and sanctity, nor now the lesse esteem, for their impieties. As that age, so this and all others are to be judged of, by the piety of the faithfull, not by the impiety of those, whom pride hath made Rebells against Christ and his Church. [Page 2] Had the Jansenists been members of the Catho­lique Church, they would never have taught Do­ctrine against the Church. But by teaching and professing this Doctrine, exierunt ex nobis, they are gone out, and the Catholique Church re­mains no more responsable for their lives or Do­ctrine, then for Arius, Nestorius, or any other Heretique. This I thought fit to advertise the Reader of, that he be not scandalized, and mea­sure the Church by those, who are not of the Church, but are her declared Enemies.

This premised, I come to the History it self. There are then three Persons, who may be look­ed at, as the main Authours and Abbettours of the Heresies, which are now commonly under­stood by the name of Jansenisme; of whom the three following Paragraphs shall treat.

§ 1. Of the Abbot of St. Gygiran, commonly called San-Cyran.

In the Year of our Lord 1638. on the Fifth Day of June, Lewis the Thirteenth, King of France, granted a Warrant for the apprehend­ing of John du Vergier de Haurannes, Native of Bayonne, commonly known by the Title of Abbot of St. Cyran, and Claudius Seguenot an Oratorian Priest. This was done by the King, upon Information given to his Majesty of the scandalous and false Doctrine, which these two persons did sow, as well in Paris, as other places of France, to the perversion of the Catholique Faith, and subversion also (as Monsieur Ma­rande [Page 3] * proveth it) of the State of France. San-Cyran therefore being apprehended, (for of Seguenot, I intend not to speak) was carried Prisoner to Bois de Vincennes near Paris, all his Papers being seized on, and strict Information taken of those who were known to be conscious of his Doctrine; and particularly of his Disci­ples, which lived to the number of about Twen­ty together in the House of Port-Royall, some six or seven leagues off Paris. This Port-Royall is a Monastery of Nuns, committed to St. Cyrans direction by the Bishop of Langres, deceived, as he since professed, by the opinion he had of San-Cyrans Sanctity: But the Disciples I speak of were men, who in a Quarter joyning to the Nuns Monastery, were brought up, ac­cording to the principles of that Doctrine, which now beareth the [...]ame of Jansenisme. There is also another House called Port-Royall, in the Suburbs of St. James at Paris; which some­times is meant by Port-Royall in this Treatise; the Nuns whereof, and their Directours, hold the same strain of Doctrine with the other.

San-Cyran then being Prisoner in the Bois de Vincennes, and the Informations fully made by the Commissaries and Judges deputed by the King and the Archbishop of Paris, he was found evidently criminall in divers points, which con­cerned the Catholique Faith, and the Doctrine of Christian Duty. The Judges inclining to mildnesse, would not proceed to rigour against [Page 4] him, but by the Kings advice a Paper was pre­sented to him, containing the Catholique Do­ctrine contrary to his Maximes; which if he would have signed and promised to observe, he had been set free. But the Abbot, notwithstand­ing he had the impudence to deny all that, of which by evident witnesse of irreproachable per­sons, and by his own Letters, as likewise of his Friends to him, he was convinced, yet he would not be brought to sign the Catholique Articles; but chose rather to remain Prisoner, then by pro­fessing the Catholique Faith, to unsay in publick what he had privately taught. Some time after, the King, who now drew towards an end of his days, resolved to close up his life by a Royall act of Clemency; which was the freeing of priso­ners, and recalling [...]xiles from their banishment. He had very great difficulty to resolve on the li­berty of San-Cyran; but being sollicited by ma­ny of the Abbots Friends, who undertook for him, that he should never meddle with writing, or spreading his venomous Doctrine, at length his Maj [...]sty condescended, that this Abbot also, among others, should be set at liberty. But the King was no sooner dead, but that San-Cyran fell to his old trade of venting his pernicious Maximes, and laid down the draught of the Book now called Frequent Communion; which though he never lived to see finished, yet it came out afterward under the name of Arnauld, a Doctour of Sorbon, of whom we shall speak in the third Paragraph.

All this relation I have out of the Book called the Progresse of Jansenisme, dedicated to the [Page 5] Chauncellour of France by Monsieur Preville, and printed in the year 1655. In which Book is contained the whole Information made against San-Cyran, by persons of worth, who were ac­quainted with him, and who having answered upon oath to the Interrogotories made by the Justice, did at length every one of them sign what they had deposed. Now out of this Au­thentique Information, (the Originall whereof is in Clermont Colledge, and may be seen by any man that will) I have taken that which I thought sufficient, to set down what kinde of Doctrine this man vented. I conceive all is not yet known. For San-Cyran above all his other Maximes perpetually inculcated to his Confi­dents, That they should be sure to keep secret what he taught them; That if they spake of any thing, he would deny it; and that if ever they were examined about it, they should deny all, even upon oath. His conscience dictated so clearly to him the malice of his Maximes, that he was ever most unwilling to deliver his Doctrine by writing; and when he could not avoid wri­ting, he endeavoured to be obscure, and com­manded those that received his papers, to burn them as soon as they had read them. Yet his Friends were not so faithfull to him, nor he to himselfe, but that many of his Writings and Letters either to him or from him, were kept, and since discovered: all which make a great part of two Books in Quarto; and out of them, as concerning San-Cyrans Doctrine take what followeth.

First then for himself he teacheth, That he [Page 6] hath his Mission from God; That God giveth him particular Lights, to know the Interiour of men; That he learneth not his Maximes in Books, but in God; and that his conduct is in all things according to the interiour instincts, which God giveth him.

Secondly for the Church and its Members, he maintaineth, that the Church is not now the same which Christ planted; That for these six hundred years last past the Church is quite cor­rupted in Manners, and not onely in Manners, but also in Doctrine; That God himself de­stroyeth the Church; That the Bishops and Pastours of the Church that now are, are de­stitute of the Spirit of Christianity, of the Spirit of Grace, and of the Spirit of the Church: That the Religious Orders, and other Spirituall men of these times, understand not the Gospell, nor the wayes of Christ; and that he onely hath the true light of the Gospell, and perfect Intelligence of the Scriptures; That the Councell of Trent was made by the Pope, and by School-men who have much changed the Do­ctrine of the Church; That School-Divinity is a pernicious Science, which ought to be destroy­ed; That St. Thomas hath corrupted Divinity by Humane Reason; That the Jesuites ought to be destroyed, as most domageable to the Church of God.

Thirdly, for what belongeth to the Com­mandments, he denieth, That all just men have sufficient Grace to keep them. Further he main­taineth, That every just person ought to steer his actions according to the interiour motions, [Page 7] which God giveth him, though contrary to the exteriour Law; and this he maintaineth even in Murther; for the committing whereof this interior instinct is warrant enough. And according to this Doctrine he maintaineth in his Book called the Royall Question, That men may lawfully kill themselves, and that many times they are bound to kill themselves. The Reader will note, that this last Tenent of killing ones self is not menti­oned in the Progresse of Jansenisme, as the rest are; but he defends it in his Book of the Royall Question, as I said. But I have here set it down for the similitude it hath with the precedent point.

Fourthly concerning the Sacraments he teach­eth, That Confirmation and the Sacrament of Orders, and Episcopall Consecration, that is the making of a Bishop, blots out all sins, quoad culpam & poenam, like Baptisme: That the Sa­crament of Confirmation is more perfect then Baptisme, hath more force and more efficacy, and requireth no other dispositions: and there­fore that a man in Mortall Sin hath no need of Confession for to receive the Sacrament of Con­firmation. That Veniall Sins are not matter sufficient for Absolution: That perfect Contri­tion is absolutely necessary for the Sacrament of Penance: That Absolution is to be deferred a long time, till the Penance be first fulfilled: That by Absolution the Priest doth not forgive sins, but declare them forgiven by sorrow and penance: That it is not necessary to confesse the number or Species of Mortall sins, if the Con­trition be sufficient. That the Holy Communi­on [Page 8] hath more force to forgive sins, then the Sa­crament of Penance; That the frequenting the Sacraments of Confession and Communion is oftentimes more hurtfull, then profitable; That the calling on the Name of Jesus is as efficaci­ous, as the receiving of the Holy Eucharist.

These, and many other like these, are the Ma­ximes of San-Cyran; which are Authentically set down in the Information taken of him, and to be seen in the Progresse of Jansenisme.

Now that which gave this unfortunate man credit, and made all that he said to be esteemed good and holy, was his Exteriour appearance, which seemed to breath nothing but Sanctity. He was a person of a sad look, stern countenance, austere carriage, and disposition Hypochondria­ [...]all, which the ignorant people interpreted to be the rigour of Penance; attributing that to a pro­found Sanctity, which in him was nothing but either Nature or Hypocrisie. The esteem which the world held in him, bred in him such a height of pride, as made him contemne all that was or­dinary. His usuall saying was, That the ordi­nary way was for ordinary people. For himself he dream't of nothing, and talk't of nothing, but the Ancient times, the Fathers, the Primitive fer­vour of the Church, to which he would reduce the World; whose universall Darknesse and Er­rours he did often bemoan, presuming himself to be the onely man able to redresse all that was amisse.

He was so bold as to assever to the Abbot of Prieres, that if he would give him Fifteen or Twenty young men, who had never received im­pression [Page 9] from other Masters, if they would follow his Instructions, in the space of six moneths, he would make them compleat Divines: And of his Book, called Petrus Aurelius, he was so vainly conceited, that he said, It was the best Book that had been made in the Church these six hundred Years past, though it be a condemned Book; in which, among other grosse absurdi­ties, he reaches, That a Priest loseth his Priest-hood by committing a mortall Sin: which is one of Wiclif's Heresies, and as great a foolery, as if one would teach, that a Christian is unchrist­ned by a mortall sin. Thus his Austerity, which was partly naturall, partly affected, got him the opinion of Sanctity; and that bred in him a pride and arrogance fit for an Arch Heretique. All this, and much more concerning this Abbot of St. Cyran, is to be seen in the Information above-mention'd.

§ 2. Of Jansenius.

Cornelius Jansenius, of whom the late He­resie took its name, was by birth a Hollander of Leerdam, but Student of the University of Lo­vain; where, in the Year 1619. Octob. 24. he proceeded Doctor. He was ligued with the Ab­bot of San-Cyran, (of whom we have spoken) in a most strict amity, and kept perpetuall corre­spondence with him, giving him continuall ac­count of his affairs, and making him sole Arbiter of all his Thoughts, all his Studies, and all his Designes. He oftentimes visited San-Cyran, and [Page 10] conferred with him: he both helped San-Cyran in furnishing him with matter for his Aurelius; and was also helped himself by him in his Ser­mons and publique Speeches, which San-Cyran, as being the abler Preacher, sent him out of France upon every occasion. All this appears by his Letters to this Abbot, which make up a main part of the Book called, The Birth of Jansenisme, and were found in the Abbots chamber, when he was seized on.

Out of the same Letters it also appears, that Jansenius had suck'd in all the poison of that He­retique: for he also de [...]piseth School-Divines, as Bablers; is disgusted with St. Thomas no lesse then St. Cyran; and relisheth nothing but Anti­quity. But above all he hates the Jesuits: against whom he laboured almost perpetually, writing Libells against the Society, (that it is not to be wondred, if his Disciples follow the same train) carping at their Doctrine, defending such as apostatized from their Order, incensing and ex­asperating all men against them, that possibly he could, and lastly not forbearing even to censure the Pope himself for having canonized St. Igna­tius and St. Xaverius.

Furthermore it appears by the same Letters, that he had no small inclination to favour Here­sie. For of Marcus Antonius de Dominis, one whom all the world knows of an Arch-bishop of Spalato to have become an Apostata, and perni­cious enemy of the Church, first in Holland, and afterwards in England, he writeth, that his Do­ctrine was in a manner Catholique, save onely where he touched on the oeconomy of the Church▪ [Page 11] and shews, how much he was afraid, lest the Uni­versity of Lovain should have required him to write against the said Archbishop. Besides, he speaketh very favourably of the Synod of Dort, where, although rigid Calvinisme was established, yet he feareth not to pronounce of the Doctrine of that Synod, that it was almost all Catho­lique.

But that which is most of all remarkable, and likewise most apparently discovered in these Letters, is the Grand Design concerted betwixt Jansenius and San-Cyran in opposition to the Jesuites, to the School-Divines, and to the Ca­tholique Church. This design was the reproving of those Catholique Tenents, which were main­tained by the Society, and in effect by the whole Church, concerning Grace, Free-will, Predesti­tion, &c. To compasse this design, 'tis mani­fest, that from the year, wherein he proceeded Doctour even to his dying day, this man made it his study to read St. Augustin, and interpret the many hard places of this great Saint in such manner, as to make St. Augustin teach his own private Heresies.

He knew well enough, that his Work would never please the Pope, as he oftentimes hinteth in his Letters; wherefore his chief labour was first to keep it secret, fearing, that if it were discover­ed, it might be choaked in the womb, and never come to see light. And secondly to dispose mens mindes so by himself and by his Friend San-Cy­rans means, that it might finde some great Per­sons of Authority or Interest, who should favour and maintain it. And in effect they got what [Page 12] they aimed at. For their secret was not disco­vered; and whereas Jansonius died before his Work was printed, being taken away by the Plague in the second year of his Bishoprique at Ipres, on the 7. of May 1638. his Book not­withstanding found many Patrons both in Flaunders and in France. In Flaunders many of the University of Lovain, the Archbishop of Machelen, the Bishop of Gaunt, and divers others, stood stifly for defence of this new Au­gustinus (for so he called his book.) In France some Bishops also, many Gurez, a very consider­able part of the Sorbon, with divers of the Ora­torian Priests of Cardinalll Berull's Institution, did the same. The reasons why these Persons engaged so far against the Truth, I will not here dive into. I believe many were deceived by the very Title of the Work. For he calling his Book Augustinus, they imagined, that a Do­ctour of Lovain, and Bishop of the Catholique Church, would not give any thing for St. Au­gustius Doctrine, but what was truly his But it is also known, that not a few of these Defenders of Jansenius had a tooth against the Order of the Jesuites; so as it was more then probable, that many of them upon that account were easily drawn in, and made to embrace the defence of the Book, which they esteemed to have given so fatall a Blow to the Jesuits Doctrine, that one of the Sorbonists called it the Jesuites Tomb. As for the Oratorians, their speciall Obligations to San-Cyran and Jansonius drew them in, be­fore they well knew what was intended. For it was a plot of Jansenius and San-Cyran, which [Page 13] they had practised of a long time, to raise up these Oratorians in opposition to the Jesuites, in hopes (as Jansenius expresses in his Letters) that they might in a short time get all the Jesuites Scholars to them; and being but Clergy-men at the Bishops Disposall, they imagined they should carry the universall good-will of the Clergy, so that the Jesuites should at last be quite deserted. This made those poor Oratorians drink so deep of the Doctrine of San-Cyran and Jansenius, that di­vers of their Books were condemned, as namely Gibieufs and Seguenots; which I do not say to censure them universally, or the major part of them: but it is certain, that they were looked on as a party; and many of them becoming Curez did in their Parishes, as well as many other Curez broach Jansenius's Doctrine, in Flaunders under the shelter of the University of Lovain and the forenamed Bishops, and in France un­der the name of Sorbon, (of which, as I said, a very great part sided with Jansenius) and also under the favour of some Bishops of France.

This animosity appeared greater; when Pope Urban, who was soon advertis'd of these practi­ses, put out his Bull; which he did in March 1642. to suppresse Jansenius his Book: for then many unmaskt themselves, and spoke plain, even against his Holinesse Orders, in defence of Jan­senius, though (as Pope Urbans Bulls speak) Jansenius had renewed condemned Heresies, and had incurred Excommunication by writing his Book, and treating in it matters forbidden to be treated of in print, that is, the matters called [Page 14] de Auxiliis, forbid by Paul the Fifth to be treated of under pain of Excommunication. Pope Urban therefore sent redoubled Briefs to suppresse the rising Faction of the Jansenians, as in one of his Bulls he termeth them. Many submitted to their duty. Yet all Pope Urbans time the Faction was very strong; and though it decayed something in Flaunders, yet it streng­thened daily in France, where it least ought to have been received. For whereas Jansenius had writ a most bitter Invective against the Crown and Kings of France, called Mars Gallicus, it was to have been expected, that all faithfull Sub­jects of that Crown ought rather to have sided against Jansenius, then for him. And this Mon­sieur Marande presseth much against the French Jansenists, in his Book dedicated to the King of France in the Year 1654. which we formerly mentioned: where a good part of his discourse tendeth to shew, that Innovations in Religion are promoted by those chiefly, who aim at Innovati­on in State.

Things therefore being come to so great a height in France, that now Jansenisme was for­med into a considerable body, which might in time prove formidable both to the Church and Crown, the Bishops in their generall Assembly, or Synod at Paris, took the matter into their consideration; and having well examined the Book of Jansenius, they collected Five Proposi­tions out of it, which seemed to them to deserve a censure. The Propositions were these.

1. Some of Gods Commandments are impos­sible to the Just, according to their present for­ces, [Page 15] though they have a will, and do endeavour to accomplish them: and they want the Grace, that rendreth them possible.

2. In the state of Nature corrupt, men never resist Interiour Grace.

3. To merit and demerit in the state of Na­ture corrupted, it is not necessary to have the li­berty that excludes necessity; but it suffices to have that liberty which excludes coaction or constraint.

4. The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of Interiour preventing Grace to every Action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were Heretiques in this, that they would have that Grace to be such, as the will of man might resist it, or obey it.

5. It is Semipelagianisme to say, that Jesus Christ dyed, or shed his Blood generally for all men.

These Propositions the Bishops drew out of Jansenius his Book; yet knowing themselves to be but a Nationall Synod, they would not lay any censure upon them, but in the Year 1650. sent them to Pope Innocent the Tenth then sit­ting, humbly requiring him, that through his Pa­ternall care of the Universall Church, he would determine what ought to be held; it belonging onely to him to define in this cause. This Letter was signed by eighty five Bishops then present at the Assembly. The Pope thereupon took the matter into Examination, and deputed divers Divines to examine the Propositions, whom he often heard himself, the Deputies of the Janse­nists being also present at Rome, and having li­berty [Page 16] to speak for themselves, as they often did. At length, after two years examination of the matter, and many Prayers, Fasting, and Suppli­cations to God, Innocent the Tenth proceeded to censure, and defined the said Five Propositions to be Hereticall, by his Bull given on the last day of May 1653. This Bull is inserted into the Bull of Pope Alexander the Seventh, which by and by I shall produce.

But all this was not enough to make many of the Jansenists submit. Upon sight of the Bull they changed their note; and whereas before they had owned the Five Propositions to be in Janse­nius, but maintained them to be Catholique Tenents, and the true Doctrine of St. Augustin, now they acknowledged the said Five Propositi­ons were justly censured by the Pope, but de­fended, that they were not in Jansenius; yet whosoever taught them, or wheresoever they were to be found, the Jansenists professed to con­demn them. By this means they thought both to clear themselves from the censure of defending Hereticall Propositions, and withall still to main­tain the Doctrine of Jansenius, as they had done before: and so all the fault was to redound on the Pope, and the Synod of France, (as the Jansenists would have it thought) [...] on those who had informed them wrong, That the Propositi­ons were in Jansenius, which indeed (said they) were not there, at least in the sense, in which they were condemned. This Discourse, though ne­ver so frivolous, prevailed with many for their constant maintaining of Jansenius, so as it was feared, the whole endeavour of the Bishops of [Page 17] France, and also the Constitution of the Pope, would at length come to nothing. To prevent this mischief, the Bishops of France, who were yet remaining in their Assembly at Paris, wrote this following Letter to the rest of the Arch­bishops and Bishops, that were absent from the said Assembly, and that it might be publique, caused it to be printed; which for the same rea­son I have thought fit here to set down, translated into English.

To the most Reverend and Religious the Lords Archbishops and Bishops of France their most Respected Brethren, the Cardinalls, Arch­bishops, and Bishops residing at Paris Health and Happinesse in Christ.

That which long agone hapned to S. Augustin and the other Fathers of the Councels of Car­thage and Milevet, those great Maintainers of Divine Grace, now seemeth to have happened unto us. They hoped (but in vain) that after a certain Book of Pelagius had been con­demned and anathematized by Pope Innocent the First, the Pelagians would yield to the Authority of so great a Prelate, a and would not dare to trouble the mindes of the Faith­full by speaking perversely of Divine Grace. And we hoped also, that those men, who pro­fesse themselves friends and followers of Cor­nelius Jansenius Bishop of Ipres, after that his Five Opinions were condemned and ana­thematized [Page 18] by Innocent the Tenth, would de­sist from trouble, or moving any thing more: and wherea [...] Pope Innocent had by his Decree commanded the Windes, we hoped a Calm would follow in the Church. But it happened quite contrary to what we expected. Nor can we cease from wondering, how that 'tis possi­ble, that those men should (after the most just and holy Constitution, in which our most Blessed Father Innocent the Tenth hath con­demned the foresaid Five Propositions in most clear and expresse terms) affirm, and even perswade others, two most vain and ground­lesse things. The one is, that those Five Pro­positions are not Jansenius's: The other, that they are not condemned in Jansenius's sense. For can there be any thing more ab­surd, then to maintain that, for the refuting whereof there is not required any reasoning, any enquiry, or any thing else, then meerly the reading of the Popes Constitution; which de­cideth all the matter. And although these two Allegations seem such, that they will fall of themselves to nothing, and so might justly be contemned and neglected; yet we finding them to do hurt to the weak and ignorant, (for whom in duty we are to provide) that we may take all Scandall out of the House of God, thought fit to remedy this evil, and prevent in time this poison, wherewith some are already infected. Which that it might be done exact­ly, we the Cardinalls, Archbishops, and Bi­shops residing in Paris for Ecclesiasticall Busi­nesses, being gathered together, judged that [Page 19] this businesse was to be commended to the care of the most Illustrious and most Reverend the Archbishops of Tours, Ambrun, Roan, and Tolouse, and of the Bishops of Autun, Mont­auban, Rennes, and Chartres. Yet this we did so commend to them, that they should re­fer unto us what they had read, observed, and thought. They having looked upon the Popes Constitution, (which alone was enough) and moreover read Jansenius as much as was ne­cessary, and weighed all diligently, found it plain and manifest, that the said Propositions are truly Jansenius's, and that they are con­demned in their true and proper sense, and that very sense, in which they are delivered and explicated by Jansenius. And when they had shewed us (again gathered together) what they had found, and we found and seen the same, We Declared, and do hereby Delare, that it is truly and undoubtedly so; and that these, who defend those Five Propositions, or approve of them, are of the number of those, whom Pope Innocent the Tenth in that Constitution calleth Contradictours and Rebellious, and whom he will have punished by the Patriarchs, Archbishops and Bishops with the Censures and Penalties of Heretiques and their Ab­bettours, expressed in the Canon Law, and by other opportune remedies, juris & facti, inv [...] ­king (if need be) the Secular arm. And this we all, as much as lieth in us, are resolved to do. And we entreat all our most Loving and Religious Brethren of the Gallican Church, that are absent, to do the same; that so we [Page 20] may all think the same thing according to Je­sus Christ, unanimously with one mouth glori­fie God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, [...]difie the Church of God, and save our selves, and those who hear us, and are committed to our charge.

  • JU [...]IUS, Cardinal Mazarini, President of the Assembly.
  • VICTOR, Archbishop of Tours.
  • LEWIS, Archbishop of Sens.
  • GEORGE, Archbishop of Ambrun.
  • ANNE DE LEVY DE VANTADOUR, Arch­bishop of Bourges,
  • FRANCIS, Archbishop of Roan.
  • PETER, Archbishop of Tholouse.
  • LEBERON, Bishop of Valence and Die.
  • GILES, Bishop of Eureaux.
  • LEWIS, Bishop of Autun.
  • DOMINICK, Bishop of Meaux.
  • JOHN, Bishop of Bayonne.
  • ANTHIMUS DENYS, Bishop of Dole.
  • GABRIEL, Bishop of Nantes.
  • PETER, Bishop of Montauban.
  • JAMES, Bishop of Toulon.
  • HENRY, Bishop of Rennes.
  • FERDINAND, Bishop of St. Malo.
  • JAMES, Bishop of Charires.
  • PHILIBERT EMMANUEL, Bishop of Mans.
  • JAMES DE GRIGNAN, Bishop of St. Paul de Trois Chasteaux.
  • GILBERY, Bishop of Comenges.
  • BALTAZAR, Bishop and Count of Treguier.
  • CLAUDE, Bishop of Constances.
  • [Page 21] JAMES, Bishop and Count of St. Flour.
  • HARDWIN, Bishop of Rhodes.
  • NICOLAS, Bishop of Beauvais.
  • FRANCIS, Bishop of Madaure, and Coadjutor of Cornovailles.
  • HENRY DE LAVAL, Bishop and Count of Leon.
  • FRANCIS FAURE, Bishop of Amiens.
  • CHARLES, Bishop of Cesarce, and Coadjutor of Soissoins.
  • CYRUS, Bishop of Perigueux.
  • LEWIS, Bishop of Toul.
  • LEWIS, Bishop of Grasse.
  • MICHAEL, Bishop of St. Pons de Tomiers.
  • The Abbot of Estree nominated Bishop of Laon.
  • The Abbot of Servient, nominated Bishop of Carcassonne.
  • Frier JOHN DOMINICK, nominated Bishop of Glandeves.
  • BERNARD DE MARMIESSH, Agent Generall of the Clergy of France, nominated Bishop of Conserans.
  • HENRY DE VILLARS, Agent Generall of the Clergy, and Secretary of the Assembly. Given at Paris, March the 28. 1654.
a
August. Epist. 92, & 95.

Here they notifie to all the world, that they deputed Eight of their Body, (Four Archbi­shops, and Four Bishops) to re-examine the Pro­positions, and the places of Jansenius from whence they are taken; which the Deputies ha­ving found to agree in all things, they shewed the places to the whole Assembly, who being fully satisfied of the verity, (though they never doubt­ed [Page 22] of the Popes Desinition) have given it under their hands, that the Propositions are truly Jan­senius's, and condemned in his sense.

Yet all this was not enough. The proud spi­rit which bred the Heresie, maintained it still. Though their discourse had no reason in it, yet their will had so blinded their understanding, that they would not submit to their Duty. Pope Alexander therefore, who succeeded Innocent the Tenth, seeing his Sovereign Authority ne­cessary, in the year 1656. decided the whole mat­ter by this following Bull.

The Bull of Pope Alexander the Seventh touch­ing the Five condemned Propositions of Jan­senius.

Alexander, Bishop, SERVANT OF THE SER­VANTS OF GOD, To all Faithfull Christi­ans Health and Apostolical Benediction.

The Divine Providence having by an in­scrutable Dispensation, and without any merit on our part, raised us to the Sacred Throne of St. Peter, and to the Government of the whole Church, we have judg'd it to concern the Duty of our Pastorall Charge to make it our princi­pall endeavour, by vertue of that Power and Authority which God hath given us, seasonably to provide for the Safety and Integrity of the Holy Faith, and of its Sacred Decisions. And although such points as have already been most sufficiently defined by Apostolicall Constituti­ons, stand not in need of any new Decision, [Page 23] or Declaration, yet in regard that some Di­sturbers of the Publique Peace are not afraid to call them in question, or to shake and weak­en them by their subtle and captious Interpre­tations, We to prevent the further spreading of so dangerous a Contagion, have thought it sit not to defer any longer, to apply the speedy remedy of the Apostolicall Authority. For indeed our Predecessour Innocent the Tenth of Happy Memory did, some few years since, set forth a Constitution, Declaration and De­cision in Form and Tenour following.

Innocent, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, To all Faithfull Christians Health and Apostolicall Benediction. Whereas upon occasion of Printing a Book: entituled. Augustinus cornelii Jansenii Iprensis Episcopi, among other opinions of that Au­thour, there arose a Dispute principally in France touching Five of them, many Bishops of that Realm have very much pressed us to ex­amine those Five Propositions presented unto us, and to pronounce a certain and clear judgement on each of them in particular. The Tenour of the said Propositions is as follow­eth.

1. Some of Gods Commandments are impossible to the Just according to their present forces, though they have a will, and do endeavour to ac­complish them: and they want the Grace, that rendreth them possible.

[Page 24] 2. In the state of nature corrupt, men never resist Interiour Grace.

3. To merit and demerit in the state of Nature corrupted, it is not neces­sary to have the liberty that excludes necessity; but it sufficeth to have that liberty which excludes Coaction, or Constraint.

4. The Semipelagians admitted the necessity of Interiour preventing Grace to every Action, even to the be­ginning of Faith. But they were Heretiques in this, That they would have that Grace to be such, as the will of man might resist it, or obey it.

5. It is Semipelagianisme to say, That Jesus Christ died, or shed his blood, generally for all men.

We who amidst the manifold cares, which continually exercise our minde, do make it our principall one, that the Church of God com­mitted to us from above, being cleansed from the errours of perverse opinions, may safely militate, and like a ship on a calm sea, when storms and raging billows of all Tempests are appeased, may securely sail, and at last [Page 25] arrive at the wished Haven of Salvation; Taking into serious Consideration the importance of the matter, have caused the Five Propositions presented to us in the terms above expressed, to be diligently examined one after another by many Doctours of the Sacred Faculty of Theology, in the presence of sundry Cardinals of the Holy Romane Church, for that purpose specially assembled: whose Suf­frages we have [...]aturely considered, upon re­port thereof made unto us as well by word of mouth, as by writing. And we have heard the same Doctours largely discoursing on all and every of the said Propositions particular­ly, in severall Congregations held in our Pre­sence.

And whereas from the beginning of this Discussion we had ordained Prayers, as well Private as Publique, to exhort the Faithfull to implore the Divine Assistance, we again caused the same to be reiterated with greater servour; and having Our self sollicitously implored the Assistance of the Holy Ghost, at length by the favour of that Divine Spirit, we have proceeded to the following Declarati­on and Decision. The First of the said Pro­positions, viz. That some of the Com­mandments of God are impossible to the Just, according to their present forces, though they have a will, and do endeavour to accomplish them: and they want the Grace that rendreth [Page 26] them possible; We declare it to be Teme­rarious, Impious, Blasphemous, Anathema­tiz'd, and Hereticall, and condemn it for such. The Second, viz. That in the state of Nature corrupt, men never resist Interiour Grace, We declare it to be Here­ticall, and condemn it for such. The third, viz. That to merit and demerit in the state of Nature corrupted, it is not neces­sary to have the liberty that excludes necessity; but it sufficeth to have that liberty, which excludes Coaction, or Constraint, We declare it to be Hereticall, and condemn it for such. The Fourth, viz. That the Semipelagians admitted the necessity of Interiour preventing Grace to every Action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were Heretiques in this, That they would have that Grace to be such, as the will of man might resist or obey it, We de­clare it to be false, and condemn it as such. The fifth, viz. That it is Semipelagianisme to say, That Jesus Christ died, or shed his blood, generally for all men, We de­clare it it to be False, Temerarious, Scanda­lous; and being understood in this sense, That Christ died onely for the salvati­on of the Predestinate, We declare it [Page 27] Impious, Blasphemous, Contumelious, Dero­gatory to Divine Goodnesse, and Hereticall; and as such we condemn it. Wherefore we command all Faithfull Christians of either Sex, that concerning the said Propositions they neither presume to Believe, Teach, nor Preach otherwise, then is containd in our present De­claration, and Definition, under the Censures and Penalties ordained in the Law against Heretiques and their Abettours. We like­wise enjoyn all Patriarchs, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries of Places, as also the Inquisitours of Heresie, totally to re­strain and represse, by the aforesaid Censures and Penalties, and by other fitting remedies. Juris & Facti, all Gain-sayers and Im­pugners whatsoever, imploring, if need re­quire, even the help of the Secular Arm a­gainst them. Neverthelesse we intend not by this Declaration and Decision touching the aforesaid Five Propositions, any wayes to ap­prove the rest of the Opinions contained in the said Book of Cornelius Jansenius. Given at Rome, at St. Marie Major, the last day of May, in the year of our Lord God 1653. and of our Pontificate the Ninth.

But for so much as some Children of Ini­quity (as we have been informed) are not afraid to maintain, (to the great scandall of the Faithful) that the aforesaid Five Propositions are not to be found in the forecited Book of the said Cornelius Jansenius, but are either seign­ed [Page 28] and forged at pleasure, or were not con­demned in the sense intended by the Authour: We, who have seriously and sufficiently consi­dered what ever hath passed concerning this matter (as having by command of the said Pope Innocent the Tenth our predecessour, while we were yet but in the Dignity of Cardinal-ship, assisted at all the Conferences, wherein by Apostolicall Authority the same Cause hath been examined with as great diligence, as could be desired) being resolved to remove and take away all doubts, that might at any time hereafter arise touching the premisses; to the end that all Faithfull Christians may be held in the unity of the same Faith. We, I say, by the Duty of our Pastorall Charge, and up­on mature Deliberation, do confirm, approve, and renew by these presents the above-recited Constitution, Declaration, and Definition of Pope Innocent our Predecessour: and we further Declare and Define, That those Five Propositions were drawn out of the Book of the same Cornelius Jansenius Bishop of Ipres, entituled Augustinus, as also that they were condemned in the sense intended by the same Cornelius; and as such we condemn them anew, applying to them the same cen­sure, wherewith every one of them was parti­cularly branded in the forementioned Declara­tion and Definition. And we again con­demn and prohibit the same Book of the so oft recited Cornelius Jansenius, entituled [Page 29] Augustinus, and all other Books, as well Ma­nuscripts, as Printed, or which may hereafter happen to be printed, wherein the above-condemned Doctrine of the same Cornelius Jansenius is, or shall be defended, assert­ed, or maintained. Prohibiting all Faith­full Christians to hold, preach, teach, or ex­pound the said Doctrine, either by word or writing, or to interpret it either in publique or in private, or to cause it to be printed either openly or in secret; and this under the Pe­nalties and Censures specified in the Law against Heretiques instantly to be incurred ipso facto, without further Declaration.

Wherefore we enjoyn all our Venerable Brethren, Patriarchs, Primates, Metropoli­tans, Archbishops, Bishops, Ordinaries of pla­ces; Inquisitours of Heresie, and all other Judges Ecclesiasticall, to whom it shall belong, to cause this above-said Constitution, Declara­tion, and Definition of Pope Innocent our Pre­decessour to be observed according to our pre­sent Determination, and to restrain and punish all disobedient and Rebellious persons, by the aforesaid Penalties, and other remedies Juris & facti, even by imploring the assistance of the Secular Arm, if it shall be necessary. Given at Rome, at St. Marie Major the Sixteenth of October, in the year of our Lord God 1656. and of our Pontificate the second.

This Bull was received with the joy and ap­probation of all Catholique Princes, Prelates, and People; notwithstanding in France there [Page 30] remained, and do remain still to this day, some who could not, or would not be brought back to the unity of the Catholique Church. The chief of these (as for matter of Action) are the Disci­ples of San-Cyran, Inhabitants, or Confede­rates of Port-Royall, the Seminary of this He­resie; and under-hand divers mutinous spirits, glad to embrace any thing that looks like a Facti­on. Among these one (and as far as I hear the principall one) is Arnauld; of whom I will now treat.

§ 3. Of Anthony Arnauld.

This man was a Disciple of San-Cyran, and sometimes Directour of those at Port-Royall. He was made Doctour of Sorbon, before he set forth his Book of Frequent Communion: I say His, because the Book beareth his name, though it were, at least the Body and Substance of it, made by San-Cyran, as appeareth by San-Cyrans own Letter, kept by the Reverend Fathers Mi­nimes at Paris. The Hereticall and condemned Maximes, which this man hath taught in his Book of Frequent Communion, and other Works, are many. Some few I here set down. I have taken them out of the Answer to the Apology, which Arnauld made for himself in a Letter to the Queen of France; which Answer was printed in the Year 1644 and there for every one of these Hereticall Tenets, several Texts of Arnaulds are produced. His Doctrine then is this.

[Page 31]

Arnauld's Doctrine taught in his Book of Frequent Communion.

1. That the Church is corruptible in her Man­ners and Discipline, that is, her Doctrine of Manners.

2. That there is no other Rule, whereby to know Catholique Verities, but onely Tradition. So the Pope, and Councells, and Scriptures, and Theologicall Demonstration, are excluded from being any rule of knowing Catholique Verities.

3. That St. Peter and St. Paul are two Heads of the Church, which make but one.

4. That the Absolution of the Priest gives not to the Penitent any thing else, but the Grace of an exteriour Reconciliation; but that it is the Canonicall Satisfaction, which gives justifying Grace, and revives the Soul: And that it is therefore onely that Confession is necessary, that the Priest may set a proportionable Penance.

5. That the practise of Penance for all mor­tall Sins, (whether publique and scandalous, or private) is, according to the Fathers and Primi­mitive Church, to go thus. First you must con­fesse and demand Penance. Secondly the Pe­nance is given. Thirdly the Penance is to be fulfilled, during a proportionable space of dayes, moneths, or years. Fourthly cometh Absolution; which is immediately followed with the Commu­nion, or receiving of the Blessed Sacrament. And he that communicateth before he hath full­filled his Penance, communicateth unworthily.

6. That the manner of doing Penance (or fre­quenting the Sacrament of Penance) now adays, [Page 32] is different from what was practised for the first twelve hundred years; that it is an abuse, and wonderfull blindenesse.

7. That the practice of Penance which is now­adayes, favours the generall impenitence of the world. In his second Edition he hath changed this Proposition thus. That the Practice of Penance which is now-adayes most common, is favoured by the generall impenitence of the world,

All this he hath in his Book of Frequent Com­munion, and the long Preface to it. This Book, when it first came out, was looked on by many, who judged of it onely by the Title, as a good and pious Work. But the Jesuites at Paris, who discovered the malice of the above mentioned Maximes, preached and wrote against it; and at length it was condemned. By this the Iesuites got the ill will of the Jansenists, and animated Port-Royall against them. Yet all good Catho­liques thanked the Jesuits for having stood up for the Church, and hindred the consequences which were like to have followed, and the errours, into which many were running unawares.

Many things were writ to and fro. The Jansenists defending Arnauld, and the Jesuites with other Catholiques impugning him. At length Arnauld (who besides the above menti­oned pernicious Maximes, held also for Janseni­us) writ a little Tract called, The Second Letter of Monsieur Arnauld to a Duke and Peer of France, where he excuses Jansenius, and the Jansenists from Heresie, in the same manner which the Authour of the Provinciall Letters af­terwards [Page 33] held, to wit, by saying, that the Five Propositions could not be found in Jansenius; that it was matter of Fact, and not any Theolo­gicall point, wherein the Jansenists and others disagreed; and consequently that they could not be called Heretiques. This Letter was after a long Examen of it condemned in the Sorbon; and Arnauld, refusing to submit, and further protesting against the Determination of the Uni­versity, was cashier'd the Sorbon, and had his Title of Doctour taken from him, in the Year 1656. the last of January, as appeareth by the Act then passed in Sorbon.

This set the Jansenists in a rage. And where­as hitherto they had defended themselves with some shew of modesty, and pretense of learning and piety, now they turned to write furious Satyrs (which they call Provinciall Letters) against the Sorbon first, then against the Dominicans; but their main fury they discharged against the Jesu­ites, whom they would needs imagine to be the Authors of all their disgraces: of which they were so sensible, that they seem'd half desperate. For now San-Cyrans wicked Maximes were laid open in the Information made against him; which Monsieur Preville printed. Jansenius was con­demned (I mean his Book) as Hereticall; and the last Pillar of Jansenisme, Arnauld, was igno­miniously turned out of Sorbon.

This is the summe of the History of Janse­nisme, as to the main Heads of it. This the occa­sion of the Provincial Letters. I suppose the Rea­der, when he hath read this, will not wonder, that the Jesuites are against the Jansenists Doctrine: [Page 34] nor will he think strange, that the Jansenists, after having broached such Impious Doctrine, after having endeavoured to corrupt the Articles of the Catholique Faith, after having shewed so much disrespect to the Popes, Bishops, and whole Catholique Church, should falsifie the Jesuites Doctrine, and treat them with those terms of ig­ [...]ominy, of which their Provinciall Letters are full.

The first Answer To the Provincial Letters, Which The Jansenists have published a­gainst the Society of Jesus.
Note, that this Answer was made at the coming out of the Ten first Letters, as a general warn­ing about the Authors Quality and Conditi­ons: the proof of his Forgeries in particular being reserved to the second Answer, called The Impostures.

The Argument of this first Answer.

1. THe Author of the Provinciall Let­ters discovered to be an Heretique. 2. His pittiful shifting off the main Question of Jansenisme, which he was obliged to de­fend; and in place of defence, turning to Slanders against the Jesuites. 3. The wrong he hath done the Church, in endea­vouring to make pass, in the vulgar Tongue, under the Name and Authority of the Je­suites, (and thereby giving them a shew of [Page 2] truth amongst the vulgar) many false Opi­nions, which they never taught, but the quite contrary. 4. That what he saith, is taken (chiefly) out of a Book condemned long since, and burnt by the Hang-man. 5. His citing of Authors is full of gross untruth and ignorance; scarce ever alledging any of them in his true meaning. 6. His un­worthy handling of Divinity, by impugning grave Authors, and treating most serious matters onely with fleering and scoffing. 7. His ignorant attributing to the whole So­ciety, that which haply some one amongst them may have taught, though all the rest have opposed it, and taught the quite contrary. 8. His gross Metachronisme, or mistake of Times, making Jesuites to be the first Authors and Inventors of that, which was taught and received many Ages before there were any Jesuites in the world.

IT cannot be denied, that the Author of those Letters, which are spread abroad against the Society, and fill the world with so much noise, is a Jansenist: If notwithstanding it be the work of one single man, and not rather of the whole party of the Jansenists. I conceive, that if the Author were questioned, and would answer truly to his name, he must use the same words which that Devil did, who tormented the [Page 3] miserable wretch that dwelt among the Tombs, and say, My name is Legion; for we are many. But howsoever, that the Author is a Jansenist, is manifest: For in his four first Letters he main­taineth that Doctrine, which the Pope hath con­demned under the name of Jansenius his Do­ctrine: And in the following Letters he char­geth the Jesuits with having been the first, that discovered and impugned those hainous Errours, which make up Jansenius his Book. The Janse­nists had writ many things in defence of the Do­ctrinal Points of Jansenius, (now condemned by the Church) but they were answered so brisk­ly, that they were forced to lay down their arms, and abandon the defence of those infamous Pro­positions; which since their being Anathema [...]z'd at Rome, have been a horror to all that have not renounced their F [...]ith, but live under the name of Catholique. This hath forced the Jansenists to change their manner of fighting: they stand no more upon their Defence, but are b [...]come Assailan [...]s. They have qui [...]ted the [...] in­therto agitated, of the Doctrinal P [...]in [...]s of Fai [...]h, wherein they were alway [...]s worsted; and now they muster up, as their [...]st Reserve, Accusati­ons, Slanders, Calumnies, tracing in all this pro­ceeding the steps of their Predecessors, the anci­ent Heretiqu [...]s.

The resolution of the Fa [...]hers of the Society, whom thes [...] Letters attaque, was first not to spare them an inch, wheresoever the Doctrine of Faith should be questioned; that being the Interest of God: and next to pass by their Calumnies, and slight their Slanders, since herein none were con­cerned [Page 4] but they themselves; who had long since learnt of their Master this Lesson, taught in the Gospel, Blessed are ye, when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is naught against you untruly for my sake. But since their patience in suffering, and their modesty in being silent, has made up one part of the Scan­dall whereof they stand accused, it is necessary to give some Antidote to the Readers of those in­famous Letters; to the end, that poison, which has been offered them in the Babylonish Cup of gold, as the Scripture speaks, that is to say, under the gilt of some fond railing and jeasting words, have not the sad effect, which those Hereticall Wr [...]ters (true poisoners of mens Souls) do pre­tend. And that they may have no better fortune in their Calumnies, then they met with in their wicked Doctrine, I hold it necessary to desire the Readers, as well of those Letters, as of this Writing, to consider.

In the first place, the subtle and malicious wayes of the Jansenists; who (as I have alrea­dy hinted) by a sleight, very ordinary with He­retiques, have quitted their poste in the sight of the whole world, not giving now the least An­swer to those Reproaches made against them, con­cerning the falsenesse of their Propositions challenged to be Erroneous, Scandalous, and Hereticall, which as defendants they ought to have maintained; but reproaching the Jesuits with the wickedness of their Moral, by that means becomming the Assaulters, and obliging the others to the Defensive part, in a matter which concerned not the questions in hand. Thus did the [Page 5] Arians deal with great St. Athanasius, when find­ing it impossible to answer the force of his reasons, they laid that care aside, and became reproachers of his life, obliging him to justifie himself from those horrible Accusations, with which they set upon his innocency; accusing him for ravishing a woman, and barbarously murthering a man, that he might cut off his hand to use it in Enchant­ment. The question was not here, what An­swers the Jesuits have made, concerning sundry Cases of Conscience, (which have either been proposed to them, or which their Adversaries have forged at their pleasure, or (to speak yet more truly) which the Enviers of their Glory and Abilities have maliciously attributed unto them) but of the Doctrine of Jansenius, and of the five Propositions taken out of that Author, and condemned as his by the holy See. That the Je­suits have well or ill answered, or writ on the subject of Duels, Usuries, Restitutions, and other Cases, which their Adversaries imperti­nently impose on them, does not hinder the five Propositions taken out of Jansenius, and presented to the Pope by my Lords the Bishops of France, from being condemned by the Holy See: Nor does it hinder those, who now follow the Doctrine of the five Propositions, from being as much He­retiques as the Calvinists of Charenton; or their Benifices (if they have any) from being vacant, (whether they have charge of Souls, or no) which they have now lost by Heresie: Nor if the Jesuits should be proved to erre in Morals, is it therefore forbid to say, the Jansenists are excom­municated; and that those who know them to be [Page 6] Jansenists, cannot in conscience receive the Sa­craments from their hands. Nor does it hinder their Books from deserving the fire and fagot, as well as their Persons, if the Primitive severity of our Laws were yet in use, and there were not some hope of their amendment. This the Rea­ders of those Letters ought to consider, reflect­ing on the quality of their Authors; who being Jansenists, are Heretiques, and, as such, mor­tal enemies of the Jesuits: who have still this advantage, that all those, who are enemies to the Church, at the same time become theirs; like that which the Roman Oratour once said of himself, 'Twas the happiness of his destiny, that never any became his Enemy, who was not at the same time an Adversary likewise to the Common­wealth. This made a great Person of our times, and one who was a scourge of Jansenism, say, One should give no other answer to those wicked Letters, then these three words, Janse­nists are Heritiques.

In the second place consider likewise, with how little discretion, or conscience, the Writers of those detestable Letters have cunningly pub­lished and authorized to the whole world certain pernicious Maximes, whilest they charge the Je­suits for having writ them in their Books. The Jesuits Opinions whatsoever they were, remain­ed in their own Volumes unknown to any but Schoolmen and Doctors, to whom such Writings could do no harm, since they are the Censurers of them: and even in the same Volumes, the Jesuits propose the different opinions, and the [...] Judgements of Authours, the one being [Page 7] the Correctour of the other: whereas our Jan­senist gathers all that he can make seem extra­vagant out of many severall places, and puts all together, exposed to the eyes of ignorant Rea­ders, in the vulgar Language, to persons unca­pable of judging betwixt the false and the true, the profitable and dammageble, that which is to be received, and that which is not; casting a stumbling-block in the blinde mans way to make him fall; and opening a Cistern without cover­ing it, contrary to the prohibition made us in Exodus. I know well enough, the malice of his intention was to create a Horror of the Jesuits, by the malignity of the Doctrine which he im­poses on them: but let him know, there is great danger, lest he perswade these untruths and wicked Maximes to many, under the authority of the Jesuits name; to which the greatest part of the world will give more credit, then to such petty Buffoons as he is, who hath neither sense, conscience, nor authority. Whereas on the con­trary, the Jesuites are in the universal good opi­nion of all, except onely Heretiques, and some others who malice them; so that thinking to cry down such Doctrines, they render them pro­bable by the Authority of the Jesuits: who have another manner of repute in the world, then the Jansenists, whom every body knows to have been condemned as Heretiques; and it is no lesse known that the Jesuites have been the first, who opened their eyes against the Errours and Here­sies both of Jansenius and the Jansenists; being of the number of those in the Church, who have most of all fought against Heresies, Liberti, [Page 8] nisme, and Vice, in their Books, in their Pul­pits and Sermons, in their Disputes and Conver­sation. Insomuch, as it is commonly believed, that to be of the same judgement with the Jesu­ites, is to be Orthodox; even so far, that many will be easily perswaded to receive for a lawfull Opinion, and for an unblamable Resolution, in respect of their moral life and conduct, that which they shall understand to be the common opinion, and universall tenet of the Fathers of that Society. Therefore the Writer of those per­nicious Letters cannot excuse himself, from ha­ving brought into the whole Church of God, and especially into France, a horrible scandall, and which deserves punishment; slandering learned and vertuous Persons by opprobious speeches, fal­sifications, lies, and calumnies; and seducing the ignorant, the weak and licentious, by a wicked Doctrine. By attributing this Doctrine to the Jesuites, he has rendred it probable, through the credit these Fathers have with the greatest part of the word, who will believe it upon their score; and by casting it in a vulgar Language among the people, he hath thrown a stone of offence; at which the weak will stumble, and the wicked au­thorize their unlawfull enterprizes; through this belief, that they can commit no sin, whilest they follow the judgement of so many, so know­ing, and so vertuous Persons, as are the Fathers of the Society.

Thirdly, you must know this scraper and patch­er up of Calumnies, alledges almost nothing in his Letters that is new, but makes us read a se­cond time the work of one of his Brethren, writ­ten [Page 9] near twelve years since, against the Fathers of the Society of Jesus; to which Work, the Author gave this Title, The Divinity of the Jesuites. Out of this he has taken all the grand reproaches, which he makes against those Fathers; quoting the very same Authors and Places, and using the same Forgeries, multiplying his Letters according to the shreads he picks up, that he may be able to make many Books out of that one: all that is his, is that now and then he addeth the names of two or three Au [...]hors, not cited in the former Pamphlet, and withal dilateth himself in the Narrative of a Romance fit for Jan Potage; that he may render the Jesuites ridiculous to the Wits of his gang, by such ways of answering, which he attributes to them, as are childish and foolish, (the best part of his Boyish Dialogues) and which deserve not to go unpunished. For the rest, he is careful enough not so much as to men­tion the three Books, which were then written in answer to that supposed Moral, taking no notice of the answers which were made to the calumnies it contained; nor the entertainment that perni­cious Book met with, which was a condemnati­on to the flames, to be burnt by the hand of the Hangman; and this by the sentence of one of the wisest, and most August Parliaments in France.

Fourthly, do but cast your eye on his Rhapso­dy of Passages and Quotations, you shall finde nothing but untruths and calumnies; the Au­thor of it falsifying the greatest part of those pla­ces he alledges, and many times lying most bold­ly and impudently: making Authors say that [Page 10] which they never dreamt; croping and hacking their words, and not producing them entire, to the end, that one may not understand their true sense; purposely omitting the modifications and limitations which they use, to render them ridi­culous or monstrous in their opinions: fancying to himself, that having cited the places, quoted the Books, and written some of the Authours words, every one will credit him, though the Au­thor of the Morall Divinity has been convicted of falsity in the most of the self-same Allegati­ons. Do but remember after what manner the Calvinists (who have as little truth in their Quotations, as they have in their Faith) alledge the holy Scripture, and Sentences of the holy Fa­thers; that falshood is entailed on Heresie; and that the Jansenists have that Character of Er­rour in their Sect, that it is now become a Pro­verb in many places, when one would call one an impudent Liar, to say, That he over-reaches as much as a Jansenist. I know not what I ought to blame most in these men and their writings, whether their falseness and impudence in lying, or their malice in inventing calumnies, or their ignorance in so ill understanding, and so ill al­ledging of Authors and their Opinions; or their injustice, in forging crimes where there are none; or their inveterate hate against the Jesuites, whom they set upon by false and unreasonable accusations.

Fifthly, reflect on the manner of this Au­thors writing; who in matters of Divinity, of Morall, of Cases of Conscience, and Salvation, uses a taunting foolish stile; I will not onely [Page 11] say unworthy of a Divine, or an Ecclesiasticall person, but even of a Christian; who ought not to treat holy Things like a Scoffer or Come­dian. He calls himself, as all of that Sect of his doe, Disciple of St. Augustin: Let him finde me one place in the writings of that great Do­ctour, where he takes upon him the part of a Jeaster, or Buffoon. 'Tis the spirit of Heresie, which has nothing in it of serious, but rage and fury; if yet notwithstanding men swayed with those passions deserve to be termed serious: 'Tis the spirit of the ungodly and Blasphemers, which is spoken of in Job, Imitaris linguam blasphe­mantium, Thou speakest like a Blasphemer: the Original bears Irrisorum, Thou hast the tongue of Jeasters. It is also a kinde of Blasphemy to treat holy things in Rallicry; thus the Devils often endeavour by their jeastings to put by the force of Exorcismes, speaking like Buffoons, to stir up the common people to a loose kinde of Laughter, the Enemy of Devotion, and the Ru­ine of Religion. Yet 'tis the whole advantage this naughty Writer has; for having neither soli­dity, nor science, nor truth, he took his recourse to his best fort [...]sse, (which is Fooling) and that alone it is, which gives utterance to his Work; al­though his Work found another way of a facil vent, which was, that many Copies were distri­buted at the cost and charges of the whole Par­ty, out of the Almes of Jansenisme. The Wise man advises us, what entertainment we are to give such spirits and writings, in the 22. of the Proverbs, Ejt [...]e derisorem, Drive far from you the Mocker, and Buffoon; he deserveth nought [Page 12] but disdain, both of his Person and his Work: but being also a Jansenist, we must drive him away with a horrour, since that every Jansenist is an Heretique.

In the sixth place, consider the ill reasoning of this malicious Writer, who often attributes to the whole Body of the Jesuites, that which none of them has said, or at most what escaped from some one of their Body, notwithstanding that all the rest have written against it. Who yet ever saw, that from one particular a man could conclude an uni­versal? Must we call those the Maximes, or the Moral of the Jesuits, which were scarce ever said by any one of the Jesuits? If Gerson Chancellour of the University of Paris have had some erro­neous opinion upon the difference of Venial and Mortall sin, must we censure that as the Maxime, or the Moral of the Sorbon? Richerius had a particular Opinion, which was not approved, con­cerning the sovereign Pastour, must we therefore blame the whole Faculty? If any of the holy Fathers have had some opinion, which since his time hath not been approved, must we therefore attribute it to all the holy Fathers? Had this Authour but one grain of sincerity, whilest he ac­cuseth one Jesuit for advancing an opinion, which seems not true to him, why conceals he, that many other Jesuites have taught the contrary? This Caveat he might have read in the Reply to the Moral Divinity; which we shall be constrained to make him read in the Second Answer, which will be made to his Letters, to his Falsities, and to his malicious Dissimulations. I appeal to any judicious man, what is properly to be called the [Page 13] Jesuites Doctrine? whether that which onely one of that Body shall have said, or that which many amongst them have taught to the contra­ry? and if it be not an insupportable injustice, and which deserves not to escape unpunished, ma­liciously to impute to a whole Community, not what the greatest part have taught, but what one­ly one of them has said? Were it not injustice to impeach the whole Colledge of the Apostles for Treason, because one of their number be­trayed his Master?

Finally, let any man judge whether it be not a loud calumny and grosse foolery to charge the Jesuites as Introducers, and first Authors, or sole defenders of opinions, which were taught for many Ages in all the Universities of Europe, before the Order of the Jesuites was establish­ed. They call Opinions and Maximes of the Jesuites, those very assertions which have been, and are the opinions of others, and which the greatest part of the Iesuites oppose in their Wri­tings, as may be seen in the Answer to the Book called Morall Divinity. But all that is odious must be cast upon the Iesuites: they are used by their enemies, (such as are commonly Here­tiques, and the followers of Jansenisme) as the Primitive Christians were by the Heathens; for as to those it was crime enough to be a Christi­an, so to these 'tis enough to be a Iesuite, to lie under the lash of every ones censure, when there is power, and impunity. That which is past by in some Writers, and which is not so much as a light fault in the Books of others, is in the Iesu­ites a crime, an attempt against publique Order, [Page 14] an abomination. The Authour of the Let­ters does not reproach the Iesuites with any one Maxime, Decision, or Answer, which is not ei­ther falsly alledged by that Impostor, or corru­pted and disguised, or so separated from its own place, from its modifications and limitations, that it is no more the same. If any opinion, that seemeth to give scope to Liberty, be taught by any of the Society, it is opposed by many others of the same body: Nay, whatsoever any par­ticular person of the Society hath advanced contrary to the sentiments of the rest of his Order, that very same hath been formerly taught by many Doctours, out of his Order, in all Universities, and by many famous Wri­ters, and Masters of the Faculty of Paris, of other Schools, and many times of the Sorbon it self. This I say, to the end you may know, that what they attribute to the Iesuites, belongs lesse to them then to others; and that oftentimes the Doctrine, which this good Fellow would make passe as ridiculous, false, and con­trary to good manners, is not such in the opi­nion of many great Doctours, whose Autho­rity must countervail in Schools. It is these we are bound to credit, more then Heretiques, and people that know neither speculative, nor positive Divinity; and far more then an ignorant Buf­foon, good for nothing, but to jeast and play the Comedian, as is the Author of these Let­ters; who, as himself vouches, is neither Di­vine, nor Casuist, nor Clergy-man; and cannot deny but that he is a [...]ansenist, and by a necessary consequence an Heretique, since all Jansenists are so.

[Page 15] Whence comes it then, that he sets upon the Iesuites, rather then upon other Writers that teach the same? Hence, that it is the custome of Heretiques to be more against this Body, then against all the rest: It is also a badge of this Society to be persecuted by all the Wicked; she hath been so dealt withall from her very Cradle, and shall be, so as long as she makes profession of pure Doctrine, and true Vertue. If this sleeveless Writer had had a zeal for the Truth, or a just horror of false Doctrine, he would have fought against er­rour, where ever he had found it, and would have sided with those who maintained Truth, as the Iesuits do. But it is apparent enough, it was not the love of Truth made him write, but the hatred of it; under pretence of opposing the evil Doctrine of the Iesuits, he would re­venge himself on them, (although it were to the prejudice of Truth and his own Consci­ence, if yet he have any) for their accusing the Doctrine of Jansenius, which has been con­demned as Heretical. But he has a Bone to pick; he will never perswade the world, that the Doctrine of the Iesuites deserves condemnation, since it is that which carries on the War against Heresie, Errour, and Libertinisme. Therefore the Iudicious laught at his Letters, the honest Party detested them, and the Ignorant were scan­dalized. On the contrary, the Heretiques hug­ged them, and Libertines adored them, Buffoons owned their stile in them, Port Royall their Characters, and Iansenists their mode of cavil­ling, and vainly answering the just reproaches [Page 16] made to their wicked Doctrine: After all this the Iesuites will not be without an Answer, the Church without Censures, nor the Magistrates without Punishment, so soon as this wicked Wri­ter shall have published his Name; in conceal­ing of which he cannot dissemble his being a Jansenist, and by consequence an Heretique.

The second Answer. Wherein the Authour of the Pro­vincial Letters is convinced of IMPOSTURE.

The Preface.

THe Author of the Provincial Letters chargeth the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, that they have brought into the world opinions in matter of Morality, which corrupt the manners of Christians. To make good this charge, he instanceth in ma­ny cases, from the beginning of his fifth Letter (where he entereth upon his grand design of impugning the Society) to the end of the tenth; in all which he will have it clear, that the Society hath introduced a Moral, which breedeth corruption of man­ners in the whole world. To prove this charge, he ought to make good four things in the instances which he alledgeth. The first is, that the Doctrine, against which he inveigheth, is not ancienter then the Society. For if it were taught in the Church by ap­proved Authors, before that Religious Or­der was in being, it is false to charge the So­ciety [Page 18] with introducing it. Secondly, when he chargeth them with any Doctrine, he must cite their words truly, according to the plain sense of the Authors. Thirdly, the Do­ctrine wherewith he chargeth the Society, must be naught and unallowable; other­wise he doth but shew his own either igno­rance, or malice, and deserveth to be cast out of the Schools, for censuring and deri­ding good and wholesome Doctrine. Fourth­ly, he must shew, that the Doctrine which he objecteth to the whole Order, is not onely the private Tenent of one or two single per­sons in it, but taught by many, or at least allowed by many, and generally owned by the Society. For it is false to call that the Doctrine of a Religious Order, which (though one or two have held) is generally disclaimed by the whole Body.

That these four things ought to be obser­ved, is so unquestionable, that no rationall man will dispute it. I reflect on them, be­cause they are those, by which the Authour of this Answer evidently convinceth the Im­postor, though he do no where set down these conditions: And I do defie all the Jansenists, and all their Cabal, to make these four Con­ditions good in any one of all the great num­ber [Page 19] of Cases, which these Letters object. It is easie to object great crimes to the great­est innocency; it is easie to rail and taunt, when Spleen and Choler furnish words to Fury: But let them come to the point, and prove what they say, and then Ile give them leave to boast, and pardon all their Rho­domontadoes.

The Societies Answer is their Innocency: There is not one objection of all that are made in this Book, which is rightly made; not one, by which the Society may be made guilty of corrupt Doctrine. Here are nine and twenty Impostures laid open; there might have been as many more: but these are enough to let the world see, that this man deserveth no credit, who in six Letters is convinced of twenty nine Impostures. The whole Machin of the Objections, made in the Provincial Letters, is mainly built up­on the Doctrine of Probable Opinions; which (though the Church hath alwayes allowed) this Letter-writer, and his Trans­latour into English (who will needs become his Second) call a Monster, and Source of Irregularities. I will therefore put that in the first place, and set the rest of the An­swers down, as near as may be, in the same [Page 20] order, as the Objections (all which are Im­postures) do lye in the Provincial Letters, that the Reader may easily turn to them. I invert the order a little, in which they are printed in the French; but it is to facilitate the matter.

The First Imposture; which in the French Copy is the twentieth.

THe Doctrine of Probable Opinions is the Source of a Torrent of Irregularities, Let. 5. page 84. The Casuists scarce ev [...]r agree; there are few questions, wherein one does not hold the affirmative, the other the negative, Let. 5. page 94. And 'tis this way they palliate Crimes, tole­rate Disorders, and excuse all Vice, Let. 5.

Answer.

This is no new Imposture; for 'tis one part of the first Propositions in the Morall Divinity, which is falsely imputed to the Jesuites: and as Father Caussin sayes, 'Tis the Head of that Book, (a weak, yet malignant Head) which hath an influence into the whole Body.

Every one knows, that in Morall Theology, as in other Sciences which are taught in the Schools, there are two sorts of Maximes. The one, in which all Casuists generally agree, be­cause either Holy Scriptures, or consent of Fa­thers and Doctours have made them certain and [Page 21] evident. The other onely probable, and such as may fall under dispute, and in which opinions of Authors are divided.

For what concerns the first sort of Maximes, no man can deny them without temerity; and commonly there are none that disagree with the Iesuites in them, but Heretiques. As to the second, 'tis lawful for any one to pick and chuse out of those severall different opinions, which Divines teach, that which squares best with him­self, supposing it be probable; that is, that it be accompanied with these four conditions, which Suarez a Iesuit hath a given us.

The first is, that it doth not strike at those Truths, which are universally received in the Church. The second, that it doth not wound common sense. The third, that it be grounded on reason, and maintained by some irreproach­able Authority. The fourth, that if it hath not the generall vote of the Doctours, at least it be not generally condemned.

This is the Doctrine of Probable Opinions; This, that which the Jansenist calls, The Source of Irregularities: This, the Stumbling-block of this Brain-sick Man. He is astonished, that in questions of Morals our Authours should be divided in their Opinions, and that they are so often of contrary Sentiments in the resolution of Doubts.

We must cure this his Disease with the words of St. Antonine, whom one would deem to [Page 22] have foreseen his Malady. a 'Tis evident, sayes this Father, by examples, that in the Questions of Morals, even those sometimes which are ne­cessary to salvation, the opinions of such Doctors as are most eminent both for sanctity and know­ledge, fall out to be contrary. For St. Th [...]mas in the fourth Book upon the Master of Sentences, holdeth, That a man fallen into mortal Sin, is not obliged by any precept to go to Confession, so soon as he hath opportunity, except in some very few cases, which he hath there set down, Dist 17. [Page 23] Richardus also is of the same opinion; yet Hugo of St. Victor, and St. Bonaventure in that ve­ry thing are of a contrary opinion: and yet their Sanctity and profound Learning is esteemed through the whole Church. And we know, nei­ther one nor other of these opinions are rejected; although that of St. Thomas, which appears least secure, is nevertheless the most common. St. Raimundus Doctor and Canonist, in his Summe, doth maintain, that, generally speaking, 'tis a mortall Sin to hold commerce with any one ex­communicated with the greater Excommunica­tion, whether it be in speaking, or eating with him, or any such other action, which is not per­mitted. But St. Thomas, Iohannes Andreas, and Archidiaconus teach the contrary, and their opinion is most generally received. Thus we might bring infinite like examples.

I am confident, our Censurer in reading this will accuse himself for his too rash Criticisme, and will be sorry to have so lightly condemned the Doctrine of following probable Opinions; he will be ashamed to have reprehended that di­versity of Opinions in lesuites in questions of Morality, which St. Antonixe approves of in St. Thomas, in St. Bonaventure, in St. Raymund, and in very many famous Doctors, out of whom he sayes, might be brought an infinite number of examples. He will blush at his having reproach­ed the Society with permitting that liberty to her Authors, which the Church gives to all Catho­lique Doctors; of maintaining their own opini­ons, and of contradicting one the other in such points, as she hath not yet decided: reserving to [Page 24] her self the power of censuring those Propositi­ons, which she judges dangerous. In fine, he will be astonished at his own phantasticalnesse, seeing that which he calleth the Source of their Disorders, and the Basis of their Irregulari­ties, is an innocent practice permitted by the Church, and observed by all those Universities, which exercise the best Wits, form the wisest Directours, and render them capable of govern­ing Consciences.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

It can be no disorder to hold with Divines the Doctrine of Probable Opinions, but 'tis a crime to hold with the Iansenists the Doctrine of Heresies. That's the Source of Irregularities, of which I am constrained to minde you. You are convinced to have left the infallible rule of Faith, and instead of repenting of your errour, you would fain blame the Society for holding diversity of Opinions in Moral Doctrine. Thus did Wicleffe, finding his errours and cheats disco­vered, set upon the Doctours of the Canon Law, a calling all those Fools that studied the Decretals, as being Apocryphal, and made to divert Souls from the Faith of Jesus Christ. Thus did Calvin, feeling himself struck with the Thunder-bolts of the Church, set upon the Holy [Page 25] Fathers, the Councils, and particularly upon the Divinity Schools, stuffing his Letters and scan­dalous Writings with what Faults soever (either true or false) he could pick out of the works of Divines. Thus did Jansenius, imitating those two infamous Arch-heretiques, say, b That as School. Divines, breaking down the bounds of Sacred Things, do often fall into fantastical Ab­stractions; even so the Casuists in the Moral, lay­ing aside the most simple rule of humane Actions, which the pure light of Reason and Ancient Fathers have taught us, under pretext of accom­modating themselves to the weakness of men, have given such scope to consciences, that no­thing is now adayes required as necessary, to frame a new rule, yet more licentious, of morall life, then that men become more wicked then now they are.

Confess the truth, Is it not from these Authors, that you took those ill impressions (which you labour to spread amongst the common people) of Scholastique and Morall Divinity, to the [Page 26] end, that by rendring them odious to the vulgar, you might prevail wholly over their weak judge­ments, without all danger of punishment; when (by this means) there shall be found no more any persons of knowledge and ability, to hinder your dispersing the venom of your pernici­ous doctrine among them? Truly I am not at all astonished, that you should declare war against Probable Opinions, since you are Disciple of a Master, that was a profest enemy of demonstra­tions, even in Diviniry; maintaining with most insolent boldness, that a c conclusion which is drawn from two Propositions, one of which is of Faith, and the other evidently known, is esteemed hereticall by very great Divines; but that all generally confess, it borders upon Here­sie; and without all doubt, he who maintains it, most commonly is reputed an Heretique. And in another place, d All that which is repugnant to Propositions, which by good consequence are inferred from the word of God, is not alwayes hereticall, nor suspected to be so, although it be contrary to the word of God, and be maintained [Page 27] with obstinacy. What do you say now to the temerity of this proposition? you know the Au­thor of it; I need not name him: neither do I think you will disown it.

After this, what remaineth to make up the height of extravagancy and insolency, but to say, as you do, that Propositions of Faith are Pelagian Heresies, and those who teach them, are undoubtedly held for Heretiques? You have both said it and publisht it; you have taught, that 'tis Semi-pelagianisme to say, Jesus Christ died generally for all men. And to that infa­mous Proposition you have added four others, which have been blasted with Anathema's. You have dared to say, notwithstanding the judge­ment of the Church, which condemned them in Jansenius, that you have not found them there, and that one may yet maintain, Grace is want­ing to some just persons, when they sin. This is that we call teaching the Doctrine of Hereticall Opinions. This is the Source of our contests, and the true cause of your animosity against Je­suites. Acknowledge your errour; disavow that false and pernicious doct [...]ine; receive wi [...]h re­spect, that which was lately determined in the Assembly of Bishops concerning the Elogy of the Abbot of St. Cyran, and the Heresie of Janse­nisme; and then our difference concerning Pro­bable Opinions will soon be at an end. Your Cavils concerning Probable Opinions serve but for a hiding hole, whilest you cannot defend your self; but we must ferret you out, whilest you continue still obstinate in maintaining the Do­ctrine of Hereticall Opinions.

The second Imposture, French 21.

THat Emmanuel Sa and Filiucius give scope enough, and liberty of Conscience to Sin­ners, because they teach, It is lawfull to follow the lesse Probable Opinion, though it be the lesse secure. Let 5. Engl. edit. p. 95.

Answer.

I ask this wretched Casuist, whether he believe, there are none but Jesuites that teach this Do­ctrine? If he do, he is very ignorant; if he do not, but knowing the merit of those persons, who maintain it with them, chargeth notwith­standing the Jesuites as sole Authors of this opi­nion, he has a great deal of passion, and very little judgement. Has Monsieur Du Val, a Sor­bonist, given any scope to Sinners, when he saith, 'Tis sufficient to follow a safe and probable opini­on; and that without any difficulty, a man might leave that which has more probability. Has Non tenemur foro conscientiae sequi proba­biliorem partem: sed satis est absolutè, si sequa­mur probabilem, quae per [...]tis & doctis placet, do­nec Ecclesia contrarium statuerit, aut prima illa opinio è scholis Theologorum omnino explosa fu­crit. Gamach. 1, 2. tract. 1. pag. 115. Monsieur Gamasche, another Sorbonist given liberty of Conscience, in assuring us, that we are a [Page 29] not bound by any law of Conscience to follow that opinion which has most probability; but that it is sufficient absolutely, to follow that which is proba­ble, and approved by learned and able men, till such time as the Church rejects it, or that it be banisht out of all the Schools of Divinity.

If we must alledge the Authority of Fathers, dots St. Antonine encourage Libertinisme, when he teaches that very same Doctrine in these words? They object to us, that in case a man doubt, he ought to follow the most secure way, which causes scrupulous persons to take the straitest way. But to that it is answered, to chuse the surest way is a Counsel, and not a Pre­cept▪ Otherwise many were obliged to go into Religious Orders, because in them one lives with more safety, then in the world. It is not then necessary to follow the most secure, as long as one may follow another way which is safe. For as there are many wayes which lead us to the same Town, although one of them be more safe then the other; even so is it in our journey to the Ce­lestiall City, one taketh this way, another that, d [Page 30] and both safely, although another may take a sa­fer then either? Note that this Authority con­cludes a pari, or a simili, from the lesse security in states of life, to the lesse security in probable, that is, safe opinions.

What can the Jansenist say to this? Will he accuse St. Antonine, for giving liberty of Con­science to Sinners? Will he say that the rules he sets down in the same place, are contrary both to Scripture, and the Tradition of the Church, when he affirms, c That between two opinions concerning the Precepts, of which one is more severe, the other more milde, we must make, and consequently any may follow (all things else be­ing equall) that interpretation, which is lesse se­vere; because neither the Commandments of God, nor his Church, are made to take away all spirituall delight; which undoubtedly is done, when one explains their Precepts with too scru­pulous a timidity.

An Advertisement to the Jansenist.

If you were a little less self-conceited then you appear to be, you would have spared this ob­jection, [Page 31] to have saved your own honour. When that saying scap't from you, in your Morall Divi­nity falsely imposed on the Society, e That the Jesuites permit any thing to Christians, and that they believe all things to be probable, you should at least have excepted your own Maximes; and then we should have been lesse astonisht at your complaints, when we had found out the subject of your griefs. Those Fathers, sure, had much forgot themselves, that they did not stretch the Science of Probable Opinions even to Here­sies. That spirituall Empite, which in your opini­on they have got by these probabilities, f reach­ing forth their hand by an obliging and com­plying conduct to the whole world, Let. 5. would have been become universall, and without count­ing the Lutherans, who persecute them in Ger­many, the Calvinists in France, and the Inde­pendents in England, all those, who are of your own side between Charenton and Port-royall, would have been for them; all those Letters you send abroad into the Provinces, would speak honourably of their Function; all those railing tongues which decry them, would finde nothing but praises and applauses to give them. Yet they would be very sorry to be in your good esteem, while you maintain Opinions concerning Faith, so dangerous and unworthy of a Christian, as those are, which you have already advanced. Truly when I confer that which your selves broach, with that which you censure in others, I admire how you can say with so much arrogan­cy, That you search the certain, and not the pro­bable. [Page 32] You that have scarce any thing written, which is not condemned as scandalous, Hereti­call, and pernicious to the salvation of souls; do you believe it the most safe way to defer Com­munion till the end of a mans life? to submit secret sins to publique penance? to hold two Heads of the Church, which make but one? to make your confession, not that you sinned many times, but that Grace failed you many times? In a word, do you hold it the most cer­tain and secure way, to follow the Jansenisticall Doctrine, which has troubled the whole Church ever since your rebellion against the Pope?

The third Imposture. French 22.

THat the Authority of onely one good and learned Doctour, according to Sanchez, renders an opinion probable; which granted, one onely Doctour may turn mens Consciences topsie-turvie, and yet all will be secure. Letter 5. p. 92. Engl. edit.

Answer.

This judicious Writer confesses in the next page, that he cannot stand to this rule. What assurance have I, sayes he, that your Doctours ta­king so much freedom to examine things by rea­son, what seems certain to one, will seem such to all the rest? Is it possible to finde a more ridicu­lous discourse then this is? If it be not lawfull [Page 33] to examine things by reason, which way would he have a Doctour examine such things as are not evident in themselves, nor certain by any principle of Faith, nor determined by any Eccle­siasticall or Civill Law, but are yet onely under a simple probability?

To confirm this judgement, which he has made, he tells us the diversity of Opinions is so great; what then? What can he conclude from that principle? that therefore we must not exa­mine such things, as are disputable, by force of argument and reason? Judges are often divided in their opinions of Fact, and of Right; there­fore we must neither minde their advice, nor their reasons. Certainly this manner of reasoning is very well be fitting a Jansenist.

It may be you will object, that you shall then never be certain of truth, if consulting Casuists, one tells you it is, and the other tells you it is not. 'Tis true; but would you therefore have the Casuists change [...]he nature of things? and make that which is onely probable, evident and undoubted?

But at least I would satisfie my Conscience, say you: your Conscience is secure enough, if so be you follow the advice of some knowing and ver­tuous Doctour. You reply again, if it be so, one onely Doctour may turn mens Consciences top­sie-turvie. Yes truly, if he be a Jansenist, he may, and fling you into a precipice. But if he be Orthodox, learned and vertuous, you may rest secure upon his advice. For if he be learned, he will not be deceived, judging that probable which is not so: and if he be vertuous, he will have a [Page 34] care not to deceive you. If you be not yet sa­tisfied, if you will yet talk like a Jansenist, if you cry out still you cannot be satisfied with this rule, I answer, it is neverthelesse the opinion of Navarre; (who was no Jesuit) whom the Janse­nists in their Wo [...]ks, call one of the most esteemed Casuists of our time, one who has most reveren­ced the power both of the Pope and Church; he cannot be suspected of one side or other; and yet hear what he sayes in the fifth Book of his Counsels a If the Confessour be a man of any great capacity, learning, and noted piety, such as ordinarily are the Masters, the Doctours, and the Confessours of the most Illustrious Soci­ety of Jesus, the Penitent may believe him with­out any the least doubt or scruple; yea, is obliged to do so▪ and if he do not acquiesce in his advice, if he do not r [...]st peaceably being held up by his Authority, in my opinion he sins.

What▪ was it not enough that b Albertus [Page 35] Magnus should say, Every one without hazard­ing the losse of his soul, may follow, in taking counsell, what opinion he pleases, provided that it be taught by some eminent Doctour.

Was it not enough that St. Antonine should teach with Ulricus in his Summe, that if a man consult able Divines in any doubtfull case, for which he can finde no Authority, to assure him whether it be so or no, he does not sin in follow­ing that counsell they give him, although it be not conformable to truth; alwayes supposing, he form a good Conscience, and act faithfully; be­cause morally he hath done as much as he could, and God asks no more.

Was it not enough, that the most famous Do­ctours of Sorbon should have been of this Opi­nion? that c Major durst say, A man must not count the votes of Doctors, but weigh them; and that one alone may correct the Opinion of many.

Was it not enough, that Monsieur d Du Val had affirmed, One Doctour that is eminent, and [Page 36] of great reputation in the Schools is sufficient to introduce a new opinion, if he maintain it with strong reasons; and that having introdu­ced and confirmed it, one may follow it with a safe Conscience.

Was not all this enough? would he yet have one of the most esteemed Casuists of this time (to reward the Jansenists for the praises they give him, and the value they have of his vertue) de­clare himself against them in favour of Catho­liques, saying (as I have already cited) a Con­fessour esteemed for his Piety and Doctrine, such as are ordinarily the Confessours of the Society, may satisfie the Conscience of a Penitent? Pec­cator videbit, & irascetur.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

I do not at all doubt, but the Authority of Na­varre troubles you sufficiently; yet that I may a little comfort you in your disgrace, let me minde you, that e Cajetan treating this matter ob­serves very wisely, that in matters of Faith it is not lawfull for any man to follow his own parti­cular opinion, without submitting it to that superiour rule, which is the Church his Mother. The reason is, because we must resolve, and bring to some certain rule our opinion, which is of it self doubtfull, for fear least we make Faith subject to errour.

[Page 37] Pray consider the excellency of these words. If you judge it to be a giving scope to Sinners, to say, One Author alone, if learned and vertuous, may render an opinion probable, reflect a little on the Authors of your own Sect, and tell me, whether a particular Doctour can with a safe conscience fetter himself obstinately to his own opinion, after it is condemned for Hereticall by the Bishops and Pope. Tell me, whether that man be mindeful of Humility and Sincerity, who asks us, to shew him in Jansenius his Book the five Propositions censured by Innocent the Tenth, even then, when the whole Church as­sures us they are there. And if you be of such an indiscreet credulity, that after so many Bulls and Constitutions, you will needs follow the scandalous Maximes of that Authour, learn of * St. Thomas, that the simplicity of such, as fol­low the rash and dangerous opinions of their Masters, will no wayes excuse them; because when it is concerning Faith, we must not lightly adhere to dangerous Novelties. For if we might, those who followed Arius, would sinde a lawfull excuse, in the facility with which they embraced his errours; and yet neverthelesse that too credu­lous simplicity was the cause of their destruction and utter ruine.

Undeceive those silly Women, who have suf­fered themselves to be intrapt by the Witch­crafts of those deceitfull words, under which you have giv [...]n them the Poison of a corrupted Doctrine. Tell them, that hereafter they never [Page 38] give their Directour power over Gods Grace, and over even God himself; and tell them, that they write no more to you, as the g Abbesse of Port-Royall writ to the Abbot of St. Cyran; I make an end, Father, by a cessation from all de­mands, and from all desires, loosing all in a re­signation to whatsoever ye [...] shall think fit to command over me, and (if I durst say it) over God himself; since his approaches to me, and withdrawings from me depend on your judge­ment, and on your conduct, to which I vow a perfect obedience, such as is due from a soul, which miraculously he has rendred yours.

Undeceive those poor solitary people, who are gulled so far as to believe, the highest point of perfection consists in preferring the opinions of one single Author, condemned by the voice of the whole Church, before all other lights; and tell them, that they make no more use of those protestations, which Monsieur le Maistre made to the same Abbot in one of his Letters, saying thus: Sir, I have not need of any thing to per­form a generous Action, besides the honour of [Page 39] your Counsel; which is not a Precept, but an Oracle. While you do not deprive me of that Torch, all other light is superfluous.

Undeceive your own selves; and inst [...]ad of sacrificing your Pen, your Honour, and your Soul in defence of a declared Heretique, follow the common opinions, which have been approved by Catholique Doctors, and the ordina [...] con­duct of the Church; from which an affectation of singularity has unfortunately separated you.

The fourth Imposture. French 23.

TH [...]t Father Bauny vili [...]i [...]s the Dignity [...]f Priesthood, because he teaches, When the Penitent follows a Probable Opinion, the Con­fessour is bound to absolve him, though his judge­ment be contrary to that of his Penitent: a [...]d that to deny Absolution to a Penitent, who walks according to a Probable Opinion, is a sin in its own nature mortall: citing to confirme this Opinion, Suarez, Vasquez, and Sanchez. Letter 5. Engl. Edit. pag. 97

Answer.

Father Bauny might, if he had pleased, have cited for the same opinion six and fourty Au­thors, [Page 40] alledged by Sancius, who is no Jesuit, but a very learned Master of Morall Divinity. He, after having proved by so great a number of Di­vines, That a Confessour oug [...]t to follow the opi­nion of the Penitent, after having heard the se­cret of his sins, addes, that he is astonished, why Sanchez the Jesuit assures us, that very many of these Authors agree onely in this point, That 'tis lawfull for the Confessour to fellow the opinion of the Penitent, although it be contrary to his own; and that he cites but few, who teach, that he is obliged to it; since that all those he does alledge, excepting Rodriguez, and Sa a Jesuit, maintain both the one and the other: and though they do not expresse it in for­mall [...]erms, yet the reasons, by which they shew h [...] may do it, prove also that he ought: a [...], As often as it is lawfull for a C [...]nf [...]ss [...]ur to give Absolution, the P [...]nitent has [Page 41] in justice a right to demand it. And for my own part, I think, he is obliged under pain of Mortall Sin, if the Penitent have confessed any sins which are Mortall; since that it cannot be but a very great burthen to him, to be obliged to declare again the same Sins to another Confessour without any necessity. Sancius teaches this in his first Book, chap. 9. num. 29. although Vasquez, and Salas, (Jesuites) and Sayrus, and Montesinus assure u [...], he sins but venially, if he be only delegated. But I am certainly perswaded, that every Confessour, whether he be Ordinary or Delegate, is bound against his own judgement to absolve the Peni­tent.

Judge by this of the Ability and Truth of the Jansenist, who imputes as a Crime to Father Bauny the inventing of an Opinion, which forty six Authors, amongst whom St. Antonine has the first place, have taught before him. If he do know this Opinion to be so common, and so an­cient in the Schools, where is his Truth? If he do not, where are those imaginary parts, with the which he flatters himself? But whether he do know it, or he do not, where is his judg [...]ment? Ought he to expose himself thus for a laughing-stock (through his rash censures) to learned men, who so easily discover the pride of his heart?

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

'Tis no debasing the office of a Priest to ob­lige him, to cure the wounds of a sick Person, that casts himself into his hands, then when he both can and ought. The yoke of Confession [Page 42] is no insupportable yoke, and the government, which Jesus Christ has given Confessours, is no Tyrannicall government. It is a government of Love, establisht in Mercy; and which subsists in Sweetnesse.

But to say, as you do, is to annihilate it whol­ly. b That one onely Mortall Sin destroyes the office of Bishop and Priest. c That the Sen­tence of the Priest is onely a simple declaration of the pardon, which the Sinner hath obtained of Heaven: That 'tis an inviolable Law, that one ought to defer Absolution till after the fulfilling of the Penance, and that the contrary practice, d favoureth the generall impenitence of the world. The fruit of these wicked Maximes can be no other, but a distaste of the Sacraments; such as those women finde, who abandon them­selves to your direction: and such as Mother Agnes of St. Paul, Abbesse of Port-Royall [Page 43] hath expressed in one of her Letters in these terms. e I think my heart is hardened, ha­ving no feeling of Con [...]rition, nor Humiliation, to see my self deprived of the Sacraments: and I could passe my life thus without being troubled at it. We are at present in the time of the Confes­sions of our young Schollers. I remember a good Priest, who you told me, heareth Confession after the manner of the Ancient Church. I know not whether we may may get him for these yong ones, and for some Si [...]ers. There are some, who have not been at Confession these fifteen moneths. This would amaze a Confessour, who demandeth onely words, and not dispositions.

The fifth Imposture. French. 8.

THat the Jesuites take away the rigour of Fasting by unlawfull Dispensations; a because Filiucius proposeth this Question. One, who hath over-wearied himself about any thing, as for example, in satisfying a Wench, is he ob­liged to fast? Not at all. But how if he have thus over-wearied himself on purpose, to be there­by dispensed from Fasting? Shall he yet be obli­ged to fast? Although he have made such a for­mall design, yet would he be not obliged to fast? Letter 5. p. 89.

Answer.

This lascivious Beast resolves to be merry at Filiucius his charge, and darts at him the blame of these two things; to have asked an ill question, and to have answered it ill.

For what concerneth the first accusation, that is of asking an ill question, he should have known before he begun to chide, that if Filiucius have discoursed this matter, he did it following b St. Antonine, on whose back this reproach will [Page 45] first fall: following c Sylvester, Master of the Sacred Palace; whose Summe has been both re­newed and enlarged by the command of two great Popes; following Cajetan and Medina, d illustrious Interpreters of St. Thomas, with e Sancius, and many other famous f Au­thours, who are no Jesuites; yet have thought the Spirituall Physicians of our Souls ought not to be ignorant of the nature of these crimes: no more then the Physicians of our bodies, of the most shamefull diseases. But to publish such questions in a vulgar language, to make them the subject of mirth, to so we them amongst the peo­ple, and expose them even to the eyes of Women, I cannot but say, 'tis an Action deserves pu­nishment; and which this Writer could never have committed, but by following one of the greatest Enemies of the Church, and one of the most improved Scoff [...]rs France ever had in it. p. 343. of the Romane Traditions. I do not much wonder, that it is generally believed, the Author of those Letters spent all his life in writing Ro­mances. For 'twere impossible, any person of honour should take that matter to make it a sub­ject for Railleries.

As for the second accusation, of giving an ill [Page 46] answer, the teeth of this hungry Detractor find­ing no hold on the doctrine of Filiucius, he cuts and tears the Text, and after having pul­led off this shred, He who over-wearies himself about any thing, for example, in satissying a Wench, is he obliged to fast? By no means. But put the case, he have so over-wearied himself, on purpose to be dispensed from fasting, is he yet obliged to fast? Though he should have had such a formall design, yet were be not obliged to fast, He gapes out with an astonishment, as maliclous, as 'tis ridiculous. What is it not a Sin not to fast, when a man can do it? And is it lawfull to hunt out the occasions of sinning? Letter 5. pag. 90. as if thu Father excused a Sinner for not fasting, when he is able and obliged: Nay, and that he should permit him to hunt, with a formall design, the occasions of sinning. Where is the shame and conscience of this Calumnia­tour? Compare a little this reproach with the Authors true answer, and see how strangely he corrupts his words.

g One objects, (sayes he) a man that should [Page 47] over-weary himself about any wicked action, such as were killing of an enemy, or pursuing a Wench, or such like, should he be obliged to fast? I answer with Medina, Institut. cap. 14. sect. 10. That such a man should sin by reason of that wick­ed action, which he proposes to commit, but being over-wearied, he should be dispensed from fast­ing; unlesse (according to some Authors) that he so over-wearies himself on purpose, to be ex­empt from fasting. But yet there are others that speak better, that he should certainly sin in put­ting himself on purpose, into a condition, which exempts him from fasting, but being once in it, he is no more obliged to fast. What man of understanding can finde any thing to say against this decision, sustained by the Authorities of St▪ h Antonin, of i Medina, of k Sylvester, and of so many other Authors? Who can be so ignorant, as to think, a man that is thrust through the body, is obliged to fast, because he fin'd in sighting a Duell? Who can be so impu­dent, as to dare to accuse a Confessour, that should dispense with such a man from fasting, of favouring Sinners, and permitting them to break those Fasts, which they were able to keep: yea, [Page 48] and even to seek the occasions of sinning? None, but a Jansenist, is capable of committing so un­worthy an Imposture.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

'Tis a shame you should have no other Wri­ter to oppose to Divines, but a Scribler of Let­ters; and some prophane Heads, who like him, are neither Doctors, Priests, nor Ecclesiastiques. Letter 8. Who would believe such people un­derstand so much, as what a Fast were? And yet these are your Casuists; these are the Au­thors you have pickt out to reform the Morall. Is it not a shame you should with so much inju­stice reproach the Jesuites the mitigating of Fasts, that are your selves rather bound to cor­rect, what with so much scandall you have taught; That amongst all the exteriour parts of Ancient Penance, you retain scarce any, but the depriving men of the Holy Communion of the Body of the Son of God; which according to Holy Fathers is the most important part, because it represents the privation of Beatitude: and is the most facil according to humane nature, all the world being capable of it? See the Preface to the Book of Frequent Communion. page 19.

Do you know your own Doctrine? Is not that the Fasting and the Abstinence of the Jan­senists? Have you not assured us, there are some souls amongst you, so sensibly touched by the movings of Grace and the Spirit of Penance, that they would think themselves happy, in being [Page 49] able to witnesse to God their regret and sorrow for having offended him, by deferring their Com­munion to the very end of their dayes. In the same Preface. pag. 35, 36▪

This is your Morall of the new Mode. 'Tis thus you reestablish the Discipline of the Church. Oh, that it were but lawfull to keep this guide; that were very commodious indeed; (to use your own words) I mean for those full and fat Sin­ners well enough known to your Casuist. But I leave you all these jeastings; it is fit to be more grave in such serious Disputes.

The sixth Imposture. French 9.

THat the Jesuites excuse such, as deliberately and on set purpose hunt after the occasions of sinning; because the famous Casuist, Basil Pontius (who was no Jesuit) teaches, that one may seek after an occasion to sin, directly and for it self, (primo & per se) when we are carried to it, either for the spirituall or temporall good of our selves, or our Neighbours: and that Father Bauny the Jesuite quotes him, and approves his opinion in the Treaty of Penance. Qu. 4. p. 94 Letter 5. pag. 91.

Answer.

It is strange, there is not one word of this Ca­lumniatour to be found without some disguise, [Page 50] or Imposture: Let us therefore force truth out of his hands, that we may shew, how he labours to corrupt its innocency, and fully its purity.

'Tis a Question in the Morall, whether Judith were not a little rash, then when she exposed her self, so as we know she did, to save the Inhabi­tants of Bethuly? Whether St. Ambrose did well in going into Stews, to get away some de­bauched Woman? And whether many other Saints could discreetly imitate their zeal, as we finde they have done?

St. Ambrose, libr. 3. Offic. cap. 12. justifies a Judith, because she considered an honest good (sayes he) in that dangerous occasion, and search­ing it, she found a profitable good. And in the second Book of Virgins, c. 14. speaks thus in her favour, b Judith drest her self, that she might take the eyes of an Adulterer; and yet never durst any think her an Adultresse: because 'twas not Love, but Religon, incited her to do it; and therefore the example which she left us, suc [...]e [...]ded very happily.

If the Authority of this holy Doctor does not satisfie the Jansenist, he may consult with the Si [...]ur Da [...]dilly, and ask him, if in the lives of the Ho­ly Fathers of the Desert, he have not at large set down the passage of an Hermite, who went [Page 51] into a Stew under a disguised dresse, that he might get away his Neece, with whom he feign­ed a design of sinning. For my own part, I do not know any that are resolved to reprove the conduct of these great Saints, who voluntarily would expose themselves to danger for the spiri­tuall good of their Neighbour, as Saint Am­brose did: yea, and for some considerable tem­porall good, as Judith. But you ask, if this were lawfull for all sorts of people, who have not the strength, those Saints had, to overcome the danger, yet have the same reasons to search it.

Suarez a Jesuit, whose name is not unknown to Divines, maintains in the Treaty of Charity, that those who distrust their own weaknesse, can­not do it with a safe conscience, because he that loveth danger, shall perish in it, as Holy Scripture tells us.

The famous Casuist, Basil Pontius, holds the contrary opinion, and assures us, a Cathol [...]que may marry an Heretique Woman, if it be [...]r reasons of great moment, as the Tranqu [...]llity of a great Kingdom, or the Advancement of Reli­gion; although it were not without danger, by reason of his own weaknesse, that he may be perverted: c alwayes provided, that in marry­ing [Page 52] her, his will be resolved to hold constant to the true Faith; and that he hope, through the immense mercy of God, for whose sake he ex­poses himself to this danger, that he shall go through without falling in [...]o Heresie.

He grounds this on the Authority of the Ca­nons, which permit Husbands, become impo­tent by charms or by nature, to continue in the same lodgings with their Wives, ob honestatem publicam, although they be in continuall danger of sinning. C. Consult. de frigid, & malesic. & al [...]bi saepe; and on the opinion of above fif­teen Authors, which the Reader may see in the place I cite; and whom Father Bauny has fol­lowed in his Treaty of Penance. Q. 14.

This is the naked truth: and now you shall see the imposture and treachery of the Jansenist, which would give subject enough of astonish­ment, if it were not so natural to him, that they are inseparable.

First then, to render this Doctrine obnoxious to a severe censure, he explains it indifferently of all sorts of occasions; as if these Authours thought, that any one, on never so slight motives, might cast himself into the danger of offending God: whereas Basil Pontius speaks only of extra­ordinary cases, where either the interest of state, or Religion, is concerned. And this Father Bauny, who follows him, teaches in formall terms, That regularly one ought not to absolve him, that is in occasion of sinning; because Absolution cannot consist with a will to sin. Tract. de Poenit. q. 14.

Is there any malice more black, then that of this Detractour?

[Page 53] Secondly, to render the Jesuites odious, he at­tributes to them that opinion, because one of them followed it; although their more able Wri­ters, as Suarez, hold the contrary. Is no [...] this a plain sign, that passion has blinded him? In the third place he would make us believe, that Father Bauny approves that manner of speaking of Basil Pontius, that one may hunt after a di­rect occasion of Sin, primo, & perse, because he approves the opinion of that Author, which is a meer wrangling: for he may consent to his opi­nion without approving his mann [...]r of speaking; which not being either proper or strict, is capable of an ill construction, by taking of the word oc­casion formally, so as it carries a man to sin; if it were not clearly enough explained in the whole body of the Dispute, where he pretends onely this, that for the good, either of Church or State, a man may, without sinning, marry an Heretick, and expose himself to the danger of being per­verted by her slatteries, supposing that he be resol­ved through the grace of God to resist them con­stantly. Now to all this, though Father Bauny do approve the Doctrine, yet is it so false, that he approves the manner of speaking of Basil Pon­tius, that he repeats the contrary four times in the fourteenth question of the Treatie of Penance, that if one should engage himself in the occasion of sinning upon some just account, that occasion must not be either pretended, or sought after, by him, who does so expose himself.

Judge by this of the ma [...]i [...]e, and the ignorance of his Accuser: o [...] his ignorance, if he do not know the merit of Basil Pontius, who beyond [Page 54] all dispute is a most learned and judicious Casu­ist: of his malice, if knowing it, he desire yet to make him passe, in the opinion of commmon people, for the broacher of pernicious Doctrines; and of both the one and other together, for quar­relling with Father Bauny for an opinion not condemned in the Schools; although it be not universally followed: and instead of opposing it by solid reasons, employing onely his own de­ceit and lies to disguise the others opinion.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Without all doubt, being, as you are, declared Heretiques, and masked Calvinists, you are not onely in the state of damnation; but you are also stumbling-blocks to weak souls, who can neither keep you company, nor trust your guidance, with­out manifest danger of their Salvation. There­fore they are without excuse, if inconsiderate­ly they abandon themselves to such guides as you are. I beseech them to believe, 'tis them­selves the Holy Ghost threatneth, when he tel­leth us, He that loveth danger, shall perish there­in.

The seventh Imposture. French 19.

THat the Jesuites a undervalue the Holy Fathers; that at their appearance St. Au­gustin, St. Chrysostome, St. Ambrose, St. Hie­rome, and the rest vanished out of sight. Letter 5. pag. 99. Engl. edit. That the Casuists are come into the world since their Society; and that they have succeeded the Ancient Fathers. Letter 5. And in fine, that according to Bauny and Reginaldus, who are Jesuites, one ought not in matters of Morality to be guided by the Anci­ent Fathers, but the modern Casuists. Letter 5. pag. 98. and Letter 6. pag. 119. Engl. edit.

Answer.

For what concerns the False Augustin of Jan­senius, I grant it; the Jesuits did labour to make him flie for it, and were extreamly glad to see that Book with disgrace leave Rome, and the whole Church, to go back for Holland, from whence it came. But for the Ancient Fathers, who among all the Jesuites has made them va­nish?

[Page 56] Is it Father Fronton, who published St. Chry­sostome in Greek and Latin, the works of Saint Basil, the Library of the Greek Fathers, Bal­samon and Zonaras on the Canons, Anthony Me­lissa, the Sentences of St. Maximus, the Obser­vations on St. Irenaeus and St. Paulinus, the Ec­clesiasticall History of Nicephorus Calliste? to say nothing of the Greek and Latine Edition of St. Gregory Nazianzen, and of St. Gregory of Nisse.

Is it Father Sirmond, who has set forth since our time the works of Theodoret, of Hin [...]mar, of Paschasius Radbertus, of Sidonius Apollinaris, of Ennodius, of Al [...]imus Avitus, of Theodul­fus, of Facundus, and two and twenty such Vo­lumes either of the Fathers, or ancient Writers of the Church? besides three volumes of the An­cient Councels of France.

Is it Father Petaviu [...] who has set out St. Epi­phaniu [...], Synesius, and five Volumes of Theolo­gicall Doctrines, which a [...] [...]ade up onely of the thoughts and words of [...]he Fathers?

Is it Father Turrianu [...] who has given us the works of more then eight Fathers, or ancient Ec­clesiasticall Authors?

Is it Father S [...]ho [...], who hath set out the Comentaries of St. Cyr [...]l on the Penta [...]euch, St. Basil, [...]. Isidore, E [...]dius, and the works of fourteen ancient [...], most of which you may see in the Lib [...]ar [...] of the Fathers, which is printed [...]t Colen?

Do you no [...] wonder [...] boldnesse of this Calumniatou [...]; who [...]ot pe [...]ceiving, that re­proaching the Jesu [...]es with an imaginary under­valuing [Page 57] of the ancient Fathers, he has given them occasion to produce those glorious marks of the respect they bear them, and the esteem which they have for their Doctrine? setting before his eyes the Augustinian Confession of Father Hierosme Torrez, which shews whether he had read Saint Augustin, the St. John Climacus of Raderus, the St. Eucher, and St. Paulin of Rosweidus, the Tertullian of La Cerda, the Eus [...]bius of Father Viger, the St. Den [...]is of Lansh [...]lius, the Chain of Greek Fathers in six Volumes of Father Cor­dier, and a prodigious number of other Authors, who have consumed the best part of their life in the reading, translating, and the printing of Fa­thers, and in the interpretation of Holy Scri­pture.

Now, pray, do but look on that pretext, which he takes to colour his frivolous accusation; The Fathers, sayes he, were good for the Morality of their times, but they are far short of that of ours. It is not therefore to be regulated by them, but by the new Casuists. Hear the Father Cello [...], who as to this point in the question of the Morals, fol­lows the famous Father Reginaldus, the modern Casuists are to be preferred before the ancient Fathers, though they were nearer the times of the Apostles.

I do not accuse this Writer for being the first Impostor, who has darted against us that re­proach; He is but the second. The Authour of the Libell of the Morall Divinity invented it, and that most notorious falsely. For these words are not to be found, either in the Ecclesiasticall Hic­rarchy of Father Cellot, nor in the Preface of [Page 58] Reginaldus, which he alledges. The intent of Reginaldus, whose thoughts Father Cellot does onely refer to, is to instruct the Reader, of the cause, which carries him to make use of those Modern Authors, who have taught the Morall; and to that effect comparing them to the Anci­ents, who have treated this matter, he sayes, A man ought principally to look on the Moderns, who are known to be most learned, and best ver­sed in reading of those, who were before them; because in many cases the circumstances of things do so change with succession of [...]mes, that those who have joyned to their Doctrine an exact knowledge of Customes, U [...]es, and Manners of proceeding at the present, are to be preferred be­fore other [...] which is most wisely observed. Hereupon the Jansenist, finding the word Anci­ent Autho [...]s in the Index of that Work, imagi­ned h [...] spake of the Ancient Fathers, of whom there is no mention in that place; and on this begins his processe against the Jesuites. But ha­ving lost his Suite before the Parliament of Bour­deaux, where this Libell was torne in peices, as we formerly said, the Casuist, who pretends a reformation, will now again make it appear, and proclaims all over the world, that we sl [...]ght the Fathers, and that at our appearance they were seen to vanish. Letter 5. That the Casuists, who are come into the world with us, have succeeded them; and after having collected a number of their Names, which make a noise in his ears, without considering either the rank of Bishops and Archbishops, which some have had in the Church; or the quality of Doctours, which their [Page 59] great parts have acquired them in the most fa­mous Universities of Europe, he asks whether all these people were Christians? And I ask, whether he be mad, and whether he be not asha­med so to play the fool before Divines? I ask, what rule of Chronology mak [...]s this brave Histo­rian muster up, with us and as men born in our age, the Master of Sentences, Albertus magnus, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, St. Raimond, St. Antonine, Paludanus, Hostiensis, with an infi­nite number of other Authors, who methodically taught Morall Divinity a long time before the Jesuites ever came into the world? I ask, whe­ther it be not a mark of his great ability to be so ignorant, as not to know the age of the Sorbon, nor the Casuists, which she hath produced since the time, that St. Lewis gave that house in ex­change to one, whose name it carrieth? Truly he does us but too much honour, to say, that we have laid the foundation of so excellent a Sci­ence; which is nothing, but a Compendium of Holy Scripture, Fathers, Councels, and both the Laws, Canon and Civill. But as those illustri­ous Authors, whose very names terrifie him, had no need of Jesuites to bring them into the world, so likewise they need them not to defend them­selves from the mockeries of a Momus, as odious for his malice, as despicable for the little judge­ment he shews in his writings.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Whence are your heads grown so weak, that you cannot endure the name of Casuists? Your [Page 60] infirmity is very dangerous, when the noise of three or four syllables lesse agreeable with your ears, is so able to stupisie your brains. 'Twas a lack of judgement to make that ridiculous enu­meration of Catholique Authors, which you have affectedly done about the end of your fifth Letter; because you have thereby obliged us, to seek in the Catalogue of Heretiques the names of such as as have inspired you with this hatred; and we must ask you, whether all these Fellows, which ye here see, Luther, Usher, Bucer, Taylor, Keiser, Groper, Tamber, Whitaker, Herman, Tilleman, Calagan, Hus, Thorp, Wright, Horst, Schuch, Crau, Whyght, Esch, Hall, Hun, Fryth, Hesch, Pourceau, Th [...]raw, Moutard, Na­viere, Goniu, Philpot, Testuvot, Jansen, Hol­den, Hitten, Suffen, Houvenden, Zanchius, Brandius, Scharpius, if, I say, all these men, whom the Heretiques, either set up in Libraries for their Writers, or in their Martyrologies as Saints of their Religion, were really Christians.

The eighth Imposture. French 25.

IT is strange to see how the Jesuites reconcile (by the interpretation of some term) the con­trarieties which are between their opinions, and the Decisions of Popes, Councels, and of Holy Scripture. For instance, Pope Gregory the 14. hath declared, that Murtherers (so saith our En­glish Translatour, when he ought to have said Assassins, which term is explicated in the answer to this Imposture) are unworthy the benefit of taking Sanctuary in Churches, and that they are to be forced from thence. Whence Escobar pag. 660 affirms, that those who kill any one treache­rously, ought not to incurre the penalty of that Bull. This to you seems contradictory: but it is reconciled by interpreting the word Murtherer. (or as he should have said, Asassin) Letter 6. p. 104. Engl. edit.

Answer.

Since the censure against Jansenius forced his Disciples to study the Doctrine of interpreting terms, for to reconcile the contrarieties between their er [...]ors, and the constitution of Innocent the tenth, they are grown so conceited, that they un­dervalue all Interpreters of Laws, and so clear­sighted, that they spy faults where there are none.

Far be it from me to dispute the glory with them, of knowing better then they do, how to interpret Bulls, and to give a new sense to Coun­cels [Page 62] and Fathers, such as is unknown to any but Heretiques. All that I will say is onely this, The Morall of the Jesuites stands in no need of such interpretations. If the Jesuites undertake to explicate the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Decisions of Popes and Councels, they will be­ware, not to take their interpretations, as Janse­nius doth the sense of S. Augustin, out of the Co­mentaries of Calvin and Luther. They will con­form themselves to Authentique, or Doctrinal In­terpretations, such as are received in Schools, and taught by the greatest Divines.

Its no hard matter to shew this, by the very example our Calumniatour brings concerning the word Asassin in the Bull of Gregory 14. For Escobar sayes nothing concerning that Bull, but wh [...]t he hath from very learned Authours. This accuser had never spok [...] as he does, had he had but a little more understanding and sincerity, then he shews in his censure to have had.

His want of Sincerity is visible in this, that he makes Escobar say, All those, who treacherously kill any one ought n [...]t to suffer the penalty of the Bull; which [...] is not to be found in the 660. page, which he citeth, but rather the quite contra [...]y.

H [...]s want of understanding appeareth in this, th [...] he believeth this D [...]cision impugnes the Bull of Cregory the 14. for as much as he declares, T [...]t [...] are unworthy of enjoying Sa [...]ctu­ar [...] [...]ut L [...]b [...]r reconciles this contrariety in his m [...]ner of interpreting the word Asassin. If [...] had said, his D [...]cision is contrary to the B [...]ll, in as mu [...]h as i [...] tak [...]th away the priviledge of [Page 63] Sanctuary, from those who treacherously murther any, and that Escobar should reconcile this con­trariety in interpreting the word treacherously, he had had a little more colour for his Calumny. But to say he does it by interpreting the word Asassin, is a fault unpardonable, For by a gross ignorance he confounds those, who murther a man treacherously with Asassins, who are hired to kill for money: which are two things as diffe­rent, as Genus and Species, according to the Ca­nonists and Divines. From whence it is, that they are distinguished in the Pop [...]s Bull, and that Escobar makes two distinct questions in the place he notes. a In the first of which he asks, If he that murthers a man treacherously be d [...]prived of Sanctuary? and answers, Yes. A Decision quite contrary to that which is attributed to him. In the second he asks, whether Asassins be capa­ble of the priviledge of Sanctuary? and an­swers, No: which shews us the great abilities of the Jansenist, who believe, that under the terms of Law, one comprehends, by the word Asass [...], all those who murther others treacherously. Let's help him a little out of these errours, and blow away the mist which stifles his wits. What do the Canonists call murthering a man treacher­ously? Escobar sayes, To murther a man trea­cherously, is to murther him when he has no rea­son [Page 64] to suspect it. Therefore he that kills his ene­my, is not said to kill him treacherously, though he set upon him unawares by Ambuscade, or come behinde him.

What is an Asassin, according to the terms of Law? Such a one, sayes that Father, as is hired for money to kill a man by Ambuscade, when he thinks not on't. Therefore he is not called an Asassin, who kills another without any set price, but onely to do his friend a courtesie.

These two Interpretations will not please the Jansenist. He laughs at the first in his seventh Letter, pag. 140. Engl. edit. and findes fault with the second in the beginning of his sixth. But why? he gives us no reason: for 'tis evi­dent enough, he can have none but his ignorance in the most common terms of Law.

For the word treacherously, he need onely open the Books of the Casuists, and Interpreters of Law, to learn the true meaning of it; and since Diana is so much his friend, I will send him to that Treatie, De Immunitate Ecclesiarum, with which he begins the first Tome of his Works. He will finde there many Authors able to make him as wise as Bartolus in L. respiciendum. Am­brosinus, Bonacina, Farinaccius, Peregrinus, Ge­nuensis, and the Pope himself, Clement the eighth, at whom he may laugh, if he please; pro­vided he do but give us also leave to laugh at his rashnesse.

As to the word Asassin, that interpretation, which Escobar gives it, is so common amongst Divines, that I am astonisht, how he can make any doubt, and cast so frivolous a reproach on [Page 65] so little ground. For even the least versed in Hi­story know, what were the subjects of old de la Montague, commonly known by the name of The Prince of the Asassins, men resolute in wick­ednesse, and so obedient to that bloody Villain, that he could send them into any place to kill his enemies. From whence unfortunately it happen­ed, that even the Christians by his example took occasion to commit all sorts of Murthers. And the least versed in the Law cannot be ignor [...]nt, that the Canonists take the word Asassin analo­gically, to signifie a man prevailed on by the [...]n­treaty of another to kill some one for money.

If the Jansenist will dispute this with me, let him remember what Card▪ C [...]jetan in his Summe tells us, That the word Asassin is equivocall. For first, 'tis the proper name of certain Infidels who were casily perswaded to kill Christians: and Pope Innocent the Fourth in the Coun [...]el of Ly­ons excommunicated, not tho [...] Murth [...]rs, (for they were Infidels) but th [...]se who made use of them to kill Christians. c S [...]condly▪ 'tis the name of the Crime. For according to some Ca­suists and the common manner of spe [...]king, he is called an Asassin, who by the entreaty of any one kills another for money. These last are not comprehended in the censure of that Pope, al­though they very justly deserve both temporal and eternall death.

[Page 66] If this give not our Jansenist light enough, let him further learn of Bonacina, (whose opinion differs not at all from Escobar) that by the con­stitution of Pope Gregory the fourteenth, 'tis true Asassins are in the Catalogue of those, who are not to receive protection of Sanctuary. But the question is, who are meant by the word Asassin, since it may be taken after three diffe­rent manners. ‘For first of all, 'tis the name of certain Saracens, whom Christians made use of to butcher other Christians; and those Saracens are not comprized in the Bull. Se­condly, Asassin is the name of those Robbers, that murther on the High-way; for which they are not permitted the Sanctuary of Churches. In the third place, those who trea­cherously kill any, when they have no reason to suspect it, by the command of another, who wrought them to it by giving, or promising money, or some other recompense. And 'tis in this sense, that Probus, d Aucaranus, Imo­la, Surarez, Menochius, Julius Clarus, Am­brosinus, Decianus, Mascardus, Covarruvias, [Page 67] Guttieres, Farinacius, Peregrinus, and other Interpreters do take the word Asissin. Haec enim est vulgark intelligentia & interpretatio vocis illius Asassini: vulgi autem interpreta­tio maxime attendenda est. Thus saith Bo­nacina. And from this Doctrine, he, (as well as Escobar) inferreth, e That he who kills a man without receiving any hire, meerly to do some other a courtesie, is not called an Asassin, according to Mascardus, Antonius, Gabriel, Menochius who alledges many others, Farina­cius and Ambresinus.

After therefore that our Jansenist hath informed himself by the witnesse of so many learned men, better then he did by the Memorandums of Here­tiques, concerning the interpreting of the word Asassin in Italy and Spain, where the Bull of Gregory the fourteenth is received, let him ac­knowledge, how much it does import one, that re­prehends Doctors, not to be ignorant; and not be an Impostor, when he cites them to cry down their Doctrine, and set himself up as a Censurer over them.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Since you have put me on these questions, which concern Homicide, let me entreat you to tell me, by what interpretation you can reconcile with naturall and divine Laws the Royall Que­stion of your chief, the Abbot of St. Cyran; which you have acknowledged in the Apology of the Sieur Calagan, as the first fruit of his Will. Teach me what sense can be given to these grosse Maximes, so worthy of the Divinity of Janse­nisme; That many times a man is bound to kill himself; ('tis the subject of that Book) That the Law of Charity, which commands a man to to love himself, is many times more infringed by killing ones Neighbour, then by killing ones self. pag. 23. That the want of a propriety over our own life is no hinderance to a man for killing himself. pag. 29. That under the Emperors N [...] ­ro and Tibetius, Fathers were bound in consci­ence to kill themselves for the good of their Fa­milies and Children, and above all to prevent the cruelty, by wh [...]ch they put them to death, pag. 62. That the obl [...]gation of killing ones self being both one of [...] most important, and hardest to execute, [...], [...]essary it should finde with men some per [...]ct reason, which by long dis­course may a [...] swee [...]en the bitter­nesse of that Action. pag. 91 That all things are pure and clean to [...]ose that are so▪ pag. 94. by consequence ' [...]is [...] full with a safe conscience to kill ones [...] [...]im [...] a man is obliged to do it. [...] [...]irst rules of your severe [Page 69] Morall. If all the rest, which you make us hope we shall have, be like them, in a little time we shall see an admirable reformation of Cases of Conscience, which will make that base Morall of the Casuists, t [...]o favourable to the love of ones self, that Source of all Crimes, blush and be ashamed.

The ninth Imposture. French 1.

THe Jesuites favour ambition in rich men, and destroy a all pitty of the poor, because Vasquez in his Treatise of Alms saith, Chap. fourth, Whatever men lay up out of a design to raise their own fortunes, or those of their rela­tions, is not called superfluous: for which reason it will be hard to finde any, among those that are worldly minded, that have ought superfluous; no not even among Kings. Letter 6. pag. 105. Engl. edit.

The Answer.

To take the words of Vasquez in the dis­guise this Jansenist hath put upon them, were to think he swept away all obligati [...]n, the rich have of giving Alms. But go but to the Source, and you will be amazed to see, that Vasquez teacheth quite contrary to what this Imposture forg [...]th. Vasquez then in that excellent Treatise of Alms, endeavoureth to regulate the Consciences of rich men, and to let them see, how many reasons ob­lige their mercy to relieve the poor mans neces­sity.

For to proceed clearer, he distinguisheth be­twixt the secular man, who enjoyeth goods of the world, and the Church man, who possesseth Ec­clesiasticall Benefices. For the Church-man he affirmeth positively, b that he cannot in con­science make use of his Ecclesiasticall Revennues, to enhaunce his own condition, or to enrich his Kindred, He obligeth Church-men to imploy all their over-plus in relieving the poor; and he [Page 71] presseth this so home, that he teacheth, c they are bound to seek out the poor, and be inquisitive after their wants, because they are Fathers of the poor.

For Lay-men, who are in a flourishing condi­tion, acquired either by industry or inheritance, he assureth them also, that they are obliged to give Alms under pain of eternall damnation. But then he starteth this question, on what this obli­gation of theirs is grounded. Cajetan cited by Vasquez saith, this Obligation is grounded on the superfluities which the rich men have; or in other terms, that rich men of the world are bound to give Alms, because they have more then enough, and that this over-plus is the porti­on of the poor. Vasquez d rejecting this opi­nion, saith, that this is not all, and that this seemeth not to him the full ground of the obli­gation; because the rich will presently say, they have nothing superfluous, seeing that even accord­ing to Cajetan, worldly men may make use of [Page 72] their riches to raise themselves by lawfull means to a higher state, Statum, quem licitè possunt ac­quirere; and to procure a charge or office, sup­posing they be fitly qualified, Statum quem dignè possunt acquirere; (these are Vasquez his words, which he repeateth thrice. Cap. 1. dub. 3. num. 26. and which this Impostor hath suppressed) out of which Doctrine allowed by Cajetan, it fol­loweth, that that is not superfluous, which is but a necessary means to bring about what wordly men may justly pretend. Vasquez therefore goeth fur­ther, that the duty of giving Alms, which he holdeth to be indispensable, may have an indi­spensable ground. This ground he teacheth to be the e precept of Charity, which obligeth the rich to give Alms, not onely out of their Super­fluities, but also out of that which is (in the sense I have now shewed) necessary to them.

Is not this Doctrine just contrary to that, which is imputed to Vasquez? Is it possible to finde a more notorious Imposture? I beseech the [Page 73] Reader to view Vasquez his Treatise, and to be­gin with the first Chapter, in which he speaketh of the Obligation, which rich secular men have of giving Alms; and I assure my self, he will be no lesse edified at the prudent conduct of this Fa­ther, then astonished at the malice of this Slaun­derer.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

I am bound to return good for evill, and truth for falshood: Therefore I advertise the Disci­ples of Jansenius, that all those Alms they re­ceive from Widows, all those Legacies they make them give in favour of Jansenisme, which the Pope has condemned, are so many Thefts bor­dering on Sacriledge: f because they use that which is given to God against the Church of God: and that all persons of quality, who main­tain this Hereticall Party, whether it be by con­tributing either of their power or purse, render themselves Accomplices in their spiritual rebelli­on, and will perish with them.

The tenth Imposture. French 2.

THat the Jesuites favour Simony, because Va­lentia, Tom. 3. pag. 2042. sayes, That if a man give a temporall good for a spirituall, and money as the price of a Benefice, 'tis an apparent Simony: But if it be given as a Motive, to perswade the will of the Incumbent to resign 'tis not Simony; notwithstanding that he which re­signes the Benefice, look upon and expect the mo­ney onely as his principall end. And Tanner a Jesuit sayes the same thing in his 3. Tom. pag. 1519. and yet confesses St. Thomas is of a con­trary Opinion. Letter 6. pag. 115. Engl. edit.

Answer.

Who would not complain of the rashnesse of Tanner in thus contradicting St. Thomas, and the forgetfuln [...]sse of Valentia in palliating Si­mony? But this is onely a trick of the Jansenist, who follows du Moulin in his Traditions, pag. [...]12. where this Heretique reproaches Card. To [...] for teaching, That the Pope may lawful­ly take money for Indulgences, Absolutions, and Dispensat [...]ns, because he receives it, not as for­mally selling them, but as a maintenance of his Greatnesse, and the Dignity of his Charge. Let us let alone the Calvinist, and a little discover the cheat of his Scholler.

You must know that all Divines hold two [...] of Simony; the one by Divine, the other [Page 75] by Positive Law. This distinction supposed, Tanner explicating the Opinion of Valentia, tells us, if one give money, as the price of a Be­nefice, 'tis against Divine Law; but if it be gi­ven as a Motive, to incline the will of the In­cumbent to give up the Benefice, or else as a gra­titude, it is not Simony against Divine Law, (and in this he follows the Opinion of St. Thomas, q. 100. Art. 1, & 2. ad 4. & Art. 3. ad 2, 3, 4.) but in the same place he addes, b that it is ei­ther Simony against Positive Law, or presumed to be so in the cases exprest in the Law.

Again insisting in the same case, in the follow­ing number, he sayes, That notwithstanding he who resigns the Benefice should look upon, and expect the money as his principall end, preferring a Temporall before a Spirituall good, it were not Simony, (supposing still, that he doth not take the money as a price of his Benefice) because that kinde of preferring may be found in all sorts of sin; for we never sin, but we prefer in effect some Temporall before our Spiritual good. Yet presently he addes, num. 67. c That this [Page 76] Act would be a Mortall Sin, and a Simony against Positive Law, as he had before explained it, num. 65.

Is not this man most extreamly wicked, in thus concealing the last part, which justifies Tan­ner, and publishing the first, which would per­swade the people (ignorant of School-distincti­ons) into a belief, that he opens a gate to all Si­monies? What an infamy is it to this Slaunderer, and to all Port-Royall, thus impudently to per­vert the truth? Is this then that, which they call to be sincere like a Jansenist? That is, to lie with a confidence, and publish without shame the most notorious untruths? and neither to value the judgement of wise, nor the reproaches of honest persons, so they may but deceive the peo­ple.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Let Port-Royal know, 'tis a Simoniacal abuse to buy those mercenary pens with Benefices, and to give those Benefices as a price for their labour, in publishing Heresies against Catholique Faith, and Calumnies against a Religious Order. Such Scriblers are the Pensionaries of Satan, the Fa­ther of Lies, and the first Detractour against God himself.

The eleventh Imposture. French 26.

THat Filiucius advanceth this excellent Ma­xime, in favour of wicked Priests, That the Laws of the Church are in no force, when they are no longer observed. Cum jam desuetudine abi­erunt. Letter 6.

Answer.

I am sorry for this poor Casuist, and pitty his ignorance; for he doth not know, that the terms he useth, cum jam desuetudine abierunt, are terms of the Law. a If there be any Laws to be found in Ancient Writers, sayes the Law it self, which through non observance are abolished, we do not permit you by any means to reestablish them. And in another place, b 'Tis a well grounded policy, that Lawes should lose their force, not onely by the consent of the Legisla­tour, but also by tacite disapproving of the people in not observing them. Our Jansenist knoweth not this. He doth not know, that the Canons [Page 78] agree with the Civill Laws, and that the Pope, declaring the Law shall not yield to Custome, excepts that Custome which is reasonable, and the which time hath confirmed by a lawfull pre­scription, nisi sit rationabilis, & legitimè prae­scripta. Cap. ultim. consensus.

He does not know, what St. Thomas 1, 2. c tells us, That neither Divine, nor Naturall Laws are subject to be changed by men, because they are grounded on a superiour and unchange­able reason. But as for such as have no other rule, but the will and reason of men, Custome stands as a Law, abolishes Law, and in fine, is the Interpreter of Law.

He does not know what Cajetan, d explain­ing the meaning of St. Thomas, tells us, Al­though Custome begins by an infringing the Law, reiterated by many unlawfull and criminal Actions, yet neverthelesse having once taken a thorough course, and being perfectly formed, it abrogates the Law.

He does not know that which Bartolus sayes, [Page 79] e Law may contradict a Custome, which is but now sprung up; but when 'tis once formed by a lawfull prescription, there is no more contradict­ing it, because the Law hath no more force.

He does not know what St. Antonine f tells us, both of Ecclesiasticall and Canon Law, that they lose their force, when the Church, moved by any just cause, changes them, or permits a non-ob­servance. For instance, It was formerly command­ed to fast on Rogation dayes; yet neverthelesse through all the world a contrary Custome has prevailed over that precept, took away the obli­gation of fasting, and enjoyned onely abstinence in the Major part of Christianity.

But that which is most egregiously absurd is, that this learned Civilian, to finde out some ground in Filiucius, on which he might raise his ridiculous accusation, takes these words, desuetu­dine abiêrunt, from a particular proposition, g which this Father advances on the subject of Blasphemers; in which he tells us, that amongst those penalties set down in the Ancient Testa­ment against this crime, or established in the Church by the Constitutions of Popes, the one sort were never received in the Law of Grace, [Page 80] and the other are no more in use, At vel receptae unquam non sunt, v [...]l jam desuetudine abie­runt. Upon which, this wise Interpreter making what glosse he pleases, accuseth him for favouring in that particular those wicked Priests, who un­worthily presume to approach the Altar, and makes him Author of this generall Proposition, without any the least restriction, or modification, That the Laws of the Church lose their force, when they are no longer observed. Who will not laugh at this unreasonable reproach?

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

That the Laws of the Church lose their force when they are no longer observed, is a Maxime, which may very well be explained in a good sense; that is, when the Church, as I have said, by a prudent condescendence takes off the rigor of the Precept, and yields somewhat to Custome.

But I cannot imagine what way you can justifie this, h That the Ancient Law drew men on to Sin, Death, and Damnation by it self, per se quantum in se erat; i That the just ought pre­cisely to follow the movings of inward Grace, which is to them as a Law, without looking to any exteriour Law, though these inward movings should contradict the exteriour Law. Certainly the Abbot of St. Cyran had a great deal of reason [Page 81] to say, k That he never learnt these Maximes out of Books; but also we are not bound to be­lieve he had them from God, who is Truth it self; or that he guided himself wholly by the lights, inspirations, and interiour sentiments, which he received from God. 'Tis not likely that God should have told him, l That Sacramental Ab­solution supposes remission of Sins, That 'tis onely a declarative judgement; That the present Church can no wayes be thought a Church in any other sense, or for any other reason, but because it succeeded in the place of the true Church; just as if a troubled corrupted matter should fill the cha­nell of a River, which had been quick and healthfull water. Is not it because you will maintaine th [...]se excellent Maximes, that you are angry at those who say, The Laws of the Church lose their force, when they are no longer observed? It may be you are of the same opini­on with the Abbot of St. Cyran, that the present Church is corrupted like a filthy puddle-water, in that she doth not observe ancient Traditions.

The twelfth Imposture. French 12.

THat the Jesuites encourage Servants in do­mestique frauds and cheats, because Father Bauny hath established this great Maxime, to oblige those who are not content with their Wa­ges. It is in his Summary, p. 213. & 214. of the [Page 82] sixth Edition. May Servants, who are not content with their wages, advance them of themselves by fil [...]hing and purloining as much from their Ma­sters, as they imagine necessary to make their wages proportionable to their Services? In some occasions they may; as when they are so poor, when they come into service, that they are obli­ged to accept any prosser that's made to them, and that other Servants of their quality get more elsewhere. Letter 6. pag. 123. Engl. edit.

Answer.

The Author of the Libell called Morall Di­vinity, using the same reproach against Father Bauny, taketh the question, which this Father proposeth, for h [...]s Decision, and that which he asketh for his Answer. This Jansenist (who hath choice of Methods) taketh away one part of the Answer, and l [...]aveth out the other: and to the end that he may better this Calumny, by a second Imposture he falsifies the Register of Chastelet in the case of John de Albe, assuring us, that his Judges did extereamly approve the coun­sell of Monsieur de Montrouge; yet nevertheless there was not any one followed it, as as is evi­dent by the Schedule of the Criminall Chamber, where their advice and judgement on the Suit is to be seen.

Now that I may take away the scandall this Calumniatour has cast, and justifie Father Bauny, whom he labours to defame by such odious and unjust deceits, I am constrained in this place to shew the conformity of his Doctrine with that, [Page 83] both of the Holy Fathers and most famous Ca­suists, that the whole world may judge, whether it be such as he hath most falsely painted it, that is to say, unlawfull, pernicious, and contrary to all Laws, Naturall, Divine, and Humane, such as is able to confound all families, and autho­rize all domestique frauds and infidelities. Let­ter 6. pag. 125.

'Tis certain enough there are but too many wicked Servants, who without cause complain of their wages, and who by a self-conceitednesse imagining their Services not sufficiently reward­ed, may easily deceive a Confessour, if he trust to their imagination. And therefore Cardinall Lugo, one of the latest Jesuit-Authors, who has writ concerning that matter, but one of the first for Dignity and Knowledge, wisely observes, a That men should be very backward in giving ear to such kinde of complaints. For they may (sayes he) finde other Masters, who will give them more wages: therefore why do they not seek out such? and wherefore do they not make it their businesse to finde them? If they cannot casily get such a Master their wages are not un­just, because ordinarily they cannot finde greater.

So also 'tis not to be denied, but that there are [Page 84] ill Masters, who misuse the labor and sweat of their poor servants, whether it be by not paying the wa­ges they promised, or by taking advantage of their extream necessities, to make them serve upon un­reasonable conditions, and not giving them what they know is due in Justice. If then it happen, that a servant in one of these two cases suffer some extream prejudice, through the hardnesse of some unmercifull Master, and can have no re­dresse, whether it be by not being able to follow his right by the course of Law, or because the Judges will not easily hearken to such complaints, though they be never so just, it being inconvenient to have their ears alwayes open, the Casuists ask, whether he sins in recompensing himself by his own means, and doing himself justice, when he cannot hope to have it from others. And they answer, No; supposing he take no more then what is truly due unto him. b Navarre is of this opinion in the third Book of his Counsels, where he treats this whole matter. Corduba c con­firms [Page 85] it. d Peter de Navarr proves it in his third Book of Restitution, as a consequence drawn from this Maxime, That a Creditour, who cannot get his debt, nor receive satisfaction for the dammage done him, sins not, if he take to himself, by an occult compensation, some of the goods of his Debtour, which he refuses to give him, although he be obliged to it: provided that he still observe the condition, which this Author brings, and which e St. Antonine had prescri­bed before him in the second part of his Summe; where he affirms, that a man cannot without sin take another mans goods by a secret compensati­on, when the Law is open: yet if a man can­not [Page 86] that way get what is due, for want of suffi­cient Testimony, or by reason of the oppression and power of him, who unjustly keeps it back, then there is no sin in taking it secretly; provi­ded it be done without scandall, according to St. Thomas in his 2. 2.

'Tis this way the Fathers justifie the Action of Jacob, who laid before the Sheep of his Father in law rods artificially peeled; the different colours of which passed by the imagination of the Mo­thers to the skins of the Lambs; because, f as Rupertus sayes, He was a stranger, and therefore could not bring to justice a powerfull man of the same countrey, and greater then himself: it was then necessary, that he should employ his cunning in favour of the Daughter against the Father, that she might enjoy some part of her Fathers goods, which belonged to her.

'Tis this way, that Tertullian excuses the Israe­lites, who took away the Spoils of the Egypti­ans, and by which he assures us, g That they were driven through instinct, not to fraud, but to a just compensation of their Salary, which they could not by any other means get out of the hands of their Masters: And that Tostatus [Page 87] teaches, that being unjustly oppressed, and having no other means, by which they could have justice, they might themselves of their own private Au­thority take the goods of the Egyptians, either openly or secretly, as much as belonged to them, and they had gained by their service.

In fine, 'tis this way St. Augustin refuting the Heretique Faustus, who accused the God of the Old Testament of injustice, in giving them this command, sayes, h That the Egyptians had unjustly, and by excessive labours oppressed these poor strangers, and by consequence that the Israe­lites merited to receive that order, and the Egy­ptians to suffer that chastisement.

It is not then Father Bauny who has establish­ed this great Maxime, to oblige servants not contented with their wages; nor could the Jan­senist have said it, but through either some grosse ignorance, or some affected malice, since that Fa­ther has onely received it from the mouthes of Saints, and Masters of the Ancient Divinity. Bauny notwithstanding, to suppresse yet more the liberty of Servants, addes in the same place these three clauses, which will make the treache­ry of his Accuser, (who has left them all out) appear more clear then the sun at noon.

[Page 88] We must (says he) i except three cases. The first is, when such Servants were taken out of meer pitty, and not out of any hope of receiving such service from them, as would tend to the pro­sit and commodity of their Masters. The second is, when they offered themselves without being sought, and that they were taken to service for their own solliciting and entreaty, rather then for any necessity one had of them. The third is, when others of the same condition would ac­cept of the same employment th [...]se servants have. For seeing the wages, which they receive from their Masters in that case, have a proportion with their pains, they ought to be content; and if to encrease them they take any thing belonging to their Master, they do commit a Theft in it.

Now what will the Reader say, after having heard the opinion of Bauny? Will he not admire the liberty the Jansenists take in disgui­sing the Doctrine of Authors? Will he not be surprized to see them cheat the publike with such unjust suppositions? And will he patiently suf­fer, that they should serve themselves with that cheat, to defame an opinion, (maintained by so many able Divines, who are not Jesuites, and supported by the Authority of the Fathers) as a Maxime that is unlawfull, pernicious, and con­trary to all Laws, Naturall, Divine, and Hu­mane, capable to confound all Families, and to authorize all domestick Frauds.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Will you never leave off cheating the world? Do you not see falshood cannot long lie hid? and that the confusion, which you think to cast on the forehead of Innocence, falls back on your own faces? But since the Winters-Tale of John D' Albe pleaseth your phansie so much, that you had rather lose your reputation, then a little laughter, I pray go to the Chastelet, and inform your selves better of the Judges advice.

The thirteenth Imposture. French 24.

THat the Jesuits have found out a means to justifie Murthers, and to permit all the violences men ordinarily commit in maintain­ing their honour, by the Method of directing the Intention; which consists in proposing to ones self, as the end of those Actions, some lawfull object: And that 'tis onely to turn a mans intention from the desire of vengeance, (which is Criminall) to a desire of defending ones own honour, which according to the Fa­thers is lawfull: Not but that as much as they can, they would detourn men from un­lawfull Actions; but when they cannot hinder [Page 90] a wicked Action, at least they would purifie the Intention. Thus they correct vice by means of the purity of the end. Letter 7.

Answer.

This Imposture smells of Geneva and Du Moulin. Read but the 60, 61, 62, 63. pages of the Anatomy of the Masse, and you will see how that Minister jests at the intention of Priests and Bishops, on the subject of our most adorable Mysteries. Run but over the Catalogue of his Traditions, you will see how he stretches this Method to Duels, Simonies, Murthers, and to all sorts of crimes, even the most detestable. For example, when page 329. he tells, it is a Tradi­tion of the Church, that the servant of a Whore may with a safe conscience carry an undecent message, does he not mean, (to speak like a Jan­senist) that 'tis onely directing h [...]r intention, from the Act which is ill, to the gain she makes of it, since, as he sayes, she has no other intent but to get a livelihood? And when page 312. he makes Catholique Doctou [...]s say, The Pope may lawfully take money for Indulgences, Absoluti­ons, and Dispensations, because he does not take it in a way of Selling them, but for the main­taining his greatnesse, Does not he shew clear­ly, that without such a diversion it were Simony? In fine, when page 327. he affirms, that 'tis the common Doctrine of the Church of Rome, That he is no Murtherer, who through Zeal to our Mother Holy Church should kill an ex­communicated [Page 91] person; that to save a mans ho­nour it is lawfull to kill another; that a Cava­lier ought rather to kill, then either to run away, or be cudgel'd, Does he not set forth that great Method of the Jansenistical Casuist on the account of Homicide in all its lustre?

You see now out of what Well the Jansenist has drawn this reproachfull Imposture against the Divines, upon whom must fall all the sc [...]ffs and lies, which Du Moulin can furnish them with: for they have no other arms, then what this Mi­nister puts in their hands.

It will not be amisse to overthrow these weak Arguments, now we have discovered the Origin.

'Tis a general received Maxime in the Moral, That the Intention renders the Action good, and the End directs the Intention. a St. Augustin has delivered this in his Comentaries on the Psalms, and all Divines have approved of it. From whence it comes, that in their Morall De­cisions, when the question is, whether an Action be good or bad, they teach, that the intention is a very considerable circumstance, b capable to corrupt even the best works, when it tends to an unlawfull object; and to justifie those, which in themselves being not essentially bad, may be in [Page 92] some cases permitted, if they be done for just causes. The Jansenists, who know not so much as what it is to have good and sincere intentions, laugh at this certain rule, and without any respect to the judgements of learned men, labour with all their tricks to disguise it, that they may de­ceive the ignorant.

If the Casuists say with Pope c Innocent the Third, All Laws, both Divine and Humane, per­mit resisting force with force; not with inten­tion to revenge, but to defend ones self, the Jan­senists will laugh at the sacred Canons, and say, they teach by that how to justifie revenge, and correct the vice of the Action by the purity of the end, in directing the intention.

If the Casuists teach with d Holy Scripture, That if a thief be taken, breaking the door of a house, or the wall, and a man kill him, he who did it, is no [...] guil [...]y of the blood he spilt. The Jan­senists laugh at that Law; and being wiser then Moyses, who received it from Heaven, maintain, that 'tis to open the gate to murther, to preserve a house by directin [...] [...] inten [...]on.

If the Casuist [...] say with Saint Thomas, [Page 93] e That 'tis lawfull to repell an injury, whe­ther it be to keep down the insolency of wicked people, or to preserve ones honour and reputation: and that the Son of God himself is not against it, even when he commands us to suffer them, and turn the other check to him, who had already struck one; because, according to St. Augustin, the precept which commands patience, does not alwayes oblige us to suffer the injurious assaults, which may be put on us, but mearly to be ready to endure them, when it is necessary. 2. 2. q. 72. Ar. 3. in corp. The Jansenists will fall a laugh­ing, and say, Thus do the Schoolmen accomplish all their duties towards God and man: for they content the world in permitting the Actions, and satisfie the Gospel in purifying the intention.

Now who does not see, that if it be lawful to play the Buffoon in questions of this nature, to handle matters of Divinity like a Stage-player, and to make such railleries, as are unworthy of any wise man, pass for solid reasons, not onely the Morall of the Casuists, but even that of Ho­ly [Page 94] Scripture, is exposed to the impudence of Li­bertines: neither has the Jansenist said any thing in this point against the Jesuites, which an Atheist might not have objected to the Prophets and Apostles.

Moyses prohibited usury to the Israelites with any of their own Nation, and tolerated it with Idolaters: Non faenerabis fratri tuo ad usuram, sed alieno, Deut. 23. The Jansenist will teach a Libertine to laugh at that toleration, saving, This wise Legisl [...]tour had choice of Methods to enrich his own people withall, and to justifie usu­ry, by directing the intention.

Judith de [...]ks out her self to surprize an ene­my. How innocent soever that Action was, a Li­bertine brought up in the School of Jansenisme, would say, She was a cunning woman, and has taught her Sex to sanctifie luxury and pleasure in purifying the intention.

David, drawing near his end, commanded his son to rid himself of Joab and Semei, for some just reasons, which Holy Scripture has not set down; a Libertine would smile and say, David was an excellent Politician, that knew how to reconcile the Maximes of Conscience with those of State, by directing the intention.

Samuel by the wonderfull judgement of God, appeared to Saul after his death; (according to the opinion of very many Fathers) a Libertine following the Morall of the Jansenists, will say, That Prophet certainly was very charitable, that would help even Witches to gain the wages of their detestable crimes.

I intreat the Reader to take notice, that the re­proaches, [Page 95] which this Calumniatour casts on the most eminent Authors, are much of the same nature with this I now handle; and to observe al­so, that a man may abuse this Maxime, (That the Intention maketh the work good or bad) as a man may also abuse the best Maximes in Morali­ty. But the Jansenist was obliged to prove, that the Authours, whom he censures, have effective­ly corrupted it, in perverting it to wicked ends, from which he is far enough off: since that in all the Letters, in which he pretends to condemn the Divines, there is not any one reason to be found, which he makes use of to shew their er­rours; nor any one Author, that he citeth to prove his own opinion. All the arguments of this learned Casuist are reduced to these two, Raillery and Falsenesse. I have already disco­vered many of them, which are as evident and clear as the light: and there are yet some behind, no lesse evident then these.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Pause a little, and bethink your selves; search the bottom of your souls: look whether your in­tentions be not corrupted, your designs base, and your thoughts black and infamous. If you aim at honour, what can you expect from posterity, but to be listed in the rank of Heretiques for your errours? and amongst Libertines for your sc [...]ffing at Sacred things? If envy be the motive, which perswades you to write against us, give us some mark of your Abilities: Reason, Dispute, Prove your opinions, Impugne our Doctrine, like [Page 96] learned men, with some powerfull Arguments and irreproachable Authorities: We shall take pleasure in a learned Antagonist. But while you give us nothing but the old patches of a ridi­culous and foolish Minister, we shall bewail your blindnesse, and give you nothing but disdain for your labours.

Do you not see, how easie it were for me to let all those prophane railleries fall upon your own heads, with as much justice on my side, as they have injustice on yours? May not I ask you with reason, whether Jansenius did direct well his intention, when his mouth spake so rashly of a the Power Tramoutain; (he meaneth of the Pope) of the ignorance of the Court of Rome in matters of Faith; and of the Addresse the same Court had in the handling the affairs of Machiavel? May I not ask, whether his intenti­on were good, when he b accused the Sovereign Pastour, for having placed St. Ignatius and St. Xaverius in the number of those Saints, which the Church worshipeth in her publique Ceremo­nies? And whether the intents of the Abbot of St. Cyran were just, when he told the Abbot of Prieres, c One might pardon the faults of the Jesuites, but the Body of them ought to be ruined, as domageable to the Church; That it is God himself, which destroyes the Church; That [Page 97] the time of its building up is already past; That Bishops, Ecclesiastiques, and Religious now a­dayes (commonly speaking) are destitute of the Spirit of Christianity, of the Spirit of Grace, and of the Church: That if the Religious of his Order were true Children of St. Bernard, they would addict themselves wholly to the ruine of School Divinity; That St. Thomas himself had spoiled true Divinity, through humane Rea­soning, and the principles of Aristotle. Pray say, with what Intention can you justifie these villanous Propositions.

The fourteenth Imposture. French 4.

The Reader will be pleased to take notice, that whereas in the French Authour of this Work, neither this Imposture, nor the Answer to it are so clearly set down, as to give a full understand­ing either of Lessius his Doctrine, or of what is objected against him by the Jansenist: I have therefore (to make all clear) set down the Accu­sation against Lessius at full, as it is in the seventh Letter; and in the Answer I have given you Lessius his Doctrine in his own words; that it may appear how grosly this learned Father is abused by the Impostor: it is no more, then what the French Authour intended, and in effect performed; although it happened, that by la­bouring to be short, he became somewhat obscure, The Imposture then runneth thus.

[Page 98] THe Jesuites favour Revenge, because Lessius libr. 2. de Justiti [...], cap. 9. dub. 12. num. 79. saith, He who hath had a Box on the Ear given him, may not have the Intention to re­venge himself, but he may be permitted that of avoiding infamy: and to that end may immediately put back the injury, and that with his sword, (etiam cum gladio) Letter 7. pag. 135. first edit. and in the pag. 143. He who hath received a Box o'th' Ear, may, abstracting from all thoughts of Revenge, right himself with his sword: and a little after, proceed so far as to kill him that hath given the Box. And pag. 145. he saith, that it is so generally main­tained, (That a man may kill another to prevent a Box on the Ear) That Lessius libr. 2. c. 9. dub. 12. num. 77. speaketh of it as a Tenent made absolutely Sterling by the unanimous consent of all, in these words, It is lawfull, according to the consent of all Casuists, (ex sententiâ omnium) to kill him, who would give a Box on the Ear, or a blow with a Stick, when a man cannot otherwise avoid it. Again pag. 147. he bringeth Lessius, speaking thus. To conclude this great Lessius, in the same place, [...]. 78. shews, that one may kill another for a simple gesture, or expression of con­tempt. There are, saith he, several wayes to de­rogate from, and take away a mans reputa­tion, wherein yet it is but just, a man should right himself, as by giving a man a bang with a stick, or a Box o'th' ear, or if a man should af­front us by words, or by Signs, (Sive per signa) And in the pag. 148. Lessius saith, in the place before cited, Heed must be taken, that the pra­ctice [Page 99] of this Maxime prove not prejudiciall to the State; for then it is not to be permitted; tunc enim non est permittendus. &c.

Answer.

Here Lessius is accused to savour Revenge by four Assertions. First, That one may kill him, who hath given a Box o'th' Ear. Secondly, That to prevent a Box o'th' Ear, he saith, all Ca­suists tea [...]h, you may kill him that would give it you. Thirdly, That one may kill another, not onely for a Box o'th' Ear, but also for reproach­full words, and even for a simple gesture, or sign of contempt. Fourthly and lastly, That though all this [...]e true in conscience, yet if it prove prejudiciall to the State, then it is not to be permitted.

Now to this Jansenists utter ignominy, let us see his Impostures. For the first then it is sta [...]k false, that Lessius saith, One may kill him who hath given you a Box o'th' Ear. I will set the whole passage down. His words th [...]n are these lib. 2. de Justit. cap. 9. dubit. 19. num. 79. If when you have given a Box o'th' Ear, you cease, or flye away, many Doctours think, that if the man, that hath received the Box o'th' Ear be noble and honourable, that then he may presently strike again, or pursue him that hath given the blow, and give him as many blows or wounds, as may be thought necessary to repair his honour. So saith Navarr. cap. 15. n. 4. Henriquez de Irre­gularitare, c. 10. where he citeth many for this Opinion; among the rest, Jason, Corduba, Man­tius, [Page 100] Penna, Clarus, Cajetan, and Antonine. The same saith Peter de Navarr. libr. 2. c. 3. num. 380. And he citeth for this Opinion Mer­catus. Victoria also holdeth the same Opinion. Relect. de jure Belli. num. 5. where he saith, That he that hath received a Box o'th' Ear, may presently return a blow, even with his Sword, not for to take revenge, but to avoid infamy, and ig­nomiay. All these he citeth word for word, as I have set them down: where by the way I desire the Reader to reflect, that of these twelve Au­thours, eleven were not of the Society, some were before the Society, and all are generally est [...]emed in the Schools.

After Lessius hath thus cited these Authours, h [...] b [...]ings in the five following Paragraphs, their reasons, by which he saith, Probari potest haec sententia, this Opinion may be proved; then immediately after, num. 80. he giveth his own Opinion thus, For these reasons this Opinion is speculatively probable, yet in practice it seemeth not easily to be allowed; first, for fear of hatred, revenge, and excesse. For if St. Augustin for these causes doth hardly allow one to kill another, for defence of his own life, how much lesse would he allow it in this case for defence of ones ho­nour? Secondly, for the danger of fighting and Murther; and he who should kill in such a case, would be punished in exteriour Judicature.

Now tell me what a grosse Imposture is this, to make Lessius Authour of that which he doth not teach? Nay, which he impugneth? What a cheat to attribute to him the words of Victoria, Etiam cum gladio? and to make the whole So­ciety [Page 101] culpable of favouring Revenge, because Lessius citeth the words of Victoria a Dommi­can, which this Fellow conceiteth to favour Re­venge? In fine, what a loud untruth is it to say, That Lessius teacheth in this place, that you may kill him that hath given you a Box o'th' Ear, when it is not so much as questioned in this place, whether you may kill him, but whether you may strike, or wound him! and when never an Au­thor, here cited, alloweth that you may kill him. Finally, when Lessius alloweth not the very st [...]i­king, or pursuing him, for fear of excesse, and killing him. Had not, thinkyou, all those men of honour in Paris, who saw this passage in Lessius, a great deal of reason to judge the authour of so unworthy an Imposture, to be a man of no c [...]edit, but a meer Calumniatour?

But you will say, Lessius saith it is speculative­ly probable, that one may return the blow; there­fore Lessius teacheth this opinion of these au­thors. I answer first, that though he did teach the opinion of these authors, yet he could not be challenged to teach, that one may kill in this ren­contre; for none of them, as here they are ci­ted, teacheth, That one may kill in this case. Secondly, I answer that he doth not teach even this Opinion. To make my answer clear, I must tell you a short passage. A man having his arm gangren'd, and being advised to cut it off to save his life, sent for four able Chy­rurgeons to give their opinion. The three first were of opinion, that the Patient must have his arm cut off and they gave many reasons for their opinion. The fourth spake thus to the Patient, [Page 102] The three, who have given their opinion for the cutting off your arm, have reasoned well, and I hold their opinion speculatively probable, but for my part I would not easily allow, that in pra­ctice you should cut off your arm. When this fourth man had given his opinion in these words, he gave divers reasons, why the arm should not be cut off. Now I ask you, whether this fourth man were of opinion, that the Patient should cut off his arm? Every one will answer, that certainly he was not: and I answer the same of Lessius. Certainly he teacheth not that one may strike or wound another for a Box o'th' Ear, much lesse that he may kill; but the quite con­trary, he alloweth not to strike or wound, for fear of killing, and for the other reasons he alledgeth. How then can any man dream, that he teacheth one may kill him?

Now as to the second Assertion, that Lessius is charged with, that to prevent a Box o'th' Ear, one may kill him that would give it you; and that in the place cited, n. 77. he teacheth this to be sure ex sententiâ omn [...]um, in the opinion of all, (which our English Translatour saith, is to make it absolutely sterling by the unanimous consent of all) to this I will not answer, that those words ex sententiâ omnium are not in Lessius in the place cited, and so consequently not sterling, but of base alloy, and false coin. Lessius indeed useth those words, or rather citeth Petrus Navarrus, who use [...]h them, in the following number, for another businesse. But in this number he nei­ther hath the words, nor the sense of the words. But I will not insist on this; 'tis too small a fal­sity [Page 103] to be taken notice of among so many notori­ous Impostures. To come then to the point. Lessius in the place cited teacheth, That a man of Honour may resist an Invasor, that would ei­ther cudgel or box him, and that he may kill him that setteth upon him, if he cannot otherwise de­fend himself from being bastinado'd or buffeted: and this he teacheth, after Sotus, Navarr, Sylvester, Ludovicus Lopez, Gomez, and Cla­rus, whereof none are Jesuites. Now that for which I complain of the Jansenist here, is first, That he would have it thought the Jesuites in­vented, or mainly spread this opinion, when in the place he citeth, his own eyes are witnesses, that it is the opinion of so many others before Lessius wrote. Secondly, I complain of his want of wit, that he would tax this opinion, which is a good one. For what? Would you have a Gen­tleman cudgell'd and kickt in the Ken [...]el, for fear that if he should keep off some insolent ribauld, he might at length be forced to draw his Sword, and perhaps whilest he defendeth himself, be for­ced to kill his injurious Invasour? For he must not kill him if can avoid it, saith Lessius. His words are, Fas est viro honorato occidere invaso­rem, qui fustem vel [...]olaphum nititur impinge­re, ut ignominiam inferat, si ali [...]èr haec ign [...]mi­nia vitari nequit. These are his words. What is here to be reprehended? It is not to be under­stood, that as soon as you see a man lift up his cudgel against you, you may presently pistol him. No, but if you cannot, neither with fair words, nor threats, nor thrusting him off, nor any other way keep your self from his cudgel, you are not [Page 104] bound to stand still, and let your self be cudgel'd, and perhaps kill'd too; but you may lawfully de­fend your self from him, that thus setteth upon you, though in the strife his death should follow your just defence. That this is the meaning of all the Divines, who teach this case, is evident; and as for Lessius, his words make his meaning clear: for he concludeth thus, Si alitèr haec ig­nominia vitari non potest: If this ignominy of being box'd or cudgell'd, cannot otherwise be avoided. This Doctrine I will give the Tran­slatour leave to call Sterling, but not in derision. And if he be a Gentleman, I assure my self, he will be sorry for having quarrelled with Lessius for this opinion; and be angry with those, who engaged him to employ a good pen in so ill a cause.

The third assertion, wherewith Lessius is taxed in this matter, is that he teacheth, That one may kill another for reproachfull words, and even for a simple gesture, or sign of contempt. The place quoted is in the same Book and Chapter, and the same Dubitation already cited, and num. 78. where Lessius indeed treateth this matter. But Lessi­us is notoriously wronged by the Jansenist; for he doth not teach what is imputed to him, but clean contrary. He beginneth that numb [...]us. It is to be noted, that ones honour m [...] di [...]ers wayes be set upon, in which [...] se [...]me [...]h granted, that one may defen [...] himself (He doth not say with what [...]) Firs [...], if you en [...]eavour to strike one with a Stick, or to give [...] Box o'th' Ear, of which I have already [...] [...]ondly, if you be con [...]umelious to one, [...] or [Page 105] signs, Here is also right for a defence. For Peter de Navarr. saith, libr. 2. c. 3. num. 376. That it is lawfull, ex sentontiâ omnium, in the opinion of all, to kill him that is contumelious to you. Thus doth Lessius state the question in the beginning of that number 78. Then he saith, That he find­eth not this (which Navarr saith) expressed in Authours, though it seemeth, that it may be ga­thered out of them. Then he goeth on, and according to his custome bringeth the reasons, which may be brought for this opinion of Na­varr, and the qualifications of it; and in fine, concludeth thus. This opinion is not to be fol­lowed. For it must be enough in a Common­wealth, to represse verball injuries with words, and to chastise them with a legal revenge, that is▪ that punishment which the Law alloweth. With what face then can this Jansenist make the world believe, that Lessius teacheth, a man may kill another for con [...]umelious words, or even for signs, when he decideth positively to the contrary? Lessius bringeth the reasons for Navar's opinion, and then decideth the question against them. So St. Thomas, when he proveth there is a God, first brings the reasons, that Atheists may alledge; then he disproveth those reasons, and decideth against Atheists. How grosse must (thi [...]k you) his ignorance be, that would judge out of this proceeding, that St. Thomas was an Atheist? just as gross is this Jansenists.

The fourth thing laid to Lessius his charge in this matter, is, that he saith, That heed must be ta­ken, that the practice of this Maxime (he would have it understood of Revenge in the cases al­ledged) [Page 106] prove not prejudiciall to the State; for then it is no [...] to be permitted, tunc enim non est permittendus &c. as though Lessius thought, that in all th [...]se cases there were no fear of sin, but that all the fear were, left the State should be in­teress [...]d.

I answer, That Lessius hath no such words, neither in the place cited, which is num. 78. (for to that we are referred in the seventh Letter, pag. 148) nor in any plac [...]hat belongeth to these questions. True it is, that in another matter he hath words, which are not altogether contrary to th [...]se, though very unl [...]ke these. So th [...]t here the Jansenist hath [...]he [...] of a double ch [...]at, both to have cited false, and to have p [...]rverted Lessi­us his words, and appli [...]d them to a contrary que­stion. I need say no more; yet for the Readers satisfaction, I will let him see the impudence of this Ignoramus.

Lessius then, after having treated the questi­ons hitherto touched in this answer to the pre­sent Imposture, goeth on, and in the number 81. putteth the case in these words; The fourth man­ner of wronging ones honour, is, if one should go about to defame you with your Pri [...]ce, Judge, or honourable Persons, by false accusations, and that you have no way left to defend your fame, but the death of him that thus wrongeth you. When he hath put the case, he bringeth the opini­on of Navarr, and Bannes, which he alloweth not of; and having set down the reasons, by which their opinion might be proved, he conclu­deth in the number 82. thus. This opinion also is not to be allowed in practice; because it would [Page 107] give occasion to many secret Murthers, to the great annoyment of the Commonwealth. For in the right of defence it is alwayes to be considered, that the use of it tend not to the ruine of the Commonwealth; for then it is not to be permit­ted. Besides, though this opinion were specula­tively true, (which he doth not allow) yet in practice it would scarce ever have place. For, &c. Here are some of the words, which the Jansenist maketh Lessius say. Lessius doth not say, Heed must be taken, that the practice of this Maxime prove not prejudiciall to the State; for then it is not to be permitted: but he saith, in the right of defence it is alwayes to be consider­ed, that the use of that right rend not to the ru­ine of the Commonwealth; which is a very good Maxime. For no private man can have right to defend himself by the publique ruine; and if that which seemeth my right, destroy the publique, then I have no right. For example, I have right to defend my house from being pluck'd down; yet if my house stand so advantageously for the ene­my, that by means of i [...] they may take the City, I have then no right to keep my house standing: and so in other cases. And this is that which Lessius saith. But whatsoever this Maxime be, to pervert the words, and apply them to a wrong matter, contrary to the Authors direct expressi­on, and plain meaning, is a most notorious [...]ourbe. Lessius therefore never taught, that one may [...] him, who hath used some sign of ignominy, nor him that hath used reproachfull language; no, nor he alloweth not so much as to strike, or wound him, that hath given you a bang with a [Page 108] stick, or a Box o'th' Ear: all this is falsly laid to his charge, and most falsly imputed to the Jesu­its upon his account.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

I entreat the Jansenists, and all those that ei­ther favour that Faction, or are mislead either by the Authority of those that wish ill to the Society, or by the protestations of sincerity made so so­lemnly in the Provinciall Letters, that they would be pleased, after having read this Imposture, and the Answer to it, to turn to the end of this Book, where I have inserted the whole passage of Lessi­us, which I would be glad, every one should read. That by this they may judge what credit this man deserveth; who after he had been challenged with these falsities, and told, that many men of ho­nour in Paris had seen Lessius, and discovered his cheat, notwithstanding in his Thirteenth Letter braves it out, and will needs maintain, that he hath cited right, and followed Lessius his minde, notwithstanding his many notorious forgeries. And in his Eleventh Letter maketh this Protesta­tion, I may say as in the presence of God, that there is nothing, that I detest more, then to do truth the least violence; and that I have ever been extreamly careful, not onely not to falsifie, (that were horrid) but even not to alter, or di­stract, in the least, the sense of any passage. So that if I durst presume, upon this occasion to make use of the words of St. Hilary, I might safely say with him, If we advance things that are untrue, let our discourses be reputed infamous.

[Page 109] How false this Protestation is, and how justly the infamy (which he wisheth) doth fall on his Writings, the Reader will plainly see, if exami­ning Lessius his words, he reflect first, That Lessius never useth those words, Etiam cum gla­dio, but onely citeth them in Victoria. Second­ly, That Lessius followeth in Practice, that is in effect and indeed, the contrary opinion to Victo­ria, though he allow (not to Victoria's particular expressions, but) to the twelve Authors cited, so much as to say, their reasons make their opinion speculatively probable. Thirdly, That Lessius doth not teach, that one may kill for contumeli­ous words, or signs of contempt, but the quite contrary, in the very place which the Jansenist alledgeth. Fourthly, That the Maxime, Heed must be taken, that the practice of this Maxime prove not prejudiciall to the State; for then it is not to be permitted, is notoriously altered and distracted (to use his own words) from the sense of the passage. The Jansenist citeth it out of num. 78. and Lessius hath not it there, but some­thing not quite unlike it in num. 82. The Jan­senist by the tenour of his discourse applieth it to the cases of killing for a Box o'th' Ear, or op­probious speeches, or signs of contempt; and to that end quoteth the number 78. that it may seem a caution, annexed to those opinions, treat­ed in that number. And Lessius hath no such thing there; but in the number 82. in the decisi­on of a question, which the Jansenist himself in his thirteenth Letter, acknowledgeth to be of a quite different nature. Nor will it avail the Jan­senist to endeavour to prove, that Lessius, hold­ing [Page 110] an opinion probable in speculation, holdeth also, that it is probable in practice, as he doth in his 13. Letter. For that were to prove that Lessius doth hold that probable in practice, which he evi­dently doth not hold probable in practice. That which the Jansenist ought to have done, was to shew, that he had cited Lessius right; which is matter of fact, and to be attested by Lessius his own words, (if there were any such) not by the Iansenists Chymerical consequences from specula­tive to practicall, nor from other authors opini­ons. This that I have done to clear Lessius, I might also do to vindicate the other authours, whom the Iansenist wrongeth as evidently, as Molina, Vasquez, Sanchez, Filiucius, and others; but that would be to make a great vo­lume: and I conceive the Reader will be satisfi­ed by this one example, that this Iansenists pro­testation of sincerity, and citations of authours are utterly false. Turn to the end of the Book, and read Lessius; where I have put all at large.

The fifteenth Imposture. French 11.

THat the Jesuits favour Duels, because Father Layman assures us, That if a Souldier in the Army, or a Cavalier at the Court, be so en­gaged, that he is likely to lose his honour, or for­tune, if he do not accept of the challenge, he cannot see, why that man should be condemned, who does so accept of it meerly to defend him­self. Letter 7.

Answer.

A Jansenist will alwayes be cheating, if we have not a great care of him. How many Im­postures are there in this one passage? which he has so falsified, that there is no part of it uncor­rupted. Does Layman teach, That he, who is challenged, may accept of the Duel, l [...]ft h [...] be accused of Cowardize? 'Tis an Imposture. a The common opinion, sayes he, is, that ordinarily it is not lawfull to accept of it, because no wise [Page 112] man will ever blame a man for observing the commandment of God, and for not exposing him­self without a just necessity to the danger of killing another: for in things of this nature we must not at all value the opinion of vain hair-branied people.

Does he teach, that if a Souldier in the Army, o [...] a Cavalier at the Court, finde himself so en­gaged, that he be in danger of losing his Honour or Fortune, if he do not accept the challenge, he s [...]es not how you can condemn him, for accept­ing of it to defend himself? It is an Imposture. He sayes onely, that Navarr is of that opinion. Does he approve that opinion in Navarr? Im­p [...]sture. He onely sayes, (that which Mensieur Du Val, a Doctour of the So [...]bon, Tract, de Charitat. has said since, for the esteem which he makes of Navarr) he dare not condemn it. b If it happen, sayes he, by any accident, which is most rare, (in casu rari [...]simo) that a Souldie [...] in the Army, or a Cavalier at Court, were certain to lose his office, his dignity, and the favour of his Prince, if he do not fight with him, by whom be has often been challenged, by that means giving subject to be thought a Coward, I dare not con­demn [Page 113] such a one, who following the Doctrine of Navarre, should have accepted the challenge in that rencontre, purely and simply to defend him­self. Where is the truth of this Jansenist Tran­slatour? Layman sayes, he dare not condemn him that follows Navarre, in accepting a chal­lenge; and the Jansenist makes him speak abso­lutely, that he does not see, how one can con­demn him for accepting it, as if 'twere Laymans, and not Navarrs opinion, whose name this Im­postor hath supprest. Layman sayes, I dare not condemn him, and the Jansenist makes him say, I do not see how one can condemn him Layman shews clearly, that he approves not of such a Du­el; yet the respect, which he bears to Navarre, who was no Jesuit, keeps him from daring to condemn it: The Jansenist, without naming Navarre, makes him give his vote to approve it, and that he sees not, how any can condemn him for it. Layman excusing Navarre, sayes, This case is most rare, and it scarce ever happens. The Jansenist (who never lies, as he sayes himself) cuts off these words, to perswade, that he speaks of ordinary Duels; and to crown this Imposture with a deceit, as great as his falsenesse, he tran­slates these words qui merae defensionis gratia paruerit juxta doctrinam Navarri, he who ac­cepts the Duell to defend himself, on purpose smothering not onely the name of Navarre, (which would have shewed it was not Layman's opinion) but also the force of the words merae defensionis; which would have manifested, such a rencontre, in the opinion of Navarre, is not so truly a Duel, as a meer defence, which the [Page 114] light of Nature teaches a man.

You see now the Jansenists manner of reform­ing the Morall; you see the holy Doctrine of Port-Royal, which holds it lawful to lie, when it is to establish the Truth; to accuse falsly, when it is to kindle Christian Charity; to corrupt the words and sense of Authors, when one would find unjust and extravagant Decisions; to correct and most impiously to jest at Sacred things, there­by to restore the severity of Evangelical Maximes to its ancient vigour.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

Does not the hand of this Writer, who pre­tends such horrour of spilling blood, fear to re­nue those Heresies, which most inhumanely have drawn it out of all the veins in France? Does it not fear the borrowing of the Morall of Here­tiques, which has been so fatall to this King­dom? Is it not at all afraid of being reproach­ed with the Politique of Holden, approved by two Jansenists, though wisely supprest by one of the greatest persons of our age?

The sixteenth Imposture. French 13.

THat Father Molina the Jesuit assureth us, 'Tis lawfull to kill a man for six or seven Duckats, though he, who hath taken them, flie for it. It is in the fourth Tome, Tract. 3. Disp. 1 [...], n. 6. Letter 7. pag. 151. Engl. Edit.

Answer.

It would make the Reader laugh, if I should but onely confer the words of Molina with the Translation of the Jansenist; but with a laughter of indignation against the Impostor.

The question is concerning a thief, who run­neth away af [...]er having committed a theft; and it is asked, whether it be lawful to run a [...]ter him, and kill him, if one cannot otherwise stop him, or get back what he took? What doth Father Molina answer in the place alledged by this Ca­lumniatour? If the thing a (saith he) be of [Page 116] no great value, for example, if it be worth one­ly three, four, or five Duckats, Souts is of opini­on, (and other Authours agree with him in it) that it is not lawfull to kill him that runneth away: But if it be something of great value, and there be little probability of getting it again afterwards, Sotus assureth us, 'tis in such a case lawfull to kill him: And I dare not condemn that opinion; provided, that one fore­warn him that runs away, that unlesse he leave that which he took, they will kill him. Yet al­wayes it is to be counselled not to kill our neigh­bour in such a rencontre.

How does the Jansenist translate this passage? For six or seven Duckats 'tis lawfull to kill a man, although he that took them flie for it. You will ask me, if it be possible that he should have translated it in that manner? Believe onely your own eyes. Read the very place I have cited. What? Is it lawfull to cheat the world in this fa­shion, and to jest with so much freedom with the honour of Religious persons? The Iansenists have no scruple of conscience in it, out of a be­lief, with which they slatter themselves, that very few Readers will take so much pains, as to ex­amine those Texts, which with a formall intenti­on they falsifie to abuse the credulity of the Sim­ple. But I proceed to alledge the falsifications of this wicked Secretary.

The seventeenth Imposture. French 14.

MOlina in the same place says, That he durst not charge that man with any sin, who kills another, who had taken from him a thing of the value of a Crown, or lesse; unius aurei, vel minoris adhuc valoris. Letter 7. pag. 151. Engl. Edit.

Answer.

This faithlesse Translatour leaves nothing perfect in the Text, which he cites; for he has cut off the essentiall terms; the suppression of which changes the case, that Molina proposes, and has corrupted the whole thoughts of that Authour.

That I may discover this Imposture a I must remember him, that all Laws permit us to resist violence with violence, as Innocent the Third tells us, not with intention to revenge our selves, but with that of defending our selves. 'Tis by this the Scripture b clears him from offending, who kills a Thief, when he is catcht breaking through the walls or door of a House. 'Tis by this the Law permits us to kill an armed [Page 118] Robber in the day time. c In fine, 'tis by this the Canons tell us, one is not to be judged criminall, for the resisting a violence when one is assaulted; and that Pope Stephen declares, That he who kills another in defending himself, is not for that Irregular. d

Now according to this so common rule, hear a little what Molina will say of it. If any one would unjustly usurp something of the value of a Crown, or lesse, notwithstanding the resi­stance of the possessour, or Guardian, I durst not condemne of sin, no nor to any punishment, him, who in defending it should have killed that un­just Assaultant; provided that he keep the mode­ration of a just defence. Be pleased to minde that last clause, Provided, that he keep the mode­ration of a just defence, which is essentiail to the proposition of Molina; because it presupposes, that he who is kill'd, is the Assaulter, and an un­just Assaulter; and that he who kills him, cannot any other way resist the violence which he off [...]rs, nor the danger, which threatens his person in de­fending his goods. Those are the conditions of a just and innocent D [...]fence, which all Casuists have established, and which fully justifies the Doctrine of this Authour. To give a familiar example, a Rabbet is but an inconsiderable thing compared to the life of a man. And yet if an [Page 119] insolent fellow, coming into a Warren to steal a Rabbet, should force the Warrener, and should set upon him with Arms, if he should endeavour to hinder that Theft, would you condemn this man, if he should kill that unjust Assaulter, being not able any other way to resist his strength, nor to avoid the danger in which he is, of perishing in that Rencontre? Would you have him run away as soon as he sees a man coming to him with arms, and abandon that which he is bound to preserve? Or else, that putting himself in a posture of defence to hinder him, he should let himself be killed, rather then to commit man­slaughter to save his own life? If that be so, there is no need of Keepers, neither in Forrests, Vineyards, nor Warrens; and 'tis in vain to give them wages, since they are not permitted to resist one that comes against them by force.

You see now Molina's opinion, which he had sufficiently explained in the fourteenth number of the same Dispute, saying, e That he who defends his goods, defends at the same time his own person, which ordinarily he exposes to dan­ger; and that 'tis in this sense we must under­stand the words of the Canon, he alledges, If without any intention or motion of hatred, in [Page 120] defending your person and goods, you kill those members of the Devil, &c. you see the reason, why he makes use of the words of the Law, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae, to explain himself yet more, and to shew he speaks not here of all kinde of Cases, but onely of those, in which a man keeps the moderation of a just defence; that is to say, where a man is in a necessity either of perishing, or of killing him that unjustly sets upon him.

But now what has the Jansenist done, who foresaw well enough, that if he should faithfully relate these words, he would finde no place to pour out his Impostures? He has maliciously supprest these terms, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae, which are, as it were, the soul of Molina's Proposition, and which make out his true sense; and without speaking a word, either of the unjust violence of the Assaulter, or of the necessity, in which the Defendant is, either of perishing or killing, he makes him speak peremptorily, that he dare not condemn a man of any sin, who kills another, that would take from him any thing of the value of a Crown, or lesse.

Judge by this of the sincerity of this Calum­niatour; and do not expect more faithfulness in any reproach he shall hereafter cast on the Jesu­ites, then you have already found in these Im­postures, which we have hitherto discovered. In­deed I do not wonder, that Monsieur Drelin­court Minister at Charenton, in his False Pastour newly printed, glorieth in defending this Cheat­er, filling his Additions with Calumnies, which he has taken out of the Letters of this wicked [Page 121] Secretary. For he could no [...] finde a more faith­full Disciple of Monsieur Du Moulin, nor one more ready to invent and spread abroad any un­truths.

The eighteenth, ninteenth, twentieth, and one twentieth Impostures. French 15, 16, 17, 18.

THat when the Jesuites assure us; It is not lawful to kill a man for opprobrious words onely, it is not because the Law of God forbids it; they go not upon that ground, they finde it lawfull in point of conscience, and in consider­ing onely the Truth it self: why then do they forbid it? 'tis because a Countrey would in a small time be depopulated, if all detractours were killed. Take it from Father Regi­naldus, libr. 21. num. 63. pag. 260. Though this opinion, that one man may kill another for ill language, want not its probability in the Theory, yet is the contrary to be followed in the practique: For a man ought, in the manner of his defence, to consider the prejudice may happen to the State. Now it is evident, that by kil­ling people after this rate, there would be too ma­ny Murthers committed. Lessius sayes as much in the place before cited. Heed must be taken, That the Practice of this Maxime proves not prejudiciall to the State; for then it is not to be permitted. Tunc enim non est [Page 122] permittendus. Filiucius addes to the former rea­son another of no small weight, Tract. 29. num. 51. That a man would be punished by the hand of Justice, for killing people on that account. Letter 7. pag. 148, 149.

Answer.

One would think, this man had set himself to cheat the world by lying, without any fear of punishment. For in this one reproach he has at once committed four of the most infamous Impostures possible to be imagined. The first, which is the most universall, concerns all Au­thours that are Jesuites, who maintain that with a safe Conscience a man cannot kill a Calumni­atour. For this Iansenist imputes to them, a That according to their opinion, It is lawfull to kill for opprobrious words onely; and that if they do condemn it, it is not because the Law of God forbids it, for they go not on that ground; but 'tis a Politique, and not a Religious Prohibition.

To this it is sufficient to confute him (without bringing many Authours, who would give him the he) if I but tell him, that Vasquez and Sua­rez are Jesuits, and that both of them teach it unlawfull to kill a Calumniatour. Let him hear how they speak, and if he have any Grace left, doubtlesse he will blush for having so rashly [Page 123] aspers'd them. b It is not lawfull, saith Vas­quez, to kill a man, whom I certainly know will depose a falsity before the Judge, because one can­not properly call him an Assaulter. For al­though he offend against the Law, yet he does not offend against the order of the Law. Now to be an Assaulter it is necessary, that the injury he does me, be both against Law, and against the order of Law: By consequence he that should kill a man in that case, would sin against Ju­stice, and against Charity: and should be ob­liged to Restitution.

Calumny is not (saith Suarez) to be c resisted by force, but by manifesting the truth. If it be im­possible [Page 124] to be proved, it is yet no wayes lawfull to use means which are against order, and so not truly means. But we must patiently suffer death, as an innocent person convicted by false witnesse.

I ask now the Reader, whether after this he can patiently endure to hear it imputed to the Je­suites, That they hold it lawful, to kill for op­probrious words onely; and that if they do for­bid it, the prohibition is onely politicall, and not conscientious.

The second Imposture concerns Father Regi­naldus, whose Text he hath clipt, and insists one­ly on one part, and even that he hath also most malsciously corrupted. For he mak [...]s him say, A man ought in the manner of his defence to consider the projudice may happen to the State, whereas that Authour sayes, d The negative opinion is to be held in practice, because in the right every one has to defend himself, care is to he had, that the use thereof tend not to the ru­ine of the State. Now why does he change the word right, if it be not, because it would have [Page 125] clearly shown, the opinion of Reginaldus is, That although a particular person should have right to make use of that kind of defence, consi­dering it simply and in it self, yet neverth [...]lesse it is unlawfull and criminall, even by Gods Law, because of the murthers and disorders, which it would cause in the State.

In which I cannot but wonder at the blindnesse of our Calumniator, who knows well enough, that according to Reginaldus, this manner of de­fending ones self, tends to the ruine of the State; neverthelesse he affirms, That he does not forbid it, because it is contrary to the Law of God; as if it were lawfull by the Laws of God to con­found the State; as if God, who prohibites the violating of a particular mans right, did not prohibit the ruine of the common right; as if it were a more criminall action to permit murther, because in permitting it, one exposes onely one mans life, then because one exposes a million of mens lives at once; and in fine, as if there were any stronger reason to prove this violent way of defending ones self to be against the Law of God, then because it would introduce murthers and disorders in States.

The third Imposture sets upon Lessius, and makes him say simply, We ought to have a care, the using this Maxime prove not prejudiciall to the State. Will this ch [...]at, who is grown gray in his malice, never deal honestly? Why does he not sincerely cite the words of this Authour? Why does he not say, That Lessius condemns the using of this Maxime, because of the inconveni­ences may arrive? Does he not know, that the [Page 126] circumstances and dangerous consequences of an Action are sufficient to render it criminall before God, when in its own object it were not really so? What consequences can one imagine more dangerous, and more capable to corrupt an acti­on, and render it mortall, then those which Lessi­us brings to reject the practice of this, that is, the infinity of unjust murthers, which it would cause in the State?

This opinion (sayes he) ought not to be permit­ted in the practique, for the inconveniences which may follow. Men would easily perswade them­selves, that they were accused out of Calumny, and that they have no way to clear themselves, but by the death of the Calumniatour: And so many unjust murthers would be committed in a State. Will you acknowledge the true Doctrine of this Father, which you have supprest? and are you not sufficiently convinced of that falsenesse by these so manifest proofs?

The fourth Imposture concerns Filiucius, who is reprehended by this Writer, for maintaining that Doctrine of the Jesuites, which forbids kil­ling, not for opprobrious words onely, but even for the most hainous Calumnies, and most un­just Accusations. He alledges for a reason, That one may be punished by the hand of Justice, for killing people upon that account. I would gladly know, what [...]ffence that Father had com­mitted, if he should have made use of that rea­son. Does the Jansen [...]st believe, Judges never punish Murtherers, but on Politique acc [...]unts, and not upon Maximes of Conscience and Religion? [...]s not the Law of God thought on at the Bar? [Page 127] Have not the [...]udges of life and death the Com­mandments of God before their eyes? Is the R [...]ligion of their Court so suspicious, that he judges the Iesuites to be criminall, for having grounded their opinion on the legall Sentences? Let me entreat him once more to tell me, why he has added this Raillery to the former, I told you, Father, that all you can do, will amount to nothing, if you have not the Judges on your side? Does he think these Fathers hold it disho­nourable to regulate their conduct by the justice of Laws, and the sentences of the Court? But that which is yet more ridiculous in this passage is, that in the place he cites, Filiucius indeed speaks of the penalties, which the Iudges order against Murthers, but sayes nothing of Murthers, which are committed for Calumnies. 'Tis in the following Number that he treats of it; and where he brings two reasons, wholly different from those, which this Iansenist attributes to him. I put them in the margin, that all the world may see, how God confounds Calumniatours, and how he suffers them, whilest they atta [...]que the re­putation of others, so to blinde themselves, that they become a reproach and laughing-stock to the whole world.

We must hold, says c Filiucius, the contrary opi­nion [Page 128] in the Practique; because if the Calumnia­tour have already taken away your reputation, you cannot restore it by taking away his life. if he have not yet done it, there are commonly many other wayes to preserve it. And besides all this, 'twould open a gap to Murthers, and greater evils would happen by it in the State.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

I cannot tell, why you should be so offended with the Iudges; or what reason you finde to dislike the Iesuites sticking to their sentences in the Decision of the Morals. For indeed they have hitherto been very indulgent towards you, and with a great deal of patience suffer'd your disorders. What ever it be, you must take away the scandall, which you have given to the pub­lique, in saying falsly, That the Iesuites finde it lawfull in conscience to kill a man for oppro­brious words onely, and that they forbid it meer­ly for politique respects, and to have the Iudges on their side. Whereas I do assure all Catho­liques, there is not any one Divine, whether Ie­suit or other, that will suffer one to kill another for simple Calumnies. 'Tis true, some famous Authours who are no Iesuites, have thought it lawfull to kill a Calumniatou [...], when he se [...]s up­on both honour and l [...], with such powerful and unjust inventions, that there is no way of esca­ping but by his death. 'Tis the opinion of Ban­nes, of Maior, of Peter de Navarr, of Mon­sieur Du Val, that ornament of the Sorbon, and of Cardinall Richelieu, as you may perceive by [Page 129] Father Caussins Answer to the Morall Divinity, and by another Answer of a Divine of the Soci­ety. But this is so extraordinary a case, that it scarce ever happens. Notwithstanding the most knowing Authours that are amongst the Jesuits, as Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, Reginaldus, Fili­ucius, &c. do unanimously oppose this Doctrine, because of the dangerous consequences which it would draw after it: and if in opposing it they use a modesty, 'tis because that opinion has not yet been condemned by the Pope, nor by the Church, (who have power to do it:) and that although they do not approve the opinion of these famous Doctors, yet they know the respect, which they owe to their persons.

For your part, who unjustly condemn this pro­ceeding, and who would render them criminall, because they are not so heady, as those of your party, nor so insolent, as to attribute to them­selves the Authority of the Pope and of the Church, you ought rather to study to correct the wicked Doctrine of the Abbot of St. Cyran, who was so bold as to dare to teach, a man may kill his neighbour, when the inward Spirit mo­veth him to it, although the outward Law forbid it. When you please, you may see both the proof and the practice, in the second page of the Infor­mation that was given against him by the com­mand of the late King, in the Year 1638. The Original is in the Colledge of Clermont.

The two and twentieth Imposture. French 3.

THat the Jesuits encourage Banquerupts, be­cause Lessius affirmeth, A man that turns Banquerupt may, with a safe conscience, retain as much of his own goods, as is requisite to main­tain his Family in an honourable manner, (nè in­decorè vivat) notwithstanding that it was gotten unjustly, and by manifest crimes. Letter 8. pag. 168.

Answer.

This Disciple of the Calvinists learnt this re­proach in the Traditions of his Master, page 334. a onely changing the name of Navarr into Lessius. But he hath put on it such a vizard, and so many Impostures, that it is evident he hath now no credit to lose, but by a publique disclaim hath renounced all title to honour. I will here shew you Lessius his Doctrine, most excellent and worthy to be considered, especially in this corru­pted age.

[Page 131] This Father in his second Book de Justit. & Jure, cap. 16. disp. 1. first teaches, That a man reduced to extream necessity, and not being able to pay his Creditours without loosing both his own and his childrens lives, is not obliged to pay; alwayes presupposing, that he cannot by any other lawfull means support them. Secondly, That he that is brought low in his estate, if he be in any great necessity, and near an extreamity, is not obliged to pay his debts, till better fortune come. b In the third place, That he who hath ruined his fortune by vaste expences, by play, and by debauchery, ought not to excuse himself from satisfying his Creditours under pretext, that he cannot do it without falling from his condition; because 'tis his own fault, and by consequence he deserves not any forbearance: which is to be marked, c (sayes that Father) because there are many Gallants, who desiring to appear above their condition, cont [...]act vaste debts without number. Fourthly, That those who have enricht themselves by unjust means, and [Page 132] raised their estate by usury and extortion, may not keep back their ill gotten goods, under co­lour, that they are necessary for them to live ho­nourably withall, according to their present con­dition.

But that they are obliged to return them with­out any delay, and to clear their debts, though it be with the losse of their fortune, and the Splen­dour of their Families; and more especially when their thefts are publiquely known: d which is greatly (sayes he) to be noted, because of these disordered times; in which we see many grow rich in an instant, making themselves great fortunes built up of crimes, deceits, and injustices. For such must not think they shall be acquitted for having restored on their Death-beds; they are bound in conscience to satisfie as speedily as may be, and to reduce themselves to that first condi­tion, in which they were before they raised their Families, and were mounted to those eminent offices by such hainous crimes. Pray do but compare this Fathers true Doctrine to that which is imputed to him▪ and tell me, with what face, but that of a Jansenist, one could have uttered such notorious falsities? Tell me, has Du Mou­lin himself ever falsified and corrupted the sense [Page 133] of Catholique Authors with more foul play then this? In fine tell me, is it possible to read these words stuft full of deceit and malice without just indignation, How now, Father, by what strange Charity will you have these goods rather rest in his hands, that has got them together by Rapine and Extortion, in order to his honourable subsi­stence, then that they should be scattered among his Creditours, to whom they of right belong, and whom by this means you reduce to Beggery? pag. 168.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

What a strange kinde of Charity is this of the Jansenists, that they can practise in secret, what they so much condemn in publique; applying the restitutions, which they cause to be made, not to the Creditours, whom they bring thereby into po­verty, but to the reproach of Religion, and scan­dall of true Believers! Know 'tis false, that Lessius and the Jesuites teach unjustly to deceive Creditours; but 'tis too well known to be the practice of the Jansenists; and that they could not subsist as they do, nor make such prodigall expences, if they were not helpt by those accursed practices.

The twenty third Imposture, French 5.

THat the Jesuits favour corruption of Judges, a because their principall Authours, as Molina, Reginaldus, Filiucius, Escobar, and Lessius, do all unanimously by a phantasticall Decision teach, That a Judge is obliged to re­turn what ever he hath received for doing ju­stice, unlesse it were given him as a liberality: but he is never bound to restore what he received from one, in whose favour he gave an unjust sen­tence. Letter 8. pag. 178.

Answer▪

This man attributeth to us that vice, which reigneth most in himself; and being very phan­tasticall, will believe all the world must be like him. Bu [...] all those Writers he mentions, do not unanimously teach that Doctrine, which he makes them speak; they rather unanimously convince him of false dealing, and of little understand­ing.

Of false dealing, forasmuch as he suppresses that, which Molina sayes, Tom. 1. Tract. 2. Disp. 88. Fol. 366. and 368. That a Judge sins by receiving a present, for three reasons. First▪ [Page 135] because 'tis forbidden by the Laws. Secondly, because they break their oath. And thirdly, be­cause they give scandall, and by that suffer them­selves more easily to be corrupted.

Of false dealing, in saving according to these Authours, A Judge is not bound to restore a pre­sent made him as a liberality; and yet Filiucius tells us, b Tract. 31. num. 211. If they receive more then what is regulated by the Law, then rightly do the Laws condemn them, and the Prince hath power to oblige them in conscience to Restitution.

Of false dealing, in saying according to the same Authors, A Judge is never bound to restore that which he hath received from one, in whose savour he gave an unjust sentence; whil [...]st Re­ginaldus in the very place which he cites, lib. 10. num. 185. sayes the qui [...]e contrary. For al­though he speaks not in particular of a Judge, (which shews the sincerity of this Calumniator) but onely in generall of th [...], who [...] mo­ney for any wicked Action; yet [...] he firmly layes down one generall Maxime, which discredits this Imposture: for he teaches, c That if the Laws in any particular case render [Page 136] him, who offends in receiving these kinde of pre­sents, uncapable of procuring the dominion or possession, he is bound to restitution.

Of false dealing, in confounding maliciously the Civill and Positive Law with the Law of Nature; by which equivocation he would make us believe, a Judge according to these Authours is not obl [...]ged to restore that, which he took for giving an unjust sentence: and yet notwithstand­ing Filiucius and Molina speak onely of the Law of Nature; affirming, That if there were no Positive Law forbidding them to receive gifts, (S [...]lus [...] lege Positivá id prohibente) as Fili­ucius tells us, Tract. 31. num. 218. The Law of Na [...]ure would not binde them to Resti [...]ution.

Of false dealing, in not distinguishing the persons, to whom one ought to make Restituti­on; to perswade us by this cheat, that these Au­thours do no way oblige a Judge, corrupted by gifts, to return the money he received, because they say, he is not obliged to restore it to him that gave it; smoothering what they adde, that the Law may confiscate it; and that the Confessour in right ought to oblige his Penitent to give it to the poor, or to him, in whose prejudice he recei­ved it, if he have made him wrongfully lose his Suit.

Of false dealing, in dissembling that, which he ought to have spoken plain; which is, That according to these Authors, the Judge, who pro­nounces an unjust sentence, is bound, both by Naturall and Positive Law, to repair the wrong, and prejudice which he suffers, who is unjustly opprest.

[Page 137] Now if he offend thus unworthily against sin­cerity, certainly he will not offend lesse against judgement. Is it not absurd, That a man, who pretends to reform the Morall, thinking to set upon the Jesuites, should headily run, and shake the Civill Laws, and call that a phantastical De­cision, which they set forth as an inviolable Max­ime, viz. d That one cannot justly demand back that, which one cannot give or receive ho­nestly: as for example, when one gives a Bribe to a Judge, to make him give an unjust Sentence? Is it not a ridiculous extravagancy to pretend to be knowing, and as confident as though he were a Bartolus, and yet not know the very elements of Law? e Solutum ob turpem causam non posse repeti. L. 8. That one may not demand back what was given on a wicked account; and that he, who received it, deserves to be degraded from his office with infamy, for suffering himself to be corrupted; and he who gave it, ought to re­ceive no profit, because he has corrupted the other. Let us break off here, and give some good counsel to this Calumniator.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

It is very well known, and from good hands, that the Iansenists have laboured to corrupt with money very able Religious Doctours of the Sor­bon, to teach their errours publiquely in the Schools. Those Religious had a horrour of com­mitting so black a wickednesse: But suppose they had taken the bag offer'd them in hand, and had given it to the poor, were they obliged to make Restitution? And if the Iansenist Doctours, who have received those infamous Salaries, toucht at heart from God, should come to Confession, whether were it better, that the Confessour ob­liged them to restore their ill gotten goods to their Corruptours, or to give them to the Poor, who at first had the best right to them?

The twenty fourth Imposture. French 6.

THat the Iesuites instruct a Adulterers, Murtherers, Soothsayers, and Sorcerers, how they may become learned and expert in their Art, because their Authors teach, That 'tis law­full to keep what ever is gotten by such crimes, and that 'tis astonishment to see the works of Re­ligious stuft with such horrible, such unjust, and such extravagant Decisions. Letter 8.

Answer.

This disguised Hugonot, who never read the Ancient Fathers, but with Calvin's eyes, does [Page 140] not read the Modern Casuists, but with those of the Minister Du Moulin.

Let us take off this Masque of counterfeit De­votion, which he shews so much in that reproach, stuft full of extravagancies and injustices. For if he pretend to be so surprized in finding those horrible, unjust, extravagannt Decisions in the writings of Religious, how will he be to finde them in the writings of the Saints themselves?

How will he be astonisht to read this in St. Thomas, b 2. 2. q. 62. Art. 5. ad 2. If one give money to a prostituted Woman to sin with her, she may keep it: but if she take from him more then she ought, or else have an intention to cheat him she is bound to restore it to him?

How will he be astonisht to read again in his c 2. 2. q. 32. Art. 7. If a woman prostitute her self, she commits an enormious act against the Law of God: But if she receives money, in that she [...]ffends neither against Justice, nor against the Law of God?

How will he be surprized to finde them in St. Antonine, (who takes the pains to particula­rize all these hainous crimes) 2 parte, Tit. 2. [Page 141] Cap. 5. d and who in all these cases of Ma­gick, Duels, Murthers, Impurities, &c. advises Confessours to exhort their Penitents to give in Alms those goods they have got by such detestable crimes: But yet not to oblige them in consci­ence to do it, because the acquisition was not un­just, though the means, by which they got it, be infamous?

How will he be surprized to have these opini­ons authorized by the Sentences of Iudges, and by the oracles of Law, who clearly decide it, That a Whore sins in prostituting her self, but yet does not sin in taking what is given her. L. 4. § Sed & quod Meretrix?

How will he be astonisht to sinde it in all Di­vines, e who took themselves obliged to in­struct Confessours, of the manner they ought to proceed in towards their Penitents, who but too often are concerned in some of these sins?

What infamy is it to this Impostor, to impute to the Jesuites, as a new and astonishing crime, the teaching of that, which is read in the works [Page 142] of so many excellent men; whose Holinesse, and whose Prudence is bow'd to by the whole world? And are these Decisions innocent in all other Authors, and unjust onely in the Jesuites? Are they legitimate, when pronounced by Kings and Emperous? and detestable, when they are found in the writings of Molina and Lessius? Are they full of wisdom, because they are in St. Thomas, St. Raymund, and St. Antonine? and yet extravagant, because the Jesuites learnt them out of these Doctours?

Let him know, these Decisions, which he attri­butes to the Jesuites, do originally belong to the Holy Doctours of the Church: but the injustice and extravagancy, which he findes, belongs to himself: and that he could not have learnt that rashnesse, but of some jearing wicked Parson, to say, that by such Decisions St. Thomas, and St. Antonine teach Murtherers and Sorcerers to be learned and experienced in their Art.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

It was an an act of wisdom in St Thomas and St. Antonine, to write these Decisions, which you call extravagant, in a language not common to the people: but 'tis a detestable malice in you to have published them in vulgar terms. Yet af­ter all you have said, the Jansenists onely can teach such revilers, as your self, to become cun­ning in their art; which they do not do by sim­ple Decisions, but by great stipends. If it be this infamous trade you live by, I do not oblige you to restore them that which they give; but [Page 143] you are bound to repair the scandall you have given the faithfull, and the honour you strive to force from the Jesuites, by these Impostures so full of injustice.

The twenty fifth Imposture. French 7.

THat the Jesuites have choice of Methods to palliate Usury: But that one of the best, in his opinion, is, the contract Mohatra; by which you may buy Stuffs, or the like, at a dear rate on Tick, to sell them instantly to the same person for ready money at a cheaper rate. Letter 8.

Answer.

We must pardon this Writer, if the word Mo­hatra seems new to him, and if he believe, that never any but Escobar used it. Letter 8. pag. 165. His ignorance must excuse him; 'tis not long since he was a maker of Romances, (as re­port goes:) therefore no wonder, if he wanted time and leasure to read such Books, as treat of Contracts and Usury.

Yet is he not to be excused, neither for corrup­ting what he does know, nor for censuring what he does not know. He findes fault with the Fa­ther Escobar, for having assigned certain expe­dients, by which this contract may be permitted; Letter 8. and in that is either extreamly igno­rant, [Page 144] or else very presuming. Ignorant, if he do not know, that in censuring that Author, he declares himself at the same time against Na­varr, one of the most famous Casuists of our time; against Sylvester, Master of the Sacred Palace; against Peter Navarr, an excellent Divine; against Bonacina, whose name is emi­nent in Schools; and against many others, whom it is not needfull to set down. Very presuming, if knowing it, he be yet so rash, as to reprehend and make them submit to his censure. Let him know, what Bonacina tells us in his Treaty of Contracts. Disp. 3. q. 2. p. 3. n. 20. pag. 725. where having proposed this difficulty, a Whe­ther a man can without Usury sell dear and on trust, and at the same time buy it again with rea­dy money at a cheaper rate? He resolves it thus. b I answer (sayes he) that considering the na­ture of the Contract, it is exempt from the spot of Usury; and it is the opinion of Navarr. [Page 145] cap. 23. num. 91. Of Petrus Navarrus, lib. 3. c. 2. n. 170. Of Rebellus, l. 9. q 7. n. 7. Of Salonius, 2. 2. q. 78. A. 2. contr. 7. Of Armil­la, verb. Usura. num. 19. Of Sylvester verb. Usu­ra, 2. q. 3. Of Reginaldus, l. 25. num. 296. The reason is, because they buy and sell again at a just price; so by consequence both the one and the other is lawfull, and without the least Usury.

After all this I could be content to suffer the presumption of this vain and ignorant head, if he did but faithfully alledge the Doctrine of those Authors, who seem to him worthy of reprehensi­on. But in earnest his Impostures and Lyings are unsupportable. For if he do seriously be­lieve the Doctrine of the Jesuites to be wholly corrupt, what should skare him from telling it in the proper terms? why should he mangle that which he relates? Does he think all eyes be­witcht, like those of the Jansenists? and that they see nothing, but what he has a minde to shew them, and never perceive what he hides by Leger-demain from them?

Pray, do but see in what manner he clips off some of Lessius his words, and confounds those of Escobar. Escobar, sayes he, sets down certain expedients to render it lawfull, even though he, who sells and buys again, looks on his profit as his principall design: provided onely, that when he sells, he exceed not the highest prices of Stuffs in that kinde; and that when he buys again, he fall not below the lowest, and that there be no agree­ment before hand, either in expresse terms, or otherwise. But Lessius de Justit. l. 9. c. 21. d. 16. [Page 146] sayes, That though there were such an agree­ment, a man is never obliged to make restitution of the prosit: unlesse it be by way of charity, in case he, of whom it is exacted, be in want; yet with this proviso, that he who received it, can restore it without inconvenience to himself. This is all that can be said of these Authors.

You cheat, Jugler; this is not all that can be [...]aid, nor all that you ought to say. For you ought to have said, That Escobar in the same place you ci [...]e, teaches according to Molina the Jesuit, c That this coutract is not lawfull, un­lesse the Merchant that sells the wares, be with­out any intention to buy them again at a cheap [...] ­rate: but Salas indeed sayes this is not necessary. Now tell me truly, what sincerity is there in your Translation?

You should have said, that according to Lessius, and in the very place by you alledged, or rather corrupted, d When a Merchant sells wares, on [Page 147] condition to buy them again at a lower price, he is likely to fin in the commerce. For first he may give a great wound to Charity; as for example, by constraining some poor miserable person to buy those stuffs or wares with great prejudice, he himself, in the mean time, not knowing what to do with them; whereas without any inconveni­ence he could lend him the money. Secondly, h [...] may sin by the scandall which he gives; because this commerce carries some s [...]ew of ill, and some suspiciou of Usury. In the third place, by draw­ing both on himself and his a publique in famy. All this with one bite you have torn o [...].

In [...]ine, you ought to have said, That if Lessi­us, condemning whosoever makes this Contract to be guilty of sin, do not oblige them by any precept of justice to make restitution, in this he onely follows the judgement of Navarre, whose name you have smoothered; and does it onely, that he may make the duty of this obligation to [...]ise from the precept of Charity, no wayes infe­riour to that of Justice, in case that he, who buyes, be in poverty, and that he, who [...]ells, canrestore it with out inconveniencing himself.

[Page 148] Is this your manner of abusing the patience of wise men? Is it onely to say three or four words of Italian or Spanish, (the Contract Mohatra, Ba­rata, Stocco) to prove all the Morall of the Je­suites Heathenish? Letter 5. Or can you be­lieve, a wise man will be satisfied with your insi­pid jestings, which can onely drum in weak heads, and cheat the heedlesse?

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

This Calumniating Jansenist may tell us, when he pleases, the other Methods, he sayes, we have to teach worldly people, how to enrich themselves without usury. But I assure him before-hand, we shall never approve that of the Jansenist Priest; who invented the last year a way to open the Chest in Churches, and made an assay on that in St. Medericks; nor that of that famous Di [...]ectour, who long since found the Art of steal­ing Cabinets, and of making himself rich in a moment, by the full summe of nine hundred thousand livers. This Method is far more com­modious then the Mohatra of the Spaniards, and the Stocco of the Italian. All the world can tell us there are none so dexterous as the Jansenists, when it concerns getting of money. But yet let them never hope, those unlawfull courses can eve [...] fall into the approbation of Casuists.

The twenty sixth Imposture. French 10.

THat Father Bauny, a Jesuit, teaches, That young Maids have a right to dispose of their Virginity without their parents consent, because he speaks thus in his Summary of Sins, pag. 148. When that is done with the Daughters consent, although the Father have cause enough to com­plain, it does not follow, that the said Daughter, or he, to whom she prostituted her self, have done him any wrong, or violated justice as to him. For the Daughter is in possession of her virgini­ty, as much as she is of her body, and may do what she will with it, except onely killing, or dismem­bring her self. Letter 9.

Answer.

Father Caussin, in his answer to the Moral Di­vinity, refuting this Imposture, reproaches the Authour of that Libell for his forgetfulnesse, in taking the Commandment, which regards Cha­stity, for the seventh, although the Catholiques count it but the sixth: yet had he but reflected, that 'tis in that rank the Calvinists place it, and the Minister Du Moulin, from whom he learned it, calleth it the seventh, in his Catalogue of Ro­mane Traditions, pag. 328. he would have seen his faithfull Schollar had but too good a memory to remember the Doctrine of his Master, though he wanted judgement to make use of it. 'Tis in the same place, I mean in the Traditions con­cerning [Page 150] the seventh Commandment, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, pag. 329. where this Lay-Casuist of Port-Royall found a mould for this Calumny. For amongst a great many Raille­ries, with which Du Moulin fills up that Chapter, he sayes, 'Tis a Tradition of the Church, That a Daughter, who shall commit Whoredom, after twenty five years, cannot for that be di [...]inherited nor dispossessed of her portion; and on that he cites those Orthodox Doctours, to laugh and jear at their opinion. The Jansenist, who adores any thing that does but come from Geneva, en­dearing the Calvinists, addes the reason of this Maxime, Because the Daughter, sayes he, is in possession of her Virginity, as much as she is of her body; and when she prostitutes her self, al­though her father have subject to complain, yet she does him no wrong, neither does she vio­late justice as to him, and thereupon he q [...]otes the Iesuits. The words which Du Moulin al­ledges, are of Navarr, lib. 4. Consil. de cond. appos. Consil. 2. Those words, which the Jan­senist b [...]ings, are of Bannes a in 2. 2. q. 62. dub. 7. Concl. 1. and have been inserted into the fifth Edition of Father Ba [...]ny: (for they are not [Page 151] to be found in the first) yet the interpretation, which both the Calvinist and Jansenist gives them, could not spring but from the invention of both those two Heretiques, who by an horrible wickednesse accuse these Divines for teaching, That a young Maid, who prostitutes her self, does not absolutely sin, because she is in possession of her body; whereas they onely say, That she does not sin against Justice, though she sins against Chastity, which is one part of Temperance.

Do but onely read that which Bannes tells us, in the place above cited; and that which Father Bauny teaches after him, and you will evidently discover the cheat of this Imposture, and ren­der it more visible then the sun at noon. After that Bannes had said, A Daughter, who prosti­tutes her self, violates Chastity, but is not there­fore obliged to make restitution to her Father; no nor he, who disflowred her: because, though she offends him sensibly enough, yet the virginity which she lost, is a personall good, belonging to her self, and not to her father, who has onely the care, not the possession. Bannes, I say, after he had advanced that Doctrine, addes, That when he said, She does no wrong to her Father, he speaks onely of what concerns b the violating [Page 152] her virginity, and the temporall prejudice which happens to him: but as to the infamy, which falls on the Father, he teaches, That he, who committed that villany, is bound to repair his Ho­nour, by what way soever some discreet person shall think most convenable. If he cheated her with promises of Marriage, or by frighting her, then he is bound to give a portion, and even to disinterest the Father, as well as the Daugh­ter.

Father Bauny, in the 148. page of his Summe, does exactly follow Bannes. For after he had said, If the sin of the Daughter be unknown, then he, to whom she abandoned [...]er self, is ex­empted from restoring upon that account; he asks this question following, If there lye no obliga­tion on him in regard to the Father, for repa­ration of that injury, which he received in the person of his Daughter? and answers, Not any: because, though he have sufficient cause to com­p [...]ain; yet as to him there is no injury done against justice. But at the same time he teach­es, If he did dec [...]ive her by promises of Marri­age, he ought to be bound to marry her: And if he do refuse it, pretending he had no intention to oblige himself, he ought not to be absolved, pag. 149. And if he had stoln her away without the consent of her Parents, although she her self did consent, he affirms, That both the one and the other are obliged to declare that circumstance to their Confessours, because (sayes he) in this there is an Act of injustice; seeing that none against their will (especially if it be just and prudent, as in this case is that of Fathers, Tu­tors [Page 153] and Guardians) can without injury be de­prived of that, which they have in charge, or belongs to them; as is a Daughter in regard of her Father, Tutor, or Guardian. 'Tis then an injustice in the said Daughter to suffer her self to be carried away, concludes Rosella, &c. Syl­vester, q. 6. concl. 2. of which she is as much ob­liged to accuse her self, as he that took her away. pag. 153.

By what is said, any judicious person may per­ceive, that Bauny does not take from a Father the power, which he has over his Daughter, but onely that he distinguishes between the right of the one, and the p [...]ss [...]ssion of the other; because the honour of the Daughter is a Jewel in the keeping of the Father, but not in his poss [...]ssion; the custody belonging to him, and the poss [...]ssion to her. From whence it follows, That he who steals away a Daughter with her own consent, violates the right of her Father, and sins against justice; if he do not steal her away, he sins onely against chastity, in taking that away, which she ought to have preserved above her life: But if she consent, if her sin be concealed, and her ho­nour covered, he does no way violate justice as to the Father, neither is he obliged to pay what he is damnified.

This is the Doctrine of Bauny, which is that likewise of Petrus de Navarre, lib. 2. de Resti­tut. c. 3. n. 419. Of Bannes in 2. 2. q. 62. dub. 7. concl. 1. Of Soto in 4. dist. 18. q. 2. A. 4. Of Grassius, l. 2. Decision. c. 70. n. 13. Of Megala, in 1. p. l. 5. c. 11. n. 10. op. 4. and of many other Casuists, who are not of our So­ciety.

[Page 154] You see now, what reason this Calumniatour has to say, the Jesuites propose the most extrava­gant and the most obscene questions that can fall into a mans imagination. Letter 9. pag. 205. and yet for all this, 'tis one of the most ordinary questions the Schools treat of, and scarce any Divine, who does not follow in this the opinion of St. Thomas in 2. 2. Now although their opinions are divided, and that some hold, That though the Daughter do prostitute her self, yet the justice is notwithstanding violated as to her Fathers regard; yet neverthelesse I have not heard of any, that would dare to say, That the contrary Opinion was not pro­bable.

By this you may see the ignorance of this Ca­lumniatour, who relates this question as extrava­gant, though indeed there be nothing more or­dinary in the Schools; and who condemns it as obscene, though there be no obscenity in it, but what his lascivious imagination mixeth to cor­rupt it.

An Advertisement to the Jansenist.

Since you will undertake to reform the Mo­rall, you should do well to read the Book of Ho­ly Virginity, an Originall of one of your most eminent persons; and there you will finde Pro­positions both extravagant and obscene. I will not publish them; not to save you from that con­fusion, which you have but too well merited; [Page 155] but because I will not offend the eyes of my Readers; and therefore content my self onely to give you a Memorandum, of what censure the Sorbon gave on the page 59. c of that detesta­ble Book.

The twenty seventh Imposture.

THat it is a Drollery, where the spirit of man insolently sports with the love of God, to dispute (as all Divines do) when a man is obli­ged to have an actuall affection for God, and de­clare their different opinions thereon. Letter 10. pag. 237.

Answer.

If this Fool had onely pretended to oppose a particular opinion, I would pardon his Foppery; and if he had wanted respect onely for one Di­vine, I could tollerate his insolency: But he is run to the very extreamity of folly, and hath chosen for his opposers the whole School of Di­vinty, striving to make that passe for a ridiculous [Page 156] amusement, and unworthy of a wise man, which in a Cajetans opinion is a question of the greatest importance, being concerning an indi­spensable rule of our Salvation, most seriously to be considered, and most difficult to be resolved; since the most learned Divines are divided in their Opinions. One telleth us, we are bound to look up to God by a certain moving of Love, as soon as we begin to have the use of reason; as St. Thomas. Another tells us, we must do it on every Holy Day; those dayes being therefore dedicated to the Worship and Service of God; as Soto. Another, that this Precept bindes to make an interiour act of Love, at the least once a year; as Monsi [...]ur Du Val. Another, as oft as we communicate; as Bannes: Another, as often as God inspireth the Thought into us; as St. Anto­ [...]in. To desire to terminate all these differences, were to aim at an impossibility: to chuse a good side is an act of wisdom; but indiscreetly to finde fault with, and to use the famous Doctours, as if they were Drolls, because they writ on this sub­ject, 'tis a want of judgement, and a drowning of ones self in the sight of all the wise men of the world, without being pittied by any.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

If you would learn to Droll, and to play inso­lently with the Love of God and your Neigh­bour, I would counsel you to read the first Let­ters of your Master, the Abbot of St. Cyran. 'Tis an Originall; 'tis an Antique; and I will shew you some excellent features of it, by which you may guess at the Genius of their Authour. He writes to Monsieur D' Andilly, and makes use (as he sayes himself) of the most pure part of Piety, of Religion, and of the love of God, to assure him of his affection.

Being desirous, b saith he, once for all, to tell you with some expression equal to the depth of my thoughts, in what manner I have dedicated my self to you, I have in that essay done contra­ry to those excellent Penitents, who finde a difficulty in beating down their imaginations; I not being able to elevate mine to that pitch my acknowledgements would carry them: which has been the cause, that in the strife between my heart and spirit. (whose conceptions never reach my inclinations) I chose rather to be si­lent a while, (expecting the turning and meet­ing of those purified spirits, which help to form [Page 158] high imaginations) then by endeavouring to say something, to say it with a diminution and prejudice to the Source of my passions. But finding time slip away, and my self obliged to give an account of the condition of that friend, (whom you have so often recommended to me, and who has nothing of Feminine in him, be­sides vertue) I have taken a pen; and as if I would have writ in spilling ink on the paper, I have writ at one dash all that which follows.—Sir, That you may be assured of me, I will tell you in such manner, as if I gave you my Pa­ [...]l: (and I wish it may render me guilty be­fore God, if ever I violate or transgresse it) that you shall always find my actions stronger; what do I say then my words? yea, then my conceptions. What do I say, then my concep­tions? yea, then my affections and internall movings. For all those have something in them of the body, and by consequence are not sufficient to give testimony of a thing that is spirituall. So that I would not have you judge me, but by what is more perfect, and which has no alloy of those things that are mixt with flesh, blood, sumes, and imperfections; because my love to you resteth in the center of my heart before it opens, and dilating and stretch­ing it self to you, produces certain spirits, con­ceptions, imaginations and passions, which are most excellent. I feel them as an aff [...]ctionate weight within me, and which I dare neither bring forth, nor disclose, for fear I expose a Saint-like holy fruit, (I had rather call it by that name, then any other) to my senses, to [Page 159] my imaginations, to my passions; which tar­nish immediately, and like clouds veil the best productions of the soul. Insomuch that to give my self to you in as much purity, as is imaginable, I will not do it either by imagina­tions, by conceptions, by passions, by affecti­ons, by letters, nor by words; all these being inferiour to that which I feel in my heart, and which is so far elevated above all other things, that granting to the Angels (in my Philoso­phy) the knowledge of that which is exteriour, and swims (to say so) above my heart, there is none but God can dive into the bottom and center. Even I my self, that offer you it, see scarce any thing that I can call by a name. I know nothing, but that vast unlimited, yet certain and unmoveable propension I have to love and honour you; the which I shall be carefull enough not to limit by any thing since I would perswade my self, that I am in the in­finity of a Radicall (I had almost said Sub­stantiall) Love, having respect to something Divine, and to God, in whom Love is Sub­stance. For I pretend, that my Love to you is infused into the substance of my heart, into the very Center and Quintessence of my soul: which being infinite, both in time, and in your vertue of acting, as he is, of whom the soul is an image, I may boldly say, I am capable to operate towards you with Love, as God does towards men. For I have alwayes more power to act and love efficaciously, then I could be thought to have by my actions. In this there is nothing incredible, if a man know, 'tis for [Page 160] love of your excellent vertues, that I make this so admirable vow. Can any one finde fault with me in offering you the Center of my Heart, you being, as you are, one self same thing with God? Can any complain, that I expresse the inclinations I have for you, in a language unknown to the greatest part of the world, which will laugh at it as strange and barbarous; because they know not, what it is to to love God and man after so high a man­ner?

It was very necessary, that the Abbot of St. Cyran should come into the world to teach us this unknown Language; and that he should have Disciples to perswade us, That this is the Lan­guage of the Ages of the Primitive Church, of Fathers and Councels, to kindle again that Sacred fire, which the negligence of Pastors, and the slack­nesse of Casuists, in these 500. last years had suffer­ed to go out; and to teach us, what it is to love God and men after so high a manner. What do you say to this Badinage, this prophane Foolery?

The twenty eighth Imposture. French 28.

THat the Jesuites violate the great Command­ment, on wich depend all the Law and the Prophets: That they affirm, the love of God is not necessary to Salvation. Letter 10. pag. 242. Engl. Edit.

Answer.

Who does this Calumniatour mean to oppose? Who does he talk of? Who does he so violently complain of? Certainly he never read Divines. 'Twere impossible he should publish so notorious an untruth, and so much against their honour, if he had read them.

But according to his custome, he hath without any ground yielded to the Ministers of Charenton, a who accuse Saint Thomas and Navarr for destroying the whole precept of the Love of God: Onely he is himself an abominable Falsi [...]ier, if he dare affirm, after having read Divines, That they teach, The Act of Charity is not necessary to Salvation. I will not alledge out of the infini­ty of Authors, who establish this necessity, any one who is not a Jesuit; because 'tis under [...]eir [Page 162] name he wounds the reputation of the others▪ They speak then thus.

Cardinall Lugo b The Precept of loving God is absolutely of the Law of Nature; nay, if there were no decree of God, all Divines notwithstanding do agree in this, That a man were bound to it.

Suarez c in the first place I say, This Precept bindes all men. It is evident by the Text in the sixth Chapter of Deuteronomy, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart. And by that in St Matthew, This is the first, and the greatest of all the Command­ments. Now the reason of this Conclusion is, That this love is a necessary means to Sal­vation; and all means of this nature fall under the Precept.

Valentia d When we ask, after what man­ner, [Page 163] and at what time the commandment of the love of God obliges us, we take it for granted, that there is one; that being evident both by Scripture and Reason. And a little further. In the first place, I say, we are obli­ged to love God by this precept, not with a common love, but as our last end, and by con­sequence with a love of sovereign esteem and preference before all things.

Molina. e I am verily perswaded, that we are obliged by the precept of Divine Charity, under pain of Mortall Sin, if there be any danger that the honour and glory of God and Christ Jesus should be hazzarded before men, [Page 164] to step in, and oppose our selves, and even with the perill of our lives to do all that we can hope may be any wayes serviceable.—A little further. This does not hinder, but that there is a particular commandment for the love of God, as a thing which is due unto him; and as a necessary means to enjoy God, and ob­tain life everlasting.

Becanus. f There are two precepts, which command the love of God. The first is General, and comprehended in the Decalogue, which obliges us to observe his Law. The se­cond Particular and Positive, which obliges us to make an act of Charity, whether it be in acertain motion of love to God, or in a de­testation of sin, because it offends God. Now from this last precept proceeds that particular obligation we have of being contrite.

Thomas Sanchez. g 'Tis certain there is [Page 165] a precept commanding us to love God. The reason of it is, because that act of loving God is necessary to salvation, according to St. John, He that loveth not, shall remain in death. Now all things which are necessary to salvation, are commanded us.

Layman. h This precept, which concerns the love of God, is called in St. Matth. 6. 22. The first, and the greatest of all the Command­ments, because it concerns the first act of the most excellent vertue, and that which is most necessary to salvation. For as St. Austin tells us, If we want Charity, all other things are worth nothing; and if we have that, it alone is sufficient.

Azorius. i In many places of Holy Scri­pture we may finde a command for Charity. First, in the sixth Chapter of Deut. after­wards [Page 166] in the 22. of Matth. in the 11. of Mark, and lastly. in the tenth of St. Luke. For in all these places it is said, Thou shalt love thy Lord thy God with all thy heart.

Tanner. k The Commandment of lo­ving God is ranked amongst those, which are known to the whole world.

Castro-Palao. l All Interpreters of St. Thomas agree with that Holy Doctour in this, that there is a particular precept obliging us to love God.

Maldonatus. m I answer, we presuppose as a certain Maxime, that we ought not to wish any thing, but good, to our selves, and that we do not love our selves otherwise then for the love of God; since that we are command­ed to love God with all our heart, with all our [Page 167] soul, and with all our strength. If we do thus, we cannot love our selves, but as we should. Therefore we are command to love our neigh­bour, as our selves.

Cardinall Bellarmin. n Holy Scripture does not onely tell us, That Charity is the gift of God, but it commands us also to love him. Now certainly it does not command us to love him by any infused habit, but with all our heart: for Laws command the Acts, not the Habits.

I should make a volume, if I would set down all the Authors of the Society, who teach, That there is a particular precept injoyning the love of God. I say, a Particular. As for the gene­rall precept comprehended in all the command­ments of God, never any Catholique doubted of it. And therefore in that the Iansenist shews alike both his ignorance and his m [...]lice, thus con­founding the different precepts of Divine Love, with a certain shuffling, mixing and winding them one into the other: whereas he should have distinguisht them; that he might shew us what it is he dislikes, and give us by that a Testimony of his ability.

He ought to have said, there is a negative [Page 168] Commandment, which alwayes hath a binding power over us, and which forbids the doing any thing, that may prejudice the Love of God, and cast us out of the State of Grace; and that there is not any one Authour found, which will oppose this. But also there is an affirmative precept, which according to Divines does not alwayes binde us, but onely a [...] some certain times; and that 'tis concerning this they dispute, and questi­on at what time it does oblige us.

He ought to have distinguished two affirmative Precepts; one of which is in the Law of Nature, the other in the Positive Law: and have obser­ved by the way, thereare some Authors, who are not Jesuites, that have believed, a man might ful­fill the precept of Charity meerly by naturall love, but in this they were opposed by the whole world.

He ought to have said, that there is one Posi­tive Precept, which is commonly called Generall, that bindes us to an observance of all Gods Com­mandments, and this is acknowledged by all faith­full Catholiques. And another particular, which bindes us to make certain formall Acts of the Love of God: which o Sancius (who is no Jesuit) seems to deny, citing (though not right) for confirmation of his opinion, St. Bernard, St. Augustin, Maldonatus, and p Vasquez. But [Page 169] Monsieur Du Val in his Treaty of Charity q refutes him, and hath very perfectly explained St. Bernards meaning. For the others 'tis no hard matter to justifie them; since Vasquez in the very same place he alledges, professes the quite con­trary opinion: and Maldonatus speaks onely concerning the Generall Precept; which he does not distingush from the ten Precepts of the De­calogue.

You see now what the Jansenist should have said, (had he dealt sincerely with us) instead of his declaiming with so much heat against the Ca­suists: which outrage he had never committed, had he but had more commerce with School-Di­vines, and lesse with Heretiques. For I defie him to shew even any one Jesuit, who teaches, That the Love of God is not necessary to Salvation. I do not onely speak of that effective Love, con­sisting in a perfect observance of all Gods Laws, but also of that affective Love, as St. Bernard calls it, which consists in the interiour act of su­pernaturall Divine Love. Neither indeed durst he set upon any particular person, unlesse it were Antony Sirmond, with whom he wrangles upon a conditionall proposition, which he takes in a wrong sense, and which yet does not destroy the great commandment; unlesse it be destroy­ing of it, to explain it after the same manner the Son of God himself explained it in the Gospel, when he assured us, That he loves him, who keeps his words. Which gave occasion to that famous Chancellour of the University of Paris [Page 170] to say, r That the Law which bindes us to love God with all our hearts, is conveniently accom­plisht by men, if their works execute his Com­mandments.

Thus s have eight Councels of France expli­cated the Precept of Charity; which explication hath been inserted into the Ritualls of Paris, Thoul, and Bourges, by the Authority of the Prela [...]s, to the end that it might be proposed to the people, as the most pro [...]itable to the edi [...]ica­tion of souls. And it is following them that Father Sirmond said, t That we are bound under a grievous penalty to love God with an incompa­rable love of an inestimable value, so great, that we never equall any thing with him, nor ever v [...]luntarily stagger between his service and the creatures, being u [...]certain to which of them to give our selves: much lesse, that we never pre­ [...]er any thing before him, or suffer our selves in any important occasion to run to any thing contra­ry to his will.

Is this ranversing the Gospel, and destroying the great commandment of the Law? Is this [...]ying, The Love of God is not necessary to Sal­vition, as the Jansenist saith he does? He is so [...] from that opinion, that he professes the con­t [...]ary, That the [...]ormal act of loving God is neces­ [...]r [...] by an absolute necessity, by an indispensable necessi [...]y, by a necessity at least su [...]passing that of Prec [...]pt, as all Divines acknowledge.

[Page 171] If a man, sayes he, were dying out of the state of Grace, unlesse Charity assisted him, it is in­deed then in effect necessary, and that necessitate medii, (by a necessity of means) which is more then the necessity of Precept. Whence it ap­pears, that when he disputes, whether or no we are obliged to produce interio [...]r acts of the love of God by the necessity of Precept, he speaketh on [...]ly of that Divine Law, which Divines call Positive, not of that which they call Naturall; because it is grounded on naturall Principles. And yet he does not deny even the precept of Po­sitive Law, but professes to explain the meaning of St. Thomas, which he thinks to be doubtfull and uncertain; affirming, That it is not evident this Holy D [...]ctour acknowledged this particular precept of the love of God; which he cannot say of the Naturall Precep [...], because a little be­fore he told us his opinion concerning the natu­rall Obligation every man hath to add [...] him­self towards God, so soon as he begins to have the use of reason, to the end he may [...] the first fruits of his heart to him.

But suppose he should absolutely deny the Po­sitive Precept, as long as he agrees with all Di­vines concerning the Naturall Law, why will you quarrel with him on a subtilty, which is ne­ver used but in School Disputes, and of which the vulgar people are no wayes capable? What prejudice can this Doctrine bring to Christians, as long as they still know, they are bound by an indispensable necessity to love God? What mat­ter is it to the faithfull, whether they be bound by a Positive Law, or a Naturall? By a necessity [Page 172] of means (necessitate medii) or a necessity of Pr [...]pt? Will all the Gospel be destroyed for this? Must we needs make such a noise for a di­stinction, which does not yet free us from the obligation of loving God; but which contrarily grounds this obligation on the essentiall princi­ples of all reasonable creatures? Yet if this Doctrine be to be condemned, why does not the Jansenist condemn it in its Source? Why does [...]e not set upon St. Bernard, who distinguishes thes [...] two sorts of Love; the one u effective, the other affective? And who assures us, the first is commanded us, but not the second. If there be a good sense to be given his words, as Mon­siour Du Vall in his Treaty of Charity shews th [...]r [...] is, why must that be holy in the works of St. Bernard, and criminall in the writings of Father Sirmond?

Yet if we do but reflect on the drift of the Book, which he clamours against with such passi­on and animosity, it will be no hard matter to finde, what it is which nettles this unjust Accu­ser. For the Authour of that work, in his first Treatise, aims at nothing, but the maintaining the merit and excellency of vows, which was vi­lisied [Page 173] by an injurious Comment on the Book of Holy Virginity, censured some years before in Sorbon. And in the second part, which is that we speak of, Father Sirmond impugneth an er­rour of certain absurd Heads, who under pre­tence of going to God onely by Love, cannot en­dure a man should help himself with Hope and Fear; as if it were unworthy of a Christian to exercise those vertues, they being full of self-love, imperfections, and sins. In which errour those men follow the spirit of Luther, who teacheth, That all Morall Vertues, and all the good works we do before we have Charity, are sins. A Proposition, which was x condemned in the Year 1521. on the fifteenth of April, as false, rash, capable of frighting sinners from the amendment of their lives, and in fine tasting somewhat of Heresie. (Falsa, temerariè asser­ta, peccatorum ab emendatione retractiva, & sa­piens haeresim.)

You see what it is, that displeases the Casuist of Port-Royall, in Father Antony Sirmond: but not daring to tel it, and on the other side engaging himself stoutly for the Interests of Calvin and Luther, whose opinions he a [...]mires; he pretends this Father cannot be a Champion for those ver­tues, unlesse he declare himself an enemy to Cha­rity; nor maintain the other commandments without violating that of the Love of God. Let us give him some good advice on this Subject.

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.

To satisfie you, I have shown you, what Love of God it is, which according to all Divines is necessary to salvation. Now to bring you out of those errours, into which you run, give me leave a little to teach you, what Love it is not: and this according to the judgement of able Per­sons.

It is not at all necessary to give ones whole heart to a creature, and to love it, as much as God himself. This is a little [...]oo much for a Directour of Consciences. When you over-looked the Christian and Spirituall Letters of the Abbot of St. Cyran, you ought for the ho­nour of your Sect, to have reformed that Com­plement you make him write to a certain Nun. y I am now, more then ever, assured of your great love to God; and 'tis that which redou­bles mine to you, rendring me as much yours, as I am his; who never shares any thing, but gives all he loves, as I give all my whole heart to you. Letter 49. You will confesse, these words might have been left out; and that they are not very ne­cessary to Salv [...]tion.

[Page 175] It is not at all necessary, in being Christianly charitable, to be more transported then those, who fall into rage, into drunkennesse, and into a passion of sensuall love. Those are the ex­pressions of that great Abbot of St. Cyran wri­ting to Monsieur D' Andilly.

z A man must be passionate, (as we are) for that invisible beauty, (sayes he) before he be able to speak, or have the least knowledge of it. This Love therefore is interdicted your Court, because they never heard, That that passion, which troubles and stifles their wits, illuminates ours: and that (as in Religious Orders, which are nothing, but certain Frater­nities of men living and dying together) per­fection consists in Charity; even as 'twas onely a mutuall affection, which bound together that famous Squadron of Greeks, and rendred them invincible. The knowledge of the things of God springs up onely out of the Love we have of him. All the wits on earth, how sharp and knowing soever they be, can ne­ver understand any thing in our Caball, unless they be first initiated into those Mysteries, which as * Holy Orgies, render their spirits more transported one towards another; like [Page 176] those who fall into madnesse, into drunken­nesse, and into the passion of carnall Love. Three faults, by which our Master in his Books illustrates that unspeakable perfection those have, who unite, or make themselves one with him, by a certain amorous Devotion; which has different movings, worthily illustrated by those of the Sun: which have an uniformity in their disformity; which has something looking like spots, which we may exemplisie by those we see in the body of the Moon; which has dis­orders, like those of the four seasons, which are the same in their variety; of which motions the violent (which are those of Winter) introduce again the beauty of the Spring: which is a Sal­ly of my pen you ought to welcome.

In fine, it is not necessary to take God and Monsieur D' Andilly for one and the same thing, as that same Abbot did; and to think ones self happy in the union of these two: nor is it necessary, that the passion one has for an illust [...]ious Solitary Person of Port Royall, should be alwayes in an eminent height, from whence there is no possible descent: Nor is it necessary to salvation to say, That God loveth that person by us with an infi­nite love; which we cannot explicate, but by Letters as strangely placed, as the Characters of the Sibylls, and as hard to understand, as He­brew: which the first Hebrews never learnt but by Cabal.

This admirable Love belongs onely to the Heads of your Sect. A man must be of your Cabal to be perfect in it. I am confident, there are very few Wits can write a Language so high, [Page 177] as is that, which himself admires in one of his Letters, very carefully kept in Clermont Col­ledge. Hearken a little, how he speaks of that Love, which flames in his Breast: for he de­serves, that all the World should understand him.

* Me thinks, sayes he, on one side, that the Characters of Friendship are as estimable as Let­ters; and on the other side having been surpri­zed, about eleven a clock, by him, for whom I write; and having neither a good Pen, nor good Ink, which are two wants, into which I often fall. I had then a certain inability to write better; which is more excusable between two Friends, then in any other thing not bounded by the simple will, as true Love is; which laughs at those powers and effects, of which other dignities boast: and finding my self bound by that powerfull Language which your Letter speaks, it is no strange thing, if being desirous to reform you in your stile, and rank you with my own, that is, with that of the enamoured of God, who onely Contemplate and Act without speaking, I am be­come as obscure in the expression of Conceptions, as in Letters. For it was not my pen, which was the instrument of my haste, so much as the ar­dent desire I had, which made me hasten, more then either the time or my hand, to tell you, that I did not take your vulgar and common fashion of speaking, although it was extreamly well de­duced, by which you engage your self to me in oc­casions [Page 178] for my Friend, without remembring you, that that which I have got on you through your voluntary donation, to prevent all time, and all occasions, and all the power, which you could ever acquire; and rend [...]ing my self, as at the very point of a Temporal E [...]ernity, wh [...]re our friend­ship did begin, the Master of the ground gave me a right to all the fruit: and because it is impossible, while I write to you, that I should not feel a burning fire in my Spirits, which ele­vates me, and maketh me soar very high, I have taken occasion from thence to begin a Discourse, which I admire in its root, and which you have had cause to contemn in its branches and leaves, for the little grace I gave those words I made use of to expresse it; which gave me the know­ledge, that I never before had, of the admirable Secrets of our Master; the which not being able, but imprudently, to tell to any other but your self, and not being able to make them come out of that my Spirit, but with the same precipitation of the Spirit of God, which compells me violently to tell you them, think whether you had rather I should lose them by writing them slowly, or di­ctating them to a Servant, who dishonours them, and cooleth them with a greater certainty; then if I should cast them as informed seeds, falling from heaven, upon your Spirit, by Letters as ill ranged, as were those of the Sibyls, when they writ in their fury the Oracles of the Gods; z to the end you may repolish them, and give them [Page 179] by your Holy and Sublime Thoughts that perfe­ction they desire. 'Tis, sincerely, the onely cause of the haste I make, that by my own disorder I may appear so much the more united to you, as I pretend to be, using the same disorder, with God: which is not so great, but that if you do me the honour to preserve my blotted paper, I should hope, that amongst your discourses it would help you for entertainment in those hours, which you would dedicate to God, to give him an account of the riches, which he gives those who love him in all hours. You will see, that being there is nothing so hard to read as Hebrew, and that the first Hebrews never learnt it but by Cabal and Tradition, it is not far from the excellence of Divine Affection, which ties me to you, to la­bour to understand that which I would say, when I write in the language of God. All the rest being but a shadow, and a fraudulent disguize, of which I am as much an enemy, as I finde my self blessed in the union of God and you, which I conceive to be the same thing.

The twenty ninth Imposture. French 29:

THat 'tis a new Opinion, and particular to the Jesuites, that Attrition, which is grounded on the fear of punishment, is sufficient with the Sacrament. Letter 10. Engl. Edit. pag. 231.

Answer.

If this Calumniatour offend through malice, he deserves a severe censure to rectifie him: and if through ignorance, he has need of a Master, which may give him more certain knowledge, then Port-Royall has done. Let us carry him to Sorbon. He will finde there a Censure by the most able Doctours against them, who maintain with him, That Attritiou is not sufficient with the Sacrament; and a charitable Lesson by the most eminent Writers of that Faculty, which will enlighten his judgement perfectly on the Subject of Attrition and Contrition, in which he is yet very ill instructed. I will make him con­fesse all the errours, he has run into on this Sub­ject in his Tenth Letter, meerly by opposing the Doctrine of these Authors to that of the Jan­senists.

The Jansenist believes, 'tis a particular Opi­nion of the Jesuites, That Attrition onely is sufficient with the Sacrament. Yet Monsi [...]ur Gamasche a Sorbonist, to undeceive him, assures [Page 181] us, That 'tis a common Opinion of Divines, and ordinarily received in the Schools. Doctrina communis, ac vulgò recepta.

The Jansenist tells us, That the Jesuites have had so great a power over mens spirits, That, ex­cepting Divines themselves, there are scarce any, who do not believe, that that which is now held concerning Attrition, was held from the begin­ning as the onely belief of the Faithfull. a Monsieur Gamasche, to undeceive him, will tell him, he need not exclude Divines out of the number of those, who think, that which is now held conce [...]ning Attrition, was ever not the onely belief of the Faithfull, but the judgement of the greatest persons; since 'tis the opinion of Paludanus, of Adrianus, of St. Antonine, of Sylvester, of Roffensis against Luther; of Ca­nus, and (above all) of St. Thomas, who was clearly of this opinion, Estque manifestè sen­tentia D. Thomae.

The Jansenist was displeased at the Abbot of Boisic, for maintaining in his second part, pag. 50. [Page 182] That 'tis a very Catholique Doctrine, and which is very near matter of Faith, and very consonant with the Councell of Trent, (thus this Abbot speaks, whose terms ought not to be changed) That Attrition alone, yea, and grounded onely on the pains of Hell, which excludes the will of sinning, is a sufficient disposition to the Sacra­ment of Penance; and that as to the contrary opinion, they will not condemn it altogether of Heresie, but yet they will tax it of errour and rashnesse. Monsieur Du Vall on the other side t [...]l [...]s us, That the Councell of Trent, Sess. 14. cap. 14. has declared, b That Attrition with the Sacrament is sufficient for the remission of sin: and that although it be not a decided and resolved point of Faith, yet it is so near being one, that since the Declaration that Councel made, it is a most notorious errour to dispute it.

If he be not content with the witnesse of one Doctour, let him consider the Censure which the So [...]bon made against the Interpretation of the Book of Holy Virginity, which Monsieur Isam­ [...]rt relates in his Treaty of Penance in th [...]se [Page 183] words, c The faculty has also condemned that which he teaches concerning the insufficiency of Attrition, and the absolute necessity of Contri­tion, grounded on the motive of perfect Charity, for the receiving the Sacrament of Penance, &c. And she judged those Propositions capable to disquiet the peace of Consciences, contrary to the sure and ordinary practice of the Church, tend­ing to the prejudice of the efficacy of that Sacra­ment of Penance; and moreover that it is rash, and very erroneous.

The Jansenist is displeased wi [...]h that which Valentia teaches, That Contrition is not necessa­ry for the obtaining the principall effect of the Sacrament, but on the contary, that it is rather an hinderance. The faculty of Paris, to satisfie that scruple which troubles him, hath declared, that the contrary opinion of Fath. Seguenot weak [...]s the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance, in this, that Contrition justifies the sinner, and restores the fi [...]st G [...]ace, which is the principall effect of that Sacrament; and which it could never pro­duce, if Contrition were a disposition absolutely necessary: which was the reason, That Monsieur [Page 184] Gamasche in the place above cited said, That if Attrition was not a sufficient Disposition, the Sacrament of Penance could be no longer Sacra­mentum mortuorum, the Sacrament of the dead, nor the power of Priests, (to speak properly) the power of the Keys, but onely a declarative pow­er of the remission of si [...]s, which is one of the secret Maxim [...]s of the Jansenists. This manner then of speaking cannot [...]ffend any wise man; nor is it more strange to say, That the Contrition, which pr [...]cedes the Sacrament of Penance, hinders it from producing its princi­pall [...]ff [...]ct, (ob [...]at quò minùs sequatur effectus) then to say, That Contrition justifies the sinner, and restores him life. For 'tis the same thing as if he should say, the fi [...]st Physick, which re­covers a sick person, hinders the second from re­storing health, and saving him from the danger, out of which he is already happily delivered.

The Jansenist will wonder, that Fagondez and Granado should dare to say, That Contriti­on is not necessary in the point of death; because if Attrition with the Sacrament were not suffi­cient at the hour of death, it would follow, that Attrition were not sufficient with the Sacra­ment. But he speaks not truly. These Authors do n [...]t say absolutely, That Contrition is not ne­cessary, even at a mans death. They say indeed with Monsi [...]ur Du Vall, (whom I cite to sweeten that gall which lies in hi [...] heart) d That Contri­tion [Page 185] is necessary at ones death, if a man be in mortall sin, and cannot have a Priest to confesse to: But if a man can have one, th [...]n Attrition being sufficient with the Sacrament; and on the other side it being not necassary, according to the opinion of very many, that it should be grounded on other motives, then the fear of pains, or the losse of heaven, it does not binde a man necessa­rily to produce an act of the Love of God by pre­ferring [...]im before all things.

I know well enough, that Monsieur Gamasche is of a contrary opinion, as well as Suarez, San­chez, and Comitolus Jesuites; and that he teach­es with them, That although Attrition be suffici­ent with the Sacrament, neverthelesse a man is obliged at that definitive moment, on which de­pends an Eternity, to make his salvation certain by all means, not onely necessary, but possible; and consequently to force ones self [...]ervently to produce acts of sincere Contrition; if it be one­ly, sayes he, e to arrive at a true Attrition; [Page 186] which many times is onely imaginary in great sinners. Yet if this Divine hath the knowledge of a Doctour to maintain his opinion, he has not the rashnesse of a Jansenist to condemn that of others; and contents himself to reason like a Schollar, without jesting like a Buffoon, to bring solid proofs without any Vizards, or Impostures, to oppose vigorously, to defend himself skilfully, yea, and to conquer with a modesty; but far from insulting with an insolency, to hide the shame of his being overcome.

The Jansenist will think it strange to find Ca­suists, that hold, Attrition may be holy and suffi­cient for the Sacrament, although it be not su­pernaturall. He is a little too hot in his [...]eal. I am confident he would be more moderate, had he but read Leander and Monsicur Gamasc [...]e: f [...] they would have taught him, That it is not the opinion of those, whom he thinks he fights against, but of f Dominicus Soto, of Navarr, of Bo­na ina, of Canus, of Ledesma, of Victoria, of Caprcolus, of Richardus, of Caj [...]tan, of Syl­vester: which * Suarez a J [...]suit refutes; which Vasquez a Jesuit disapproves; which Father L' [Page 187] Amy a Jesuit condemns, even in that very place which his Calumniatour alledges; which Gra­nado a Jesuit rejects; which Molina a Jesuite judges not safe in Faith, and in effect, which does not come under the common approbation of Di­vines, if it be not explicated of that Attrition, which is naturall in its self, and supernaturall in its principle, and in its circumstances; foras­much as it proceeds from the movings of an in­teriour Grace, a [...]d that it is accompanied with Hope, with the fear of God, and with Faith.

In fine the Jansenist will scarce be able to suf­fer, that the Abbot of Boisic should call the ob­ligation, which he would lay on us, even at this time, to make an act of perfect Contrition as a disposition to the Sacrament of Penance, a bur­thensome and difficult obligation. I will entreat him to listen to an ancient Doctour of the Sor­bon. g I put the case, sayes he, that a man have committed ten sins, and that some while af­ter acknowledging his fault he should say, I have sinned, and should begin to detest his sins, but with so little fervour, that the detestation were not meritorious, even in the least proportion; but that he should have a regret, though but a weak one, for having so offended. I ask in this case whether his sins be forgiven him, in regard of that detestation? And I answer, No; they are not [...] because it is not in that degree of intention, which God has ordained for that effect. After this suppose this man meet a Priest, and go to [Page 188] Confession, then we must not say, his sins are not forgiven him, quia hoc esset nimis durum in side, because to say so would be too hard in Faith: and therefore I say his sins are pardoned; because the power of the Sacrament, and of the Keys, do supply what is wanting in that interiour mo­ving.

It is in the sense this Doctour speaks, that the Abbot of Boisic has said, That notwithstanding there is nothing more usefull, nor more tending to Salvation, then the practice of Contrition, yet the act being one of the most difficult, which cha­rity can practice, (unum ex difficillimis, quae Cha­ritas praestare potest) as Jansenius himself confes­ses) it would be very h burthensome to oblige us to it under pain of Damnation, when ever we confesse; and to make that Disposition ne­cessary to the Sacrament of Penance, which is contrary to the Declaration of the Councell of Trent, the Censure of Sorbon, and the common opinion of Divines, either Ancient or Modern, as Monsieur Gamasche tells us.

An Advertisement to the Jansenist.

Since you continue so constant in telling us, That perfect Contrition is absolutely necessary to the Sacrament of Penance, and that Attrition is not sufficient, notwithstanding that the Pro­position in the judgement of the Sorbon is both rash and erroneous, tell me also, if you be resol­ved to defend those other Maximes of your [Page 189] Sect concerning this Sacrament? Do you agree with the Abbot of St. Cyran in the opinion. Monsieur de Langres witnesseth as much in the Letter he writ touching the Doctrine of this Abbot.

That this Sacrament does not remit Sins?

That Absolution is not operative, but meerly declarative, of the pardon granted?

That Veniall sins are not sufficient matter for the Sacrament of Penance?

Do you believe with Monsieur Arnauld, In his Book of Frequent Communion. pag. 326, 327. ibid. pag. 521. That the Absolution of the Priest is then onely reall, when it follows the sentence of the invisi­ble Judge: That we ought not to lose any by our Pastorall Authority, but those, whom our Master has raised up by a quick [...]ing Grace: That some­times exteriour Penances may be so great, that they may supply the want of inward Repen­tance?

Are you of the same opinion with Monsieur Maignard, who was once Curate of St. Croix in Roven, and Disciple of the Abbot of St. Cy­ran, In a Letter which he writ to the Abbot of St. Cyran: which is in the Memorandums that were used in the Processe of that Abbot. That in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary to confesse the number of Mortall Sins, nor those Circumstances which change the nature of the Sin, supposing the Contrition to be such as is required?

Do you believe with Monsieur D' Andilly, in [Page 190] the Christian and Spirituall Letters, which he published under the name of the Abbot of Saint Cyran, m That we cannot make an available Confession of our Sins, if the Soul hath not first been renewed by Grace. pag. 228. Lett. 26. That the Confession of Veniall Sins came into common practice in the Church, but very lately: forasmuch as during the first thousand years and more, for the wiping out of Veniall Sins, those just persons, who committed them, thought it sufficient to chuse of themselves some light Pe­nances, before they went to assist at the Holy Sa­crafice of the Masse, pag. 265. Let. 32. That Confession was the last remedy, which was practi­sed in the Church, for the washing away of Ve­niall Sins, all the others being more ancient, pag. 769. Let. 92.

Do you believe with the Translatour of the Book of Holy Virginity, Disciple of the Abbot of St. Cyran, pag. 134. n That both the order [Page 191] and nature of the thing requires, that Sacra­mentall Penance should be performed in pub­lique. And pag. 129, & 130. That whosoever should say, Absolution is nothing but a judiciall Act, by which the Priest doth onely declare, not simply, but with the Authority, and in the place of Jesus Christ, that the Sins are forgiven, he would propose nothing, neither against the Coun­cell, nor against Ancient Divines. And in page 129. That true Contrition, which is an act of Charity, is absolutely necessary for the ob­taining the Grace of the Sacrament of Penance; and that it being certain, this sort of Charity reconciles a man with God, and puts him in his grace and favour before he hath received the Sa­crament in effect, there resteth nothing for Abso­lution to do?

In [...]ine, do you believe, that the Abbot of St. Cyran had any great Contrition for his Sins, and that he was perfectly disposed, when he confest himself to a Priest, onely to oblige him to a se­crecy, in those wicked Maximes he had told him; which he laught at afterwards, telling it to the Abbot of Prieres?

Here follows the sincere Deposition of that Abbot, who is yet living, in a very high opinion both for his Knowledge and Honesty.

After that, the said St. Cyran told him a cer­tain story, which he said past betwixt him and another Ecclesiasticall Person, to whom he had also discovered the foresaid Maximes: And that fearing, lest the said Ecclesiastique should relate them to the Bishop of Poitiers, or to some other, he stopt him presently upon the [Page 192] way, where they were talking of these matters, and desired him to hear his Confession, even in that very place and time: to which the said Ecclesiastique consented, though declaring his astonishment at the suddennesse of the resolu­tion. He made his Confession, and declared in it, That he acknowledged he [...]ad offended in proposing the said Maximes; and then de­manded his Absolution: the which, he said, he did to oblige the said Ecclesiastique to keep the said Maximes as a secret under the seal of Confession; which otherwise he could not have been secret in. When he told this, he laught so heartily, that the Deponent never saw him laugh so much before: at which was present Barcos his Nephew, who likewise laught at the same story.

I do not know, whether this be the joy Penance brings to your solitary Persons: But I dare assure you, it is not that, which the true Conversion of Sinners causes in Heaven. Medi [...]ate of this se­riously, and do not think so much of others, as to forget your selves.

An ANSWER to those Letters, in which the JANSENIST endea­voureth to clear him­self from the precedent IMPOSTURES.

A Word to the Reader concerning the Subject of the following Letters.

AFter that the Authour of the Pro­vinciall Letters had vented his malice against the Jesuites, and run through their Moral in his fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth Letters, the Jesuites laid open to the world in the precedent Impostures, his grosse ignorance, his falsenesse in alleadging Au­thours, and his groundlesse Calumnies; and withall taxed him and his party of many [Page 194] Enormities, and especially of Heresie. Ʋp­on this the Authour of the Provincial Letters (as it behoved him) undertook to make good what he had writ, and to clear himself and his Party from Heresie. This is the aim of all his Letters from the eleventh to the eighteenth. On the contrary the aim of these Answers is to shew, that he hath not made good any thing, but that he remains still [...]nd [...]r the same Censures. This the Reader will be pleased to take notice of; otherwise he may wonder to finde some things in these last Provinciall Letters, which are answered onely cursorily, and by the by, or perhaps not at all. They are not omitted, because they are unanswerable: No, they might easily be answered, and have been an­swered in former writings; But the rea­son, why they are here omitted, is, because they are impertinent, and do not belong to the present purpose, which is onely to examine the Imp [...]stures, and see, whether they be true [...]r no.

That ther, which the Reader shall finde fully done, is, that the twenty nine Impo­stures, (taken out of those six Letters, where the Secretary of Port. Royall under­takes to tax the Morall of the Society) all [Page 195] stand still palpable Impostures; and are not at all defended, but rather made more noto­rious by the Jansenists endeavouring a de­fence. And they standing so, the Fathers of the Society have their intent; which was to declare, that the Doctrine of the Society is falsely calumniated, being in its self, as it lyeth in their approved Authours, good and solid Doctrine: and onely made to appear bad by the false Citations and Forgeries of the Jansenists; who are convinced not to have cleared themselves, either of Imposture or Heresie.

And this of it self is a sufficient An­swer to all the rest. For as a convinced Perjure cannot cast any man in Law by his Oath; so a convinced Detractour (especi­ally in so many, and so malicious Calum­nies) ought not in reason to be believed in any new slaunders, which he forgeth against those, whom he taketh for his enemies, and who have convinced him.

An Answer to the Janse­nists Eleventh Letter.

Argument.

1. THat the Authour of the Provinci­all Letters maketh no Answer to the main points he stood accused of: which were of contemning Sorbon, contemning all the Bishops of France in their Synod, con­temning the Popes Authority. Also of holding Intelligence with Geneva and Du Moulin, and being himself a Jansenian He­retique, and the like. 2. By the way his foolish Postscript is taken notice of; and his clipping the words of Father Garasse, in favour of Geneva. 3. That he giveth no satisfactory Answer, why he took his Letters out of a Libell burnt by the Hang­man. 4. That he answereth not any of the charges laid against him for falsifying Authours, though many of these, and all the precedent Letters were out in print, long before he wrote his Eleventh Letter. 5. [Page 197] His defence of Raillery (the Theam of all this Letter) is but an abridgement of a Treatise, the Jansenists formerly writ against those, who laughed at their Illumi­nates. 6. How unworthy a boldnesse it is in him to say, That in Raillery he imitates the Saints, and God himself. 7. An An­tithesis, or Contrecomparison of that Iro­ny, which the Fathers sometimes use against publique vice, and his Railing with false Calumnies at those, whom he ought to re­spect. 8. His Rules of Raillery broke by himself, and his Accusation of some Jesu­ites Speeches retorted on himself.

SIR

I Have attentively read over your Eleventh Letter; in which (though written for your vindication) I have not observed any thing, but what turns to your dishonour, and produces an effect clean contrary to what you aim at. For so defective it is, that of the many Reproaches, which the Jesuites have with reason fastened upon you, you onely touch that of Raillery, which is the least of the crimes you are charged with. Nay, I find it in truth so weak a piece, that instead of washing away that stain, it makes you even to condemn your self, and renders you yet further culpable.

[Page 198] You could not be ignorant, Sir, that those Fa­thers accus'd you of reviving, in your first Let­ters, the errours of Jansenius, condemned by the whole Church; of sporting your self insolently with the Censure of Sorbon, which did but fol­low that of the Pope and Bishops. Whence comes it then you answer not that Accusation, but because the Crime is so manifest to the whole world, that you cannot clear your self; and is be­sides so pleasing to you, that you have no will to repent of it?

You know they have convinc'd you of Corre­spondence and Collusion with Geneva; clearly proving the conformity of your Impostures and Calumnies, with those which Du Moulin publish­ed in his Traditions against the Roman Church. You cannot pretend, that you had not heard of this, till you were closing up your Letter; in re­gard the writing which convinces it, was made publique a whole moneth before, though you would not take notice of it. Why have you not explained your self touching a point so tender, and of such great concernment? You had a fair occasion for it, when you spake Garass▪ in his Summary, pag. 510. of the Name of Jesus thus commonly figured, [...]S where you make Father Garassus say, That some have taken away the Crosse, leaving onely the Characters thus, [...]S, which is a Jesus dis­mounted. For there needed no more, but the addition of his following words, which end his period and conceipt, viz. making, as it were, by a mystery, from all Antiquity the Arms of the [Page 199] City of Geneva. You would better have illustra­ted that Authours pretended impiety, by inform­ing us, That the dismounted Jesus makes the Arms of your dear Geneva; and consequently, that he accuses your good friends the Calvinists, of having been the Theeves that rob'd it of its Crosse. Confesse the truth; should you not have cited that passage entire, and not have cut off an end of it, which is essentiall to its perfecti­on? Why fear'd you not the blame that's laid upon you, for falsifying and changing the sense of such Authours, as you have a minde to decry? But because you durst not so much as point out the place, from whence you derived your Do­ctrine.

Moreover, Sir, the Jesuites had taxed you, that your Letters were but a heap of Old Im­postures, already published in that Libell of the Morall Th [...]ology, which was torn in pieces at Bourdeaux by an Ordinance of Parliament, in the year 1644. And yet, without making the least mention of that infamous writing, as though you intended a probationall Essay of the Skill you have learnt in Du Moulins School, (where you have served, as it were, an Appren­tiship to improve your self in the Art of Raille­ry and Slander) you would softly wipe away that shame by saying, They complain of your repeat­ing what had formerly been said against them. Should you not have dealt more candidly with us? and have freely told us the reason, why you thought it not [...]it, it should be buried in the in­famy of its punishment? And were you not also bound to inform us at the same time, by what [Page 200] authority you have made your self the universall Corectour, or rather Corruptour of the Morall; you who are neither Doctour, Priest, nor Eccle­s [...]stique? Wherefore is it, that of all the Casu­ists quoted by Du Moulin touching the Opinions you imp [...]gn with him, (as Navarr, St. Antonine, and St. Thomas) you onely attaque the Jesuits? and with what artifice, suppressing the names of those, do you disguise, falsifie, and corrupt their Doctrine, so as no man can know it to be theirs?

These are the Crimes you had been charged with, before the last Answer of the Jesuits, con­taining your Impostures; and which, without doubt, you would never have dissembled, but that you found it impossible, to make any passable re­ply to it. Wherefore, Sir, I take your silence for a forced avowment of the truth of those Accu­sations, and declare, that I shall henceforth look upon you as no other, then one of Calvins Disci­ples, blasted by the censure of the Pope; as a Detractour, condemned by the Sentence of Par­liament; and as a Scoffer, decryed in the judge­ment of all wise men.

'Tis true, Sir, you glory in this last Title, and employ the greatest part of your Letter in setting forth the praise of Raillery; insomuch, that you will needs perswade us, that the Saints were Scoffers like your self, and that God acted the part of a Derider from the beginning of the world, and continues yet every day to do so, in the moment which is most dreadfull to Sinners, viz. that of Death.

But, Sir, to speak no more then the truth, you abuse the Scripture with great boldnesse, and [Page 201] much contemn the judgement of your Readers; since you dare affirm, that you scoff not in your Letters, but by the example of the greatest Saints, nay, of God himself.

What, Sir, think you men obliged to believe you upon your bare word? Can you fancy, that having invented a thousand falsities, pub­lisht a thousand calumnies, falsisied a thousand passages to finde matter for your prophane deri­sions, men should hold you for a Saint? and that your scandalous Letters, which are but the scraps of expiring Calvinisme, should passe for Copies, whereof you glory to have found the Originall in God himself?

Tell me, Sir, whether you believe that God, to mock the Casuists at the point of death, will (like you) laugh at their names? and whether at the sound of these that follow, b Villalobes, Koninck, Llamas, Akokier, Dealkoser, Dellacruz, Veracruz, Ʋgolin, Tambourin, &c. (whose clashing sillables are so apt to surprize, and move such wise men as your self to laughter) whether, I say, he will ask with amazement, If all these men be Christians?

Will he make an affected scrutiny into the con­tract Mohatra, the four living creatures of Esco­bar, the story of John D' Alba, and a thousand other Scurrilities, wherewith you have stuffed the censure of so many Divines, who doubtlesse de­serve to be treated with more modesty by a secu­lar person?

Will he jear at Potentia proxima, at sufficient [Page 202] Grace, at the Fulminations and Anathema's of the Church? Will he on these Authours impose crimes they were never guilty of? Decisions they never advanced? corrupted Texts, dismembred passages, and resolutions forged at pleasure, to make them seem ridiculous?

Will he scoff, c as you do, at Devotions to­wards the Mother of God? For instance, to salute the holy Virgin when you meet with any of her Images? to say the short Beads of the ten Pleasures of the B. Virgin? to pronounce of ten the Name of Mary? to desire the Angels to do her reverence on our behalf? to wish we could build her more Churches, then all Christian Mo­narchs put together have done? to bid her good morrow every morning, and good night every evening: to say every day an Ave Maria in ho­nour of the heart of Mary?

You remember, Sir, that upon all these Sub­jects it is, that you display the fairest draughts and touches of that Holy Raillery you intend to con­secrate by your Writings?

But, Sir, do not blinde your self so far, as to believe, that such excesses and transports as these, will be taken for the Raptures of the Saints, and the Extasies of the Prophets; who to cry down vice, reprove it sometimes with a laughter of in­dignation: you are at a greater distance from the conduct of those Worthies, then is darknesse from day-light.

The Fathers treated Heretiques as ridiculous persons, and you that are accused, convicted, and [Page 203] condemned of Heresie, will make a mockery of Sorbon and Catholick Divines. The Fathers re­buked publique disorders, and reall crimes; which they endeavour'd to render not onely odious, but contemptible, by the touches of a stinging Iro­ny: whereas you forge such as are meerly false, and which you feign at pleasure, to revenge your self of those that withstand your disorders, and the pernicious Maximes of your Sect. The Fa­thers employed their Raillery like [...]alt, which must be used with discretion; their Writings are full of solid ratiocinations, generous and high concepti­ons, strong and convincing arguments; but their words of mockery are rarely met with. Where­as on the contrary, your Letters are stufe full with false Texts, false citations, and false re­proaches accompanied with a perpetuall Syco­phancy, without so much as one observable ratio­cination, or one onely conception worthy of a Divine.

How comes it then to passe, you will have men take your conduct for that of those great Saints; which is so contrary to the spirit that governs you? One may well compare your works to Calvins Antidote; where that Heretique makes the Fathers of the Councell of Trent to speak just as you make the Jesuits, in silly childish lan­guage, to excite the laughter and contempt of the Readers: but you shall never passe for a Pro­phet, unlesse it be with those, who for the hatred they have conceived against the Jesuites, seek out Masters to deceive them; and will believe (against the conviction of their own cons [...]iences) that a lie is truth, when it slatters their passion, or [Page 204] wounds the Honour of those Religious.

Put off, Sir, put off that Masque of Justice and Charity, wherewith you cover your detracti­ons; men discern you through it: they know the motive that induces you to revenge; they under­stand your designs; this extraordinary animosity, so dissonant to the spirit of Christianity, is but too too visible: 'Tis not the zeal of Religion that gives you such violent motions, but the re­gret you have for not having been able to over­throw it: 'Tis not the love of Truth, but the despair you are in, by seeing your [...]rrors convin­ced, and your Hypocrisie detected.

To what purpose so many passages of the Saints, to prove that there are innocent Raille­ries; since it has already been clearly shown you, that those you use are criminall? Why employ you Scripture to tell us there are charitable mockeries, since yours are envenom'd with ha­tred? Why in fine, bring you examples of the Fathers of the Church, since being a declared Heretique, you are consequently an enemy of those Fathers, and of the Church?

You should rather have remembred, Sir, how the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, and the Fa­thers in the Councells, do treat those that arm themselves with scoffs and injurious reproaches, as you do, to disturb the peace of Gods children, and fight against Orthodox Maximes; you should have considered that the wise man in the Proverbs, d commands us to cast out the Scorner, that is to say, Heretiques, as Vene­rable [Page 205] Bede e expounds it, Cast out of the Church, sayes that Father, the Heretique that you cannot correct; and when you have taken from him the liberty of preaching, you shall settle peace among the Catholiques. You should have remarked with what rigour this severe Discipline hath been observed in Councels, from whence op­probrious words and railleries have been alwayes banisht. f Whosoever, sayes the Councell of Toledo, shall disturb the Assembly (of the Fa­thers) by contumelious speeches, or derisions, let him be cast out of the Councell with infamy, and excommunicated for the space of three days, according to that Divine Law, Cast out the scorner, and with him you shall banish all con­tentions.

Finally, you should have made some profit of S. Bernard's g counsell to a great Pope, to avoid [Page 206] not onely nipping and injurious scoffings, but even those that pass [...] in the world for an inno­cent and pleasing divertisement. Or of the ad­vice of St. Chrysostome, h who shews by an elo­quent discourse he made on that Subject, how much that jovial humour, whi [...]h men take for a vertue, is unworthy of a Christian: or of the frequent invectives made by the Saints against D [...]iders, whom they looked on as enemies of the Crosse, and of the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

[...]y this you see, Sir, it is too weak a defence, and too roving an argument to prove by the Fa­thers, that there are unblameable Railleries; since 'tis shewn you by the same Fathers, that there are a far greater number of criminall ones, which are worthy of the publique hate and horrour, that all good people have commonly for them.

Bu [...] to make such a sincere and judicious dis­cernm [...]nt of them, as may instruct you of what nature those are, wherewith your Letters are [...]aught, and what r [...]nk they have acquir'd you among Deriders, believe not me, Sir, but be your own Judge, if you please, and make use of the rules you have found so rare, that having pub­lish [...] th [...]m before, you make no difficulty to put th [...]m out afr [...]sh in this Letter; which is but an Ab [...]idg [...]ment [...]f that long answer you made the last year, in favour of Scoffers on the Subject of your Illuminations.

[Page 207] If it be i necessary for the just use of Raill [...]ry, that it be grounded on truth, and not on lying, the Jesui [...]es have already discovered eleven of your Impostures in the two first Quaternions of the last answer, whereof they promise you a long list: whereby it will be seen with what a pride of heart, and weaknesse of understanding, you boast of having spared them. I will here set down but one of them, which is the In Eng. 14. Fourth of those the [...] reproach you with; where you attribute to Lessi [...]s, what he onely reports out of Victoria a famous Divine; that he who has receiv'd a Box o [...] th [...] Ear, may instantly repell that aff [...]ont, even with his sword, etiam cum gladio. A Propositi­on, whose practice he disavows in the number following, in expresse terms, which I here give you, because they were not cited in the Answer, that you may not think they were left out on pur­pose to put the words of the Number 82. in th [...]ir room, which were onely cited to shew their co [...] ­formity wi [...]h these. k For the reasons I have now given, this opinion is probable in speculati­on; yet is it not easily to be permitt [...]d in practice. [Page 208] First, by reason of the danger of giving way to hatred, revenge, and excesse. For i [...] St. Au­gustin hardly admits, that one may kill a man to defend his life much lesse would he grant in this case, that one may kill a man to defend his honor. See now, Sir, whether you be grounded upon Truth.

If according to your rules a man ought to conserve Charity in his heart, when he has a sting under his tongue, for fear of making dangerous and mortall wounds in lieu of healing them; God alone is the Judge of your intentions, yet all the world sees but too too plainly, at what your actions drive. It may be you estend by er­ [...]ur, and not by malice; but neither of both is [...]us [...]ble, since you are not deceived, but because you [...]ill not see the truth.

If it be r [...]quisite that Raillery be l noble, modest, honest, and discreet, to work a good ef­fect, what is there more abj [...]ct then that Come­dian-like, Ho, Ho! which you sound so often in your Letters? What more insolent then the lan­guage you use of the Doctours of Sorbon, and of the originall of m Casuists? Or what more [...]u [...]ricall and indiscreet, (to say no more) then that which you impose on Divines touching Fast­ing, and Magick?

If we ought in since to respect Religion, and never to make sport with holy things, which is to open a mans mouth against Heaven, as the Scripture speaks, and to utter the language of [Page 209] the Impious, what is there more holy then Grace, (which is the rich treasure of the Crosse) and Devotion towards the Virgin, which is the Key that opens it to us? And yet, Sir, after you have jeer'd both the one and the other; after you have led Jansenisme, as it were, in triumph into Sor­bon, and Religious houses, to brave the Judges that condemn'd it, and deride Grace, as though you had already lost the memory of it, you very sober­ly ask, where it is you make sport with holy things? and whether men esteem Mohatra a thing so venerable, that 'tis blasphemy to deride it?

O, Sir, where is your sincerity? You that pretend to blame the manner of avoiding a lye, by speaking one while loud, and another while low; by what equivocation can you say aloud, you have jested at Mohatra, and whisper, that you have not derided Grace? By what mentall re­servation do you glory in publique, that you have play'd upon the Jesuites, and in secret, that you have not mock'd St. Thomas, St. Antonine, and even the Anathema's of Rome?

Believe me, Sir, Innocence needs not that Hy­pocriticall artifice to defend it self: you should have exprest it clearly that neither you nor those of your party do believe, That sufficient Grace, potentia proxima, the Rosary, or the Popes Cen­sure, are things so venerable, that 'tis impiety to deride them, or blasphemy not to speak of them with respect.

When you were rebuked for the insolence of your Railleries touching Mohatra, and the deci­sions of the most celebrious Casuists, whom you [Page 210] covertly assail under the name of Jesuites, who have taught nothing, but what they have learnt of those great Divines; you were not check'd for Impiety, but for playing the Buffoon; not for Blasphemy, but Imposture. You were not told, that such kinde of R [...]illery was a Sacriledge; (that relates to your Railleries on the Rosary and Grace) But you were told, and I tell it you again, That 'tis unworthy of a Christian; and that if you be guilty of having us'd it, you are yet mor [...] culpable in maintaining it, and in set­ting on the Throne of God what one would scarcely suffer on a Theater: taking the Saints for warrants of an Action, which a Person of re­putation would blush to own, and which you have not dar'd to let passe under your name.

After all this, Sir, can you have the confidence to reproach Father L [...] Moin, with comparing Chastity to the fire of the Sepharius? you who compare your Saty [...]icall Buffooneries to the zeal of the Saints, and to the wrath of God? I take not here in hand the vindication of that Father, who has more then sufficient weapons to defend himself, and pa [...]ience more then enough to suffer you. This is onely to tell you; that you are so b [...]n [...]e, that you see not your own faults, how grosse soever they be; and so obstinate in de­ [...]ction, that instead of acknowledging your self to blame for having invented so many calumnies, you daily hatch new ones; which (as contemning them) I omit, till you have acknowledg'd those you have hitherto advanc [...]d.

If the love of Truth could so far prevail over your spirit, as [...]o le [...]d you to so generous a reso­lution, [Page 211] I would then perfectly clear up your under­standing, as to the point of Attrition, naturall in its Essence, and supernaturall in its Principle. I would satisfie you touching Father Garasse's words, whom you accuse of having mingled He­resie with Raillery, when he sayes, That the Hu­mane Personality was grafted, and set on Horse-back on the Personality of the Word; and when I had remov'd the suspicion of the first by his own words, n and by the Subject he treats of in that place, (where [...]e puts this difference between the will and personality of man in the mystery of the Incarnation) that in the Compositum, which we call Jesus Christ, there is but one per­son, (these are his words) yet one cannot say, there is but one will, to wit, the Divine: (which is the Here [...]ie of the Monothelites impugn'd by him in this place) I would furnish you with means to justifie the second your self, by desiring you to translate into English this Text of St. Paulinus. (o) Hi [...] hominem saucium, praetermissumà prae­viis, ne [...] curatum, miseratus accessit, & jumento suo, hoc est, Verb [...] incarnatione suscepit.

But if you continue in your blindnesse; if in that exact Answer, wherewith you threaten the a [Page 212] Jesuites, you justifie your self but with reproach­es, and defamations; if you come not to the point of the accusation; if you content your self with common places, and wranglings upon a circumstance little to the purpose; I will follow you at the heels, and observe your slips: I will publish your infamy to the whole world; and if I cannot silence you, (which I pretend not to be able to do unlesse you cease to be a Jansenist) I will shew you at least, that you merit no further answer, and that a convinced Calumniator ought not to be listened to, much lesse believed.

An ANSWER to the Jansenists twelfth LETTER.

Argument.

1. THat the Jansenist hath no reason to take it ill, to be called Jansenian Heretique, disguized Calvinist, Scoffer, Impostor, and the like; since he hath by his own works drawn these Titles on himself. 2. That it is a frivolous Argument to say, as he doth, I am alone against a whole Re­ligious Order; therefore I am no Calum­niatour. 3. It is as frivolous to prove his Citations true, by saying. It is not like­ly, that I would expose my self to the censure of all by citing false. 4. That he still useth the same Imposture he was con­vinced of, in clipping and altering the sense of Vasquez. 5. That he continueth his his Imposture in order to Valentia and Tanner. 6. That his new Objection of [Page 214] Eradus Billus needeth no Answer; that Father having cleared himself long since. 7. His ignorance in imagining Simony of Positive Right to be different from Simony in cases expressed in the Law. 8. His evident falsifying Lessius; and toy of ex­cuse in saying he took it out of Escobar: whose Book is an Abridgement of many, and cannot give the full sense of Authours.

SIR

YOu have not kept your word wi [...]h me; you made me expect an exact Answer, and have onely shuffl [...]d me off with an eva­sian: you promis'd to defend your self, and now you will have me a witnesse both of your tergi­versation, and causelesse complaints.

I might, Sir, let you fly with confusion, and in disorder, without troubling my self to run af­ter you; but seeing you witnesse by your cry, that you are wounded and grown sensible of the smart, I am glad to understand the cause of it, and to try if I can comfort you.

You complain first, that you have for a long while been persecuted with injurious language; and you seem solicitous to inform the world, wherefore you are treated in that manner. You should do better, Sir, to undeceive your self, and call to minde that you suffer little in respect of what you have merited; since having for a long [Page 215] time exercis'd the patience of others, it is but just that you practise it your self at last, by en­during those reproaches which cannot be forborn you, without betraying Religion, and abandon­ing the innocence of those you have calumniated. You are much to blame, Sir, to take an act of justice for an injury; they are not injuries, but truths, that have been told you to repell your Calumnies: and you know, there are no better weapons to beat down falshood and errour, (whose Secretary you glory to be) then those of Truth, which you have rashly withstood.

If one terms you Heretique, 'tis but after the whole Church has call'd you so; which cannot be mistaken: and 'tis an article of Faith, That Jansenius's opinions touching Grace, being (as all the world knows) condemn'd and fulminated by the Church, all the Jansenists that persist ob­stinate in their defence, as you do, are Here­tiques.

If one say you are a Calvinist disguiz'd, and a Disciple of Du Moulin, 'tis but after you have been convicted of it, by the conformity of your Maximes, and Impostures, with those of that Minister: whereto having made no answer, you cannot avoid the censure of being either his Scholler, or a Filcher of his works.

If one reproach you for being a Scoffer, 'tis indeed a shamefull quality for a Censurer of Morality; but you have drawn it on your self, by those injurious Satyres you have learnt in Calvins School, and which you pretend to sancti­fie by the example of the Saints, and of God himself.

[Page 216] In fine, if a man charge you with Gullery and Imposture, 'tis but after an Ordinance of Par­liament; which yet by blasting and tearing your Book of Morall Theology, as an infamous and scandalous Libell, has not been able to deter you from filling your Letters with those old calum­nies, no [...] from inserting new ones.

By this you see, Sir, that the reproaches cast upon you being just, your complaints cannot be reasonable; and that being condemn'd as a Ca­lumniatour by voice of the Judges, 'tis but in vain to seek to be treated as Innocent in the judge­ment of your Adversaries.

Neverthelesse how unjust soever that pretensi­on is, wherewith you flatter your imagination, I can affirm, that the proofs (whether generall or particular) whereon you think to build your justi­fication, are so extreamly ruinous, that had you not told us you intended an Apology, I should have been perswaded by your reasons, that you meant to make a publique confession of all your Impostures.

The principall reason, whereby you pretend to shew that you are not an Impostor, and that you cannot be suspected of having cheated the world by falsifying the passages of the Authors you alledge, is, that you are alone, without force, or any humane assistance against so great a Body. [...] answer, we must finde out a new Logick, such as Aristotle was never acquainted with, to con­clude thence, that you are not an Impostor. But to infer the contrary, and prove to you, by an in­vincible consequence, that you are in effect, what you would not appear to be, there needs no [Page 217] more but to have eyes to read your Letters, and a little common sense to judge of them.

You are alone, Sir. By what misfortune was that good friend of yours, that faithfull compa­nion of your labours, that Jansenist who never lies, removed from you? You are alone! Is it possible that you have left to be a Jansenist, or that there are no more of your Sect in the world but you? such a happy change were indeed to be wisht, but I fear not so soon to be expected. You are alone! I verily believe you would fain have people pitty you; and as for my self, I have a compassion to see thirty or forty Solitaries ex­treamly busie, one in culling ou [...] Texts, another in paring or lengthening of them, another in correcting proofs, another in dispersing the sheets, another in reading them at beds-sides, and crying them up; while you in the mean time, hiding your self, cry, I am alone, without force, or any humane assistance; therefore I am no Im­postor. This kinde of reasoning is very power­full and perswasive.

You adde secondly, that it is not likely you should hazard the losse of all, by exposing your self to be convinced of Impostures; and you re­ly much on that proof. But, Sir, since you have blindly cast your self amongst a party of Here­tiques; since you have lost Faith by defending of Jansenisme; Charity by an implacable hatred against them that cry down that Heresie; Religi­on and Honour by your profane Railleries against Grace; take it not amisse, if I tell you that you had not any thing remaining to lose, when you expos'd your self to be convinc'd of [Page 218] Imposture by assaulting the Jesuites; and that such an enterprize was the effect of a finall de­spair, which put Calumny into your mouth, ha­ving first stifled the love of Truth in your heart. Besides you are assur'd (in case there were any thing remaining after so sad a shipwrack) that so long as you miscarry not in your design of keep­ing your self unknown, all the infamy you de­serve, will light upon your Sect; and though the name of Jansenist lie under the blemish of an e [...]e [...]nall ignominy, you foresee your own will be ever safe, provided you keep alwayes in the da [...]k.

In fine, the last reason you bring to remove the suspicion of your Impostures, is, that though it be hard to come to the knowledge of you, 'tis an easie matter to discover the falsities you are guilty of, seeing the most simple are capable of it; and that they who have not studied suffici­ently to penetrate questions of Right, have na­turall light enough to judge of questions of Fact.

'Tis that very thing, Sir, which comforts all good people; and gives them as much joy, as it yields shame and ignominy to the Jansenists. For they have so clearly discern'd your false deal­ing by th' Impostures they have hitherto discover­ed; and the strange falsi [...]ications they have obser­ved in your Letters, are so visible to the whole world, that all the sleights of Jansenisme, and all the false colours wherewith you seek to dis­guize them by your last sheet, serve but in lieu of a shadow, to give them a clearer light.

There is nothing easier then to make [...]iall of [Page 219] it; there needs no more but meerly to shew you, that in the defence of those you endeavour to palliate, you ince [...]antly fly to the question of Right, wherein you break your promise; and an­swer not to the question of Fact, whereby you of­fend against your duty. Remember, Sir, those two conditions which you have accepted; and let us see if you will be as faithfull in observing them, as you were bold in receiving them.

The first of your Impostures, you know it, Sir, and confesse it your self, is about Vasquez's opinion touching Alms. I maintain that you have falsi [...]ied it: You on the contrary pretend you have rightly reported it. I have therefore onely to shew you, in evidence of the weaknesse of your Answer, that you have not so much as touch'd the question of Fact, and that your de­fence is but a continual perplexing of the questi­on of Right.

Is it not true, Sir, that in your sixth Letter you accuse the Casuists of having found out a way to exempt the richest persons from the obli­gation of giving Alms, by so interpreting the word superfluous, that it hardly ever happens, that any one has ought of that kinde? And say you not presently after, that this is done by the learned Vasquez in his Treatise of Alms, cap. 4. What secular persons lay up to raise their for­tunes, or those of their relation, is not call'd su­perfluous. Wherefore it will be hard ever to finde any thing superfluous among secular people, no, not even among Kings.

Is it not true, that you conclude from thence by a consequence no lesse injurious to that Au­thour, [Page 220] then it is contrary to his meaning, that to work out ones salvation, it were as sure a way, according to Vasqu [...]z, to be guilty of ambition enough, thereby to have nothing superf [...]uous, as it is safe, according to the Gospel, to have no ambition at all, that so one may give alms out of his superfluity?

Is it not true, that touching this consequence, you have been convinced of two remarkable fal­sitics? The first, in having omitted what Vas­qu [...]z sayes, in interpreting the word superfluous, that in the opinion even of Cojctan himself, Lay p [...]ople may employ their wealth, for the raising of their condition by lawfull courses; (statum quem licitè possunt acquirere) and for acquiring Offices, provided they be worthy of them; (statum quem dig [...]è possunt acquirere) and cons [...]quently that men call not that superfluous, which is ne­c [...]ssary for arriving thereto. The second, in ha­ving omitted them out of an injurious design to corrupt the meaning of that Father, and to infer thence this scandalous conclusion, That there needs no more, according to Vasqu [...]z, but to have a great deal of ambition, whereby to have no­thing superfluous. A conclusion full of Impo­sture, and which you never durst have attributed to him, had you faithfully reported his words, which justifie the purity of his Doctrine, and dis­cover your malice: Statum quem licitè pos [...]unt acquirere.

For you cannot be ignorant, that it had been to expose your self to the contempt of the Wise, and laughter of the people, to maintain against Vasquez, that 'tis a sin of ambition to raise ones [Page 221] own, or Kindreds fortunes, by lawfull courses. It was therefore requisite (to give some colour to your calumny) to suppress that Text which stood in your way, and to render your self equally cri­minall by dissembling the true Doctrine he esta­blishes, and by ascribing to him a false conse­quence, infinitely far from his intention.

I ask you, Sir, from what words of Vasquez you can infer, that according to his Doctrine, one needs onely be ambitious to have nothing superfluous? I ask you, if this be a good argu­ment, Vasquez assures with Cajetan, that men call not that superfluous which the rich lay up to raise their condition by lawfull wayes: there­fore 'tis as safe, according to Vasquez, to have ambition enough, that so you may have nothing superfluous, as it is safe, according to the Gospel, to have no ambition at all, that so you may give alms of your superfluity? Where does Vasquez say, 'Tis a sure way to have ambition enough, that so one may have nothing superfluous? Where do you finde that to raise ones fortune by wayes that are just and lawfull, is to be ambitious?

Now if it be true, that herein consists a questi­on of Fact; if it be clear, that these two are the falshoods you stand accused of; if it be mani­fest, that in case you be culpable thereof, as with­out all contradiction you are, you have impos'd on Vasquez; and finally if it be indubitable, that to discharge your self of this crime, you were ob­lig'd either to excuse or deny it: Is it not also certain, that you have done neither? But in­deed how should you be able to do it, except you could make impossibility possible? Can you say [Page 222] that these words, Statum quem licitè possunt ac­quirere are not in the place I cite you? Can you affirm, that you have quoted them in the sixth Letter? Nay, can you assure us, that you have mentioned them in the twelfth?

So far you are from clearing your self, that you afresh commit two great and unpardonable falsities. You averre, that Vasquez obliges not the rich to part with what is necessary to their condition. This is the first. And that he teaches that they are not oblig'd either in justice or cha­rity to give of their superfluous, much lesse of that which is necessary, in all the ordinary wants of the poor, and that they are not bound to give of their necessary, but in such occasions as seldom or never happen. This is the second.

To dissipate the clouds that blinde you, there needs no more but to set Vasquez his own words before your eys. * 'Tis certain, sayes this Father in the first Chapter, that it is not onely extream necessity, that is to say, of approaching death, that obligeth us to give alms, but even many other ur­gent necessities (mul [...]ae aliae urgentes necessitates) and that men ought not to have regard onely to their own superfluity, but to others necessities, which they ought to relieve in such sort, as we have expl [...]ated. Therefore Sir, it is false, that the rich, according to Vasquez, are not oblig'd to give of th [...]ir necessary, but in occasions which seldom or never happen.

He sayes, numb. 18. of the same Chapter, Men are not onely oblg'd to give alms, when the [Page 223] necessity of the poor is such, as they are bound to relieve it out of what is necessary to their condi­tion, and superfluous to their life. For though they be oblig'd to it in that occasion, who can deny that they are not also bound to do it, when one is in danger of being ruin'd, and that you have wealth superfluous to your quality? For if Chari­ty oblige you to uphold the reputation of your neighbour, when you can do it without prejudice of your own; why shall it not also oblige you to give what is superfluous to your condition, where­by to hinder the ruine of another? Therefore it is false, that Vasquez never obliges the rich to part with what is necessary to their condition, nor with what is superfluous, but in occasions which hardly ever happen.

He sayes, numb. 13. against Gabriel, Major, and Gerson, who teach that the rich are not ob­lig'd to give alms, but in extream necessities, That this opinion is rightly rejected by other Di­vines, because such necessity is very rare; it hard­ly happening that any one is found in that ex­tream necessity. (Haec enim vix occurrit) And that the Fathers had done vainly to make such severe Invectives against rich worldlings, who neglect to succour the poor; and so easily condemn them to flames, if they were not bound to relieve them, but in that extream necessity, which sel­dom or never happens: ( [...]i tantum tenerentur in extrema necessitate, quae nunquam aut rarissimè occurrit.) Therefore it is false to affirm that Vasquez teaches, That the rich are not oblig'd to give alms, but in occasions so rare, that they scarce ever happen.

That which deceives you, Sir, or rather serves [Page 224] you to deceive others, is the acu [...]enesse of this Authour, who distinguishes necessary and super­fluous in divers manners, according to which he regulates the obligation of the rich. For there is superfluous and necessary in relation to life; su­perfluous to life, and necessary to honour; super­fluous to honour, and necessary to ones present condition; superfluous to the present condition, and necessary to that which one may acquire by lawfull wayes; and finally there is superfluous, whereof one has no need, no not for the raising of himself, or his Relations. Now 'tis of this superfluous which is unnecessary to ones state and condition, not onely present, but which is law­fully acquirable, (as Vasquez clearly affirms it, and which you maliciously dissemble by cutting off the word condition) that you must understand what you cited, That a man is hardly oblig'd to give alms, when he is not bound to give it, but out of what is superfluous to his condition, ac­cording to Cajetan's opinion and his own; be­cause it hardly falls out that there is any thing superfluous, when 'tis taken in this manner, no not even among Kings.

Wherein you ought to have observed, that the opinion he concurs in with Cajetan, consists one­ly in this, That what the rich lay up to raise their own, or Kindreds fortunes, is not term'd superfluous to their state, though it be not necessary to their present condition. Notwithstanding which he is much more severe then Cajetan; who ob­liges not the rich to give alms to the poor, (ex­cept in their extream necessity) but of their su­perfluity, which is neither necessary for main­taining their own, or Kindreds condition, nor [Page 225] for advancing it. And in his Treatise of Indul­gences, he asserts this obligation, not to exceed a veniall sin; though in his Treatise of Alms he extends it to a mortall. Whereas Vasquez hath far different Sentiments; for he obliges them in many occasions, besides that of extream necessi­ty, to give not onely what is superfluous to their condition, but even what is necessary to maintain it, provided onely it be not necessary to life or repu [...]ation; and that under pain of mortall sin, as he strongly proves it (in the place I cited) by the sentence, which the Son of God shall pro­nounce against them at the day of Judgement, and by the Doctrine of the Fathers.

But you, Sir, who cruelly dread a distinguo, without making these so necessary observations, confound all thing [...] by a prodigious subversion of Divinity. Yet you carry it high upon pretense of maintaining Cajetan's Doctrine, and cun­ningly make account to escape, by seconding him against Vasquez. Defend your self. Sir, that ex­cellent Authour needs not an Heretiques help to dispute out his difference with an Orthodox Doctour. The point in question is not to know, which of the two is best grounded in reason; nor whether the obligation of giving Alms be founded on Justice or Charity; whether the rich be oblig'd to give to the poor their super­fluity, according to the rules of Cajetan or Vas­quez: whether all that's superfluous belong to the poor in rigor of Justico, according to the Fathers, or onely upon the account of compassion: and whether the Great Ones of Paris, that might (if they would) forgoe those gilded Coaches, that great train of Lackeys, and those sumptuous [Page 226] houses both in town and countrey, be oblig'd in conscience to restore to the poor, what they profusely waste in those superfluous expences▪ These are questions of Right, which have been rais'd in Schools many ages past, and which Di­vines have not yet decided. Were we bound to expect an end of them, we should never have done. The point in question is to know, whe­ther Vasquez sayes not, That that is not call'd superfluous, which Lay-people lay up to raise their condition by lawfull wayes, (statum quem lici [...]è possunt acquirere.) And whether you have not dissembled these last words, to infer a conse­quence as odious against the Authour, as favou­rable to the inordinate ambition of Sinners. For if that be so, who sees not that you are guil­ty of a most foul Imposture? And since you do not vindicate your self thereof, who sees not al­so this accusation to be so certain, that you durst not so much as contest it. Let us passe to the second.

But first, Sir, give me leave to put you in minde, that in this dispute, I am onely oblig'd to discover your falsities, we being here upon questi­ons of Fact, and no other, which you alwayes seem to forget. What is then the question of Fact touching your second Imposture, which re­lates to Simony?

Is the point in controversie to justifie Valentias Doctrine, which you are pleas'd to qualifie with the Title of a Dream? Or that of Sanchez, which you take for a Revelation? No, Sir, this is not the place to dispute of the ground of the Doctrine, nor to shew you the faults you there­in commit through ignorance, but onely the [Page 227] falsities you are guilty of through malice.

Am I bound to answer for the Theses of [...]aen, and the opinion of F. Eradus Billus? 'Tis a businesse already done, and the world is satisfied long since by the justification of that Divine, of what Sect his Accuser was, whose Elogium you make instead of minding your own Apology.

What is then the point of our dispute? 'Tis onely to know, whether it be not true, that you have us'd deceit in citing Tanuerus upon the question of Simony, and whether you be not far from clearing your self of it in your twelfth Letter, which I refute? seeing you relapse into your first fault, and are guilty of other greater.

Look to your self, Sir; reflect on your Letter: see how you cite Tannerus, and reckon, if you please, all the faults I shall note to you. See, say you, his Doctrine not unlike that of Valen­tia. There is properly and truly no Simony, but when a temporall good is received as the price of aspirituall: But when it is taken as a motive, inclining a man to bestow the spirituall; or as an acknowledgement of being already bestowed, it is no Simony, at least in point of conscience. And a little after.—

Stay, Sir, you forget the principall. Thus (addes Tanne [...]us) teaches Valentia, after Syl­vester, Cajetan, and Navarr, according to the opinion of St. Thomas; and the reason is drawn from the notion and malice of Simony, which we have explicated. Which yet in the cases expres­sed in the Law hinders not the committing of Simony, be it that which we have term'd of Posi­tive Right, or that which is presumed such in the [Page 228] externall Tribunall. This middle piece, by you cut off, is decisive, and could not be omitted without condemning your self. You were for­merly accus'd of suppressing it in the second Im­posture, and now while it is actually in question, whether the accusation were true, that you had left out these words in your sixth Letter, you are so accustom'd to these cheats, that you here sup­presse them again. You see what it is to acquire ill habits. But this is not all. For as it common­ly happens that one sin begets another; so having engag'd your self to dismember the precedent Text, you likewise maim the subsequent, per­fecting thereby the proof of your own fraudu­lent dealing: which I was oblig'd to prove, if you had not prevented me. For thus you make Tannerus say. We must affirm the same thing, even though a man regard the temporall as his principall end, nay preferr it before the spiritu­all; though St. Thomas and others seem to say the contrary, while they affirm that it is absolute Simony to give a spirituall good for a temporall, when the latter is the end of the former.

'Tis true, this Proposition is in Tannerus, but it is as true, that you have not given it intire; which shews your unsincere practice: for you have lopt off this ensuing part, which is essentiall to its decision. Esto quidem tali commutatione grave peccatum committatur, ac simul in casibus jure expressis Simonia, saltem juris positivi, incurra­tur. ‘Although that in this exchange a man commits a grievous sin; as also a Simony, at least as to Positive Right, in the cases expressed in the Law.’

[Page 229] How comes it to passe. Sir, that being charg'd with suppressing two so remarkable parts of one onely place of Tannerus, you do not vindi­cate your self? Why do you suppresse them afresh, as if you had never been accus'd of it? Whence is it, that by a ridiculous evasion you complain of being accus'd for having onely for­gotten these two words of Divine Right, which yet are not found in the whole passage? Does the shame of this discovery so confound your me­mory, that it makes you take Divine Right for Positive Right, and two small words for so ma­ny lines? Is it not befaln you as to those, who being hurt complain of the blow, but shew not the place where they received the wound? You have been convinced of cutting off by the mid­dle two of Tannerus's Propositions at a blow; of leaving out one part of the Text, to conclude from the other which remained imperfect, that according to this Authour it is neither Simony nor sin, to give a spirituall good for a temporall, if one give it not as the price, but onely as the motive: And yet in the other part of the same Text, which you maliciously retrenched, he af­firms the clean contrary; that what he said in the first, (by you cited) according to the senti­ments of St. Thomas, (mark, Sir, exmente D. Thomae) and according to the minde of Cajetan and Sylvester, (post Sylvestrum & Cajetanum) hinders not a man in the cases expressed in the Law, from committing Simony, be it that which is term'd of Positive Right, or that which is presumed such in the exteriour Court▪ See what a palpable Imposture you are guilty of. Can you [Page 230] deny it? See, I have given you a reall wound; Nor were you able to decline the blow: And will you now dissemble it? affirming, that you are accus'd of forgetting two words, which yet are not at all in the whole passage. This is rare indeed.

But not contenting your self with so base an a [...]ifice, (to amuze the world) you intend to shew us the excellency of your judgement, while you affirm, that Tannerus declares not in that place, That it is a Simony as to Positive Right, because he affirms it not generally, but in the particular cases expressed in the Law, in casibus jure expressis. I think you are resolved to sacrifice your self to the laughter of the learned. Had Tannerus affirm'd it generally, as you main­tain he ought to have done, he must have been, what you now are, very little enlightned as to the question of Simony. For it would thence fol­low, that there are Simonies in respect of Posi­tive Right, which are not exprest in the Positive Law. R [...]concile this contradiction. It would follow against the opinion of St. Thomas, and all other Divines, that it should be Simony, as to Positive Right, to give money to have Masses said, though one gives it not as the price of the Sacrifice, but onely by way of acknowledgement or retribution, (in stipendium) necessary to the maintenance of the Priest that offers it up. Re­concile this with the practice of all the Parishes of Paris. Many other absurdities would fol­low, wherein you shamefully engage your self by reproving this Authour; which I pass over, to tell you, that 'tis besides the purpose to dispute, [Page 231] whether Tannerus affirm'd in generall, or in par­ticular cases onely, that it was a Simony as to Positive Right, It is sufficient to shew he has affirm'd it as he ought to do, generally in cases expressed in the Law; and that you have omit­ted it, even in the manner he affirm'd it. Whence it follows, that you have falsified his Text by a manifest Imposture, which still remains upon you; since you cannot deny it before all the world.

After all this you have the courage to propose certain cases of Conscience, and to ask with your accustomed boldnesse, whether a Beneficed Man shall be guilty of Simony, if he dispose of a Be­nesice worth four hundred pounds a year, recei­ving a thousand pound, not as the price of the Benefice, but as a motive inclining him to give it; and you desire to be answered clearly, with­out mention of Positive Right, or presumption of the exteriour Tribunal. Repair to the School, Sir, and all the Divinity Masters will teach you, that setting aside the Positive Right you [...] Qu [...]re is ridiculous; being just as if one should ask, whether abstracting from the precept of the Church, it were a sin not to hear Masse on a Fe­stivall day? But you are to blame to think me oblig'd to read you Lectures of Divinity; I should too slightly lose a thing no losse precious then time. I have performed my duty in clearly evin [...]ing to you, that your second Imposture re­mains still as well as the first; and that you must needs be reduced to a great strait, who are constrain'd to ask extravagant questions, by not being able to give any solid Answers.

[Page 232] Wherefore I come to your third Imposture concerning Bankrupts, which needs no long dis­course to clear up the businesse; being of all the most visible and grosse, to speak in your own terms.

For indeed what can be more grosse, then to make Lessius affi [...]m, That he, who turn [...] Bank­rupt, may with a safe conscience retain as much of his own goods, as is requ [...]site to maintain his family handsomely, (ne indecorè vivat) though gotten unjustly by crimes notoriously known? Seeing you were advertis'd in the Answer to this Calumny, that he is so far from that opinion, that he [...]ffi [...]ms point-blank to the contrary. That in the disorder of these times, wherein we see many who become rich on a sudden, raising themselves p [...]odigious fortunes, built onely upon crimes, frauds, and injustices; such people must not imagine themselves discharg'd of making restitntion till the hour of death: for they are hound in conscience to make satisfaction immedi­ately, and to reduce themselves to the former condition they were in, before they had raised their Houses, and been advanced to high Offices by such enormious crimes.

You cannot but grant, Sir, that this assertion is diametrically opposite to that you have charg'd him with. Wherefore to vindicate your self, you should have made it evidently appear, that the Doctrine you impute to him, in your eighth Letter, is found in his writings, and this other not: which seeing you cannot do, (as 'tis im­possible you ever should) it is most manifest you have falsly cited him, and cannot exempt [Page 233] your self from that Reproach.

For it contributes nothing to your justification to object this other Text, which you cite in La­tine contrary to your custome. Idem colligitur apertè ex juribus citatix, maximè quoad [...]a bona quae post cessionem acquirit; de quibus is qui de­bitor est, [...]tiam ex delicto, potest retinere quan­tum necessarium est, ut pro suâ conditione non indecorè vivat. Petes, an Leges id permittant de bou [...]s quae tempore instantis cessionis habeat? Ita videtur colligi ex Doctoribus, &c. This onely citation is enough to condemn you, and shews your & cetera to be of the nature of those wherewith Cardinall Perron reproached that fa­mous Heretique Du Plessis-Mornay, who cor­rupted the Texts of the Fathers, as you do these of the Divines.

See here that Doctrine of Lessius in the place alledged rightly delivered, which will proclaim your fraud.

He here asks the question, whether he that turns Bankrupt, may by that action free himself from the bond of making restitution? And an­swers first, that in point of conscience it excuses him no more then necessity alone would do with­out it; because though he breaks, yet no more is allow'd him then meer aliment, and that too by way of compassion; for it is not alwayes grant­ed, but onely when the case seems to deserve it, as is prescribed in the Law, qui bonis, [...]. de ces­sione bono [...]um. Now thus he may retain them by the sole Law of Nature, as also by the Law of Nations.

[Page 234] Secondly he answers, that in the exteriour Tribunall Cession, or the act of breaking, works two effects. The first, That one cannot imprison the Debtour, which he proves by the L. 1. C. qui bonis cedere possunt. The second, That one cannot take from him what he acquires after his breaking, if it be necessary for the maintenance of himself and family, which he shews by the Law, L. is qui bonis 4. & § ult. In­stit. de actionibus.

Thirdly, he inserres this Consequence, whose beginning and end you have maliciously cut off, because they discover your Impo­sture.

It follows, that he who not by his own fault is constrained to break, if his Creditours seize on his goods, may retain as much as is necessary for him to live meanly, according to his conditi­on, (ut tenuiter vivat secundum statum) as Navarre and others teach; who assert, that one may retain as much as is requisite to live on with­out want; that is, as Sylv [...]ster expounds it, to live decently, (ne indecenter vivat) The same is clearly inferred out of the Laws I have cited as to the goods a man acquires after breaking; of which even he that has contracted debts by some crime, may retain as much as is necessary to maintain him handsomely: for the Laws speak in generall terms. You will ask, whether the Laws permit the same, as to the goods he had when he was upon the point of breaking. It seemes to be inferrable out of the Law, qui bonis [...]. de cess. bonorum. Where it is said, that he who hath turned Bankrupt, [Page 235] ought not to be deprived of aliment, (non esse fraudandum quotidianis alimentis) which is but reasonable. (Now, Sir, behold your & cetera) Which is but reasonable, sayes this Father, as to the Debtor who inculpably be­comes insolvent. Quod aequitati consenta­neum in debitore, qui absque culpâ suâ non est solvendo.

See you not, Sir, how accusable you are for omitting these words? See you not the great difference he puts between those that break through some misfortune, which renders them not criminall, but miserable; and those who engaging themselves in restitutions by their crimes and injustices, become miserable after they have made themselves criminall? The in­nocent Debtour may retain part of his goods, even of those he had before he became Bankrupt, to live meanly according to his condition, ut tenuiter vivat secundum statum, to live without dishonour, ne indecore vivat; (thus you should have translated these words, but it were an end­lesse work to rectifie you) The criminall Deb­tour, on the contrary, may retain part of the goods he gets after turning Bankrupt: and this the Text you alledge, specifies; but not of those he had gotten before Bankrupt, by rapines and publick extortions: which you falsly impute to him in your eighth Letter, and desist not from doing it again in your twelfth, notwithstanding he affirms the contrary in the place I cite you; asserting that he is obliged to restore without de­lay, and to reduce himself to th [...] state he was in before he advanc'd his fortune, and had rais'd his [Page 236] condition by publique and scandalous crimes.

Thus, Sir, you see how you disguize and falsi­fie Authors; how you wrap up your Impostures in false appearances, and after all, lay the blame on F. Escobar; who cannot possibly in an A­bridgement so clearly unfold the sentiments of those he alledges. But since you say you have written to him at Valladolid, I need not think my self responsable for him. Transport the war into Spain, seeing you have had such ill suc­cesse with it in France. Fly into a strange coun­trey, since you can no longer subsist in this with honour. Change your French Coin for Spa­nish. B [...]ag that you make war among the Jesu­suites: No man will think it strange, since you do the same in the heart of the Church: but no man also will envy you that glory, in case he re­ [...]lect on the five Propositions of Jansenius, and the Anathema's of Rome. It is not an action de­serving honour to combat with Religion; 'tis an Impie [...]y punishable by all Laws, Divine and Hu­mane: and to glory in it, is to make a Trophy of ones Crimes, and a Triumph of ones Ignomi­ny. It is no lesse honourable to their Society to serve for a Buckler against Heretiques, then it is ignomini [...]us for you to cast against it the darts of an envenom'd detraction. It will subsist after it has endur'd your insolent assaults, because it is founded on the Name of Jesus Christ, who is the fundamentall Stone of that Building; but your Sect will perish, after it has bred disorder in the Church; and rendring it self guilty of an infinity of evils, will finde nothing in its ruin [...]s but an eternity of Repentance.

An ANSWER to the Reply made in defence of the Twelfth Provin­ciall Letter.

Argument.

1. THat the Authour of this Reply hath not excused the Authour of the Provinciall Letters from the main crimes objected to him, but left him in the lurch. 2. Vasquez his Conclusions of Alms set down out of his Treatise of Alms. 3. Out of these Conclusions the Authour of the Reply, and the Jansenist, are evidently convinced of notorious Imposture. 4. Some generall Notions of Simony given. 5. Clear Imposture discovered in forging words in the name of Valentia, when Valentia hath no such words. 6. The Author of the Reply convinced out of his own words of Imposture, in his trifling discourse against Tanner.

SIR

YOur Friend, the Jansenist, is very little obliged to you; for instead of helping him out of the mi [...]e, you have plunged him deeper in. You know, he was told in the Answer to his Twelfth Letter, that he was justly called Heretique; since the Church calleth him so, for defending the Hereticall Propositions of Jansenius. What Answer do you make? You know he was told, that since (as was shewed in the Impostures) his objections against the Socie­ty were generally the same, which Du Moulin had made against the Church, he could not take it ill to be called Du Moulins Disciple. What Answer do you make? You know he was told, that the Title of Impostor and Falsi [...]ier, was given the Authour of the Book of Morall Divinity, burnt by the Hangman; and therefore he having formed his Letters on that mould, ought not to count it a wrong done him, that the Jesuites gave his Letters the Title, which the Parliament of Bourdeoux gave the Originall, from whence they were copied. What Answer do you make? The reall crimes, which your Friend hath committed, make him guilty of these Titles, of Heretique, of Disciple of Du Moulin, of Impostour, &c. What say you for him? If you will defend him, you must speak here; or else I must tell you, as your Friend hath already been told, That silence in such crimes, as these, argueth conviction.

You tell us, You judge these things said to di­vert the Authour. From what? That you do not tell us. But [...]e tell you from what. These [Page 139] things were said to divert the Author from falsifying and abusing learned Writers, which he doth not understand. They were said to divert him from stealing calumnies out of condemned Libells. They were said to divert him from Heresies. They were said to divert others from giving credit to a fabulous Slanderer, convinced of so many grosse and ignorant Calumnies. It was this diversion was aimed at, for his good, and the good of those, whose facil credulity he abu­seth. He ought to have cleared himself (had it been possible for him) from these just accusati­ons: and yet you, who will needs take up the Cudgels in his quarrel, tell us, You are glad to see his Thirteenth Letter come abroad, without taking any notice of the Answer to his Eleventh and Twelfth Letters, where these crimes were laid to his charge. This indeed may help to em­bolden your Friend, and make him a little more impudent in belying Authours; since you clap him o'the back, and are glad to see him slight his being convicted; but it will never help to clear him.

But because you expresse your joy at the sight of the Thirteenth Letter, I pray tell me, were you glad to see, that whereas in the beginning he undertakes to answer the Fourth Imposture, (in English the Fourteenth) and with it Seven more, he notwithstanding never toucheth one of those Seven? Were you glad to see, That that very Fourteenth Impostu [...]e, which he handleth, is so pittifully treated, that it is but reading one short passage of L [...]ssius. (which I have inserted in the end of this Book) for to see his Ignomi­ny [Page 240] written in undeniable Characters? It is no friendly part to be glad, that one, for whom you have a kindenesse, saith what he cannot prove, and undertakes what he cannot perform: yet you are glad to see this in your Friend, which another man would be ashamed of in a Stranger. And perhaps your Friend, the Jansenist, in whose vin­dication you write, will be as glad to see your Letter, which is much according to his palate, full of falsity and errours.

You undertake to shew, that he hath not wronged Vasquez, nor Valentia, nor Tanner: Let's see how you perform it. And to proceed orderly, let's begin with Vasquez; and first lay down the accusations on both sides, and then come to you.

The Authour then of the Provinciall Letters speaketh thus in his Sixth Letter. It is said in the Gospel, Give Alms of your superfluity: and yet divers Casuists have found out a way, to exempt even the richest persons from this obliga­tion of giving Alms,—by interpreting the word superfluity: insomuch that it seldom or ne­ver happeneth, that any man is troubled with any such thing. And this is done by the learned Vasquez in this manner. What ever men lay up out of a design to raise their fortunes, or those of their relation, is not called superfluous. For which reason it will be hard to finde any, among those that are worldly minded, that have ought superfluous; no not even among Kings. And a little after he concludeth, That it will be as sure a way (according to Vasquez) for a man that desires to work his Salvation, to be guilty of [Page 241] ambition enough, that so he may have nothing superfluous, as it is (according to the Gospel) not to be ambitious at all.

To this the Jesuites answered, That Vasquez taught quite contrary to what the Jansenist im­posed on him. Here was then the question to be decided in the Twelfth Letter, and in its Answer, viz. Whether the Authour of the Provinciall Letters [...]ad cited Vasquez right, or no? And you, Sir, who undertake to second the Jansenist, Authour of the Provinciall Letters, maintain, that Vasquez is not wronged, but that he is really Authour of the Doctrine, for which he is cited. I undertake to prove the contrary. Our question must be cleared by looking into Vasquez, as he lieth, in that Treatise of Alms; which consisteth of four Chapters. Of these four the first one­ly is that, where he treateth the question in hand, concerning Alms which secular men are bound to give. I shall therefore draw out from thence all Vasquez his Conclusions concerning this que­stion; keeping, as near as may be, not onely the sense, but the very expressions of Vas­quez.

Vasquez his Conclusions concerning Alms, which Secular Men are bound to give.

First all grant, that the Precept of actually giving Alms is an Affirmative Precept, which doth not oblige at all times. Dub. 3. num. 10.

Secondly all agree, that this Precept obli­geth (under mortall sin) when our neighbour is in extream necessity. Ibid.

[Page 242] Thirdly all seem to agree, (though perhaps some dissent) that no man is bound to give Alms, when the necessity of the poor is not urgent, but onely ordinary. Ibid.

Fourthly some say, that though you have that which is superfluous, not onely to nature, but al­so to your state or condition, yet that there is no obligation of P [...]ecept for you to give Alms, ex­cepting onely, when some poor man is in extream necessity. So saith Gabriel, Alexander, Major, Gerson. But St. Antonin, [...]onrad, and Du­rand speak dubiously. Ibid. n. 12.

Fifthly notwithstanding this there are other cases, besides those of extream necessity, in which a man is bound to give Alms. Ibid. [...]. 15.

Sixthly the ground of the obligation, which I have to give Alms, is, That Charity exact­eth, that I should give that which is necessary to another, and superfluous to me: yet if the ne­cessity be but ordinary, and not urgent, it seemeth very hard, to oblige me under mortall sin. [...]. 21. But as ex [...]ream necessity doth oblige, so urgent necessity obligeth also. n. 24 As therefore I am bound under Precept to relieve another mans extream necessity, out of that which is superfluous to nature; so it seemeth to me, that I am bound to relieve his urgent necessity, out of that which is superfluous to my state.

Seventhly the Secular man is not bound to seek out the persons that are in necessity, as Pre­lates are; but to relieve them when they occurre. n 25. Neither is any particular secular man bound to releive this, or that particular poor [Page 243] man that doth occurre, when he may justly sup­pose, that some other will releive this poor man, if he do not. That therefore I be obliged under mortall sin to relieve this man, I must know that (probably) no body else will. n. 28.

Eighthly the order of Charity m [...]st go thus. For to conserve the good of my neighbour with detriment of my own, I must consider whether they be equall, or unequall. For I am not bound to conserve my neighbours life with losse of my own life: but I am bound to conserve his life with the losse of other things. n. 25. If there­fore my neighbour be in danger of his life, or in great sicknesse, I am bound to help him with that which is superfluous to nature for me and mine. n. 26. Secondly, if my neighbour be in danger of lo [...]ing his reputation, or fame, I am bound to succour him with all that I have su­perfluous to the maintenance of my nature. Thirdly, if one be in danger of falling from h [...] state, or condition, I am bound with that which is superfluous to my state, to supply him; I say, with that which is superfluous to my state, either present, or future, which I may lawfully aim at. For as I am not bound to lose my state, for fear another should lose his; so also I am not bound to lose my future state, which I may justly aim at, for to prevent the like losse in my neighbor. This is the expresse opinion of Navarr and Cajetan. For though Cajetan think, a man is bound to give Alms out of that which is superfluous, yet he doth not think that superfluous, which is reser­ved to raise ones state: So that one will scarce be obliged to give Alms, (understand this in [Page 244] the case here spoken of, when my neighbour is in danger of losing his state, unlesse I relieve him with that which is superfluous to my state, as Vasquez explicateth himself. num. 32. and as the following words import) either in Cajetans opinion or mine, if this obligation grow onely out of what is superfluous to ones state. num. 27. It is certain then, that not onely extream necessi­ty, but also many other urgent necessites oblige us to give Alms. Nor must we look onely on our having superfluity, but on our neighbours ne­cessity. Num. 29.

Ninthly Corduba doth justly reprehend Ca­jetan for saying, it is onely a Veniall sin for an Advocate or Lawyer to refuse to plead for a poor man; or for a Physician to refuse to pre­scribe physick to a poor man. For Corduba judge­eth it a Mortall Sin to refuse to prescribe, when the poor man is in danger of falling into a great sicknesse, or of losing his health. The like he [...]udgeth of the Lawyer, when the poor man is in danger of losing his [...]ame, his stat [...], or his goods, for want of some body to plead for him. And this I think true, not onely when the question is of preventing the losse of fame, state, or goods, but also for recovering them, when they are unjustly taken from the poor man. Num. 33. dub. 3. cap. 1.

These are Vasquez his Conclusions con­cerning Alms, which oblige Secular men (in this Fathers opinion) under Precept of Mor­tall Sin. Now tell me, what is here so crimi­nall, that the whole Society should be defamed by it? With what face, but that of Impudenc [...] [Page 245] it self, could the Authour of the Provinciall Letters say, That Vasquez freeth the rich men from giving Alms; and that according to Vas­quez it is as secure a way for a man that desires his salvation, to be guilty of ambition enough, that so he may have nothing superfluous, as it is according to the Gospel, not to be ambitious at all? Or with what face can you say, Sir, That Vasquez his design was to satisfie the rich, who would gladly be as seldom as may be obliged to give Alms; and that according to the Method of the Society? Pag. 201. 2. Edit.

You see here, that Gabriel, Alexander, Ma­jor, Gerson, clearly free secular men (as Caje­tan also doth) from obligation of Precept of giving Alms in all cases, but onely that of ex­tream necessity. And Saint Antonine, Conrad, and Durand dare no [...] say. That any other cases oblige under Mortall Sin. Yet Vasquez hath the knack of complying with rich men, though he tell them, there be many other cases which ob­lige them under Mortall Sin. You see Cajetan obligeth not the Lawyer, or Physician, to assist the poor Patient, or Client, but under Veniall Sin; yet Vasquez to comply according to the Method of the Society with the Lawyer and Physician, and give them large scope, telleth them, they are obliged under Mortall Sin to assist in these cases.

You thought that after you had made your Reply, no body would ever look into Vasquez: for you could not think, but that if any body would take the pains to read Vasquez, he should finde his Doctrine as far from being lax and [Page 246] compliant, as you, Sir, are from sincerity; that is, as far as heaven is from the earth.

You complain pag. 194. of the second Engl. Edit. That the Answer to the Twelfth Letter of your friend the Jansenist toucheth nothing of what your Friend had said in his Twelfth Let­ter. I answer for him then, and tell you, the reason was, because your Friend had said no­thing to the purpose: no more do you. [...]e not angry, good Sir; and I will make my words good. That which your Friend had to do, (and you also have) was to shew, that he had not ci­ted Vasquez false. This he never shewed; nor do you, or can you shew. And yet till you shew this, you say nothing to the purpose. This An­swer is abundantly enough. No more needs be said, to prove you and your Friend both Impo­stours. It is enough to read on the one side what is objected in the Sixth Letter against Vasquez; and on the other side the Conclusions here set faithfully down by me out of Vasquez, for to to confu [...]e all which both you and your Friend say. Yet to condescend to you, or rather to satisfie the Reade [...]s, I will observe some of your errours.

You object, That what worldly men lay up to raise their own fortunes, or that of their rela­tions, is not called superfluous: for which reason it will be hard to finde any, among those who are worldly minded, that have ought superfluous, ac­cording to Vasqu [...]z. What then? Doth Vas­quez therefore free s [...]u [...]a [...] men from the obli­gation of giving Alms? Read Vasquez, and you will see, that he is so far from that, that few [Page 247] Casuists are so severe as he. But Sir, to unde­ceive you, I must tell you, your Friend hath ta­ken the citation of those words out of a wrong place; and so he either ignorantly or voluntarily erreth all the way. He taketh the words; which make up his objection out of the Fourth Cha­pter, num. 14. where Vasquez treateth of the obligation, which Clergy-men have to give alms. If he had taken them out of the First Chapter, he would there have found the Conclusions, which I have drawn out of him, in his own words. In the Fourth Chapter, num. 14. Vas­quez saith nothing of the obligation which se­cular men have, or have not, to give Alms: He treateth of the obligation of Clergy-men, and saith, That there is great difference betwixt Se­cular and Clergy-men; for Secular Men may lay up to encrease their state; but Clergy-men may not. So in Secular Men, even Kings, you will hardly [...]inde any thing superfluous; in Cler­gy-men, that have fat Benefices, you will (saith Vasquez) alwayes finde it, if they live sparingly, as they are bound to do. Now if your Friend would needs quote these words out of the Fourth Chapter, to set down the obligation, which (ac­cording to Vasquez) Secular men have to give Alms, at least he should have looked, how Vas­quez qualified that obligation, in the place where he treated of Secular Men. By not doing this he fell to charge Vasquez wrongfully of favour­ing ambition, and relaxing the obligation which Secular Men have to give Alms. The Jesuites answered, that Vasquez was severe enough in his obligation: and to shew that he favoured no [...] [Page 248] ambition, they told your Friend the Authour of the Provinciall Letters, that Vasquez allowed not Secular Men any other raising their for­tune, but such as was lawfull, nor any other pretense of Dignity, but such as they might just­ly alm at. Statum, quem licitè possunt acquire­re.—Statum, quem dignè possunt acquirere. And they asked him, why he cited not these words? You, to help your Friend out at this dead lift, answer, That those words, Statum, quem licitè possunt acquirere, and statum quem dignè possunt acquirere were fifteen pages in folio be­fore the passage which he cited. A goodly An­swer! What if they had been five hundred pages before? What were that to the pu [...]pose? Who [...]id your Friend cite a wrong place? It was a grosse errour in him to do so; and it is a grosse errour in you to bring such a simple excuse, un­lesse you did it of set purpose to make your Friend be laugh'd at.

Another error of yours is, that as you confound the citations, so you confound the terms, which is to make your self ridiculous among School-men. So you p. 200. talk of Corduba, and take the matter quite wrong. The question is there (it is in Vas­quez, c. 1. dub. 3. num. 32.) very different. And Corduba is as much against Cajetan and others, as against Vasquez. Corduba saith, That although there were no poor men at all in urgent want, ye [...] he that hath sup [...]rfluity, would be bound to give Alms sometimes, so to fulfill the Pr [...]cept of Cha­rity. This Cajetan will deny, as well as Vas­quez: Cajetan, because h [...] requir [...]h, as a con­dition to expedite the obligation under Precept, [Page 249] that there be some poor in extream want; Vas­quez, because he holdeth, that superfluity alone is not enough to oblige a man under mortall sin to give Alms, but joyneth with the superfluity the extream or urgent necessity of the poor, so to make the Precept oblige. But because Vasquez hath in this place Hoc non placet, you print these words in great Letters, as though they made Vasquez criminall; whilest notwithstanding he saith no more, then generally all Casuists do. For all say, That there is no obligation under Mortall Sin to give alms, unlesse there be some poor, either in [...]xtream, or in urgent necessity. Ʋrgent necessity. I understand to be such, that they cannot well passe without your alms. For if they can (as Day-labourers for example do) it is very hard to say, that it is a mortall sin not to give Alms sometimes, onely because the affir­mative Pr [...]ept must sometimes be practised. In this Corduba is singular; and if Vasquez say Non placet, Cajetan, Navarr, Alexander, Ga­briel, Major, Gerson. Sarmiento, St. Antonine, and all the rest will say, Non placet too: for none hold with Corduba.

So Sir, you see how you erre by not under­standing the terms of ordinary and urgent ne­cessity: and I hope you will say no more, that the Jesuites shuffle in distinctions, and con [...]ound matte [...]s with terms, since your errour proceedeth from ignorance in terms, and from not distin­guishing ordinary and urgent necessity. Ordinary necessity is that which Casuists call, communis necessitas pauperum, the common necessity of all those that are truly poor: urgent necessity is [Page 250] that, which maketh poor men stand in present need of something, necessary either for life, as Beggars do, (I mean true Beggars, that know not well where to have a meals meat) or for health, as sick that are in want, or for preserving their fame or goods, as those that are oppressed by the rich, do. These and many other such like cases are urgent; in which Vasquez obligeth rich men under mortall sin to afford their help, if they know that others will not do it. Now these cases, which happen but too often, make it clear, that you wrong Vasquez, in saying, that he ob­ligeth not to give alms, but in very rare cases, and such as never happen in Paris.

But I go on to shew you another errour of yours. The Jesuite (for he was a Jesuit, though you will needs mistake him) had in his Answer to the Jansenists Twelfth Letter, urged the Janse­nist to shew, out of what words of Vasquez he could conclude, That it would be as safe (ac­cording to Vasquez) for a man that desireth his salvation, to be guilty of ambition enough, that so he may have nothing superfluous, as it is, ac­cording to the Gospel, not to be ambitious at all. To this the Jansenist was mute; you give two Answers, but both such as would make a Dog laugh. First you say, You might answer, that this objection was never made by the Jesuite in the Imposture. Pretty, Pretty. Do you take your Friend to be excused from falsifying an Au­thour, if a Jesuite do not pull him by the sleeve, and say, Here, Sir, you have falsified this Au­thour? Ridiculous. Is a lie no lie, unlesse a man be challenged with it? Or a Theft no [Page 251] Theft, unlesse a man be caught in it? John D' Alba will thank you for this Maxime, which makes his stealing more excusable, then the Je­suites Morall. But, Sir, your Friend was told of this. He was told, that he had disguized Vasquez, and corrupted his Doctrine; which he had done as well in these words, as in the rest. He was challenged of all; but because all his words were not cited at length, you tell us, You might answer that this objection was never made. Indeed you are a lusty Disputant, that can talk so stoutly against reason. But I would pardon this frivolous answer, because at least it is short; if you did not second it with a tedious discourse of Non-sense, which makes your second answer. The Summe is, That you will needs have it a sin of Ambition for a secular man to lay up any thing for to raise himself, or his, though to such a state, as he may lawfully pretend; which Vas­quez requireth, Statum, quem licitè possunt ac­quirere. You are extreamly out, Sir, in your judgement: Will you say, That it is a sin of Ambition, that is, of its own nature a Deadly Sin, for a Peasant to lay up a little money, where­by he may bring up his Childe at School, and make him a Lawyer, or a Physician, or (if God so call him) a Clergy-man? Or would you tell a Tradesman, that he is bound still to work in his shop, and that it is a sin of Ambition to dis­pose so, that by laying up something in his youth, he may live in a better calling in his old dayes? I am very glad, Sir, that you cannot impugn Vas­quez his Doctrine, nor make it appear ill, but by advancing such Paradoxes as these.

[Page 252] There remain yet two Objections more against Vasquez, which I will take notice of: you would prove by them both, that at least Vas­quez obligeth rich men but very rarely to give alms. But what if you should prove this? Have I not shewed you, that Cajetan, and divers others oblige onely in case of extream necessity, which is but rare? But let's hear you. Vasquez (say you) understandeth all that he saith of t [...]e duty of rich men to give alms, to oblige onely, when they know, that no body else will relieve the poor man. He saith so: I have put it in his seventh conclu­sion. But is he therefore larger then others? Cajetan (as I have told you) holdeth, That I am not bound to give alms, but when I see a man in extream necessity. Now I can never know, that a man is in extream necessity of my alms, unlesse I know, that no body else will relieve him. Yet this Cajetan requireth; and it will be a harder matter to oblige a man in Paris to give alms, out of Cajetans Doctrine, then out of Vasquez his Doctrine. For Cajetan will say, That to oblige you under Mortall Sin to give this man an alms, you must know, that this man standeth in extream need of your alms: Vasquez will say, that to oblige you to give this man an alms, you must know, that this man is either in extream need of your alms, or in urgent need of it: Now ur­gent need is a great deal more common, then extream need as is evident.

But now I come to your grand Achilles, by which you would make it peremptorily certain, that Vasquez is very indulgent to the rich, and obligeth them very seldom to give alms; Be­cause [Page 253] (say you) in those cases, in which Vasquez obligeth rich men to give alms, he alloweth the poor to steal from them. For to answer this, I will do, as I did in the former matter, first set down Vasquez his Doctrine, which in cap. 1. dub. 7. is delivered in two Conclusions.

First, he saith with all Casuists generally, That in extream necessity a poor man may take from the rich man that which is precisely necessa­ry for his relief. The reason is, because the rich man is supposed not to be rationally unwilling, that the poor man should take to save his life that which is necessary.

Secondly, Vasquez saith further That in some urgent necessity a poor man may take from a rich man. He saith in some case (aliquo casu) for it is not generall: and he explica [...]es himself pre­sently, eo (inquam) casu, quo alius tenebatur h [...]ic, patienti extremam necessitatem vel gra­vem, succurrere.—In that case, in which the rich man was bound to succour this poor man. In this Conclusion Vasquez is against Cajetan, and the Major part of Divines; but he hath with him Sylvester and Angelus. The reason of this Conclusion is the same, as of the former: For I cannot rationally be unwilling, that the poor man should take that, which I was bound under Mortal Sin to give him. This is Vasquez his Doctrine.

Now that which I have to say here is first, that this very Doctrine of Vasquez, which you lay hold on, evidently convinc [...]th, that Vasquez is stricter in point of obliging rich men to give alms, then Cajetan, or other Divines ordinarily [Page 254] are. For Vasquez therefore granteth, that the poor may take from the rich that which is pre­cisely necessary, in more cases then Cajetan and others do, because he holdeth the rich obliged to give alms in more cases, then Cajetan and others do. So that the first thing, that can be conclu­ded from this objection, is, that you and your Friend have all the way falsified Vasquez, and wrongfully judged him to be indulgent to the rich.

The second thing I have to say concerneth your Illation, That either Vasquez doth not ordi­narily oblige rich men to give Alms, or else he giveth the poor an ordinary permission to steal. I must tell you, this Illation is very illogicall and inconsequent. It is very true, that Vasquez doth not ordinarily, that is, upon ordinary occa­sions, oblige rich men by precept to give alms; for he requireth, that the case be urgent at least, which is not ordinary; and so your whole Argu­ment faileth in the first clause. Yet upon an­other account it faileth worse in the second clause. For Vasquez doth not say, That in all cases of urgent necessity the poor may steal; no, he al­loweth not that: but (as I have told you) he al­loweth, that when this particular rich man is bound to relieve this particular poor man, then the poor man may take to supply his necessity. Now this is not ordinary. And it is made lesse ordinary, and consequently the poor mans per­mission to steal lesse frequent, by that clause, which Vasquez prudently put, That this deter­minate rich man is not bound under precept, to give this poor man an Alms, unlesse he proba­bly [Page 255] suppose, that no body else will, or can do it. This caution you very simply laughed at, though it be a necessary one, and sheweth, that the poor man, if he be refused by one rich man, ought to go to another, and not presently fall a pilfering. But if after all his industry in begging no body will help him, then according to Vasquez he may lawfully take that which is necessary for his relief, not onely in his extream, but also in his urgent want.

This is Vasquez his Doct [...]ine; which if you will impugn with reason, I shall willingly hear you: for I am not of Vasquez his opinion, nor of Caj [...]tans neither; though I respect them both, as far above me. I have onely one thing more to adde, That this Treatise of Vasquez concerning Alms is a Post [...]ume Work; and therefore it must not be wondred, if it be a little obscure, wanting the Authours last hand. Nor were it any great credit for you, if in a Work, which the Authour never lived to perfect, you should spy some [...]r­rour. But your disgrace is not the lesse, for ha­ving falsified this Work.

But it is time to passe to Valentia and Tann [...]r; whom you accuse of favou [...]ing Simony, which is crime enough, if you can prove it.

But before I begin with you, I will set down something for a generall Notion of Simony, to clear the Reader, and let him know in what all agree, and what the terms, which we must use, do mean. For though you, Sir, and your Friend, would needs be answered in this matter without School-terms, yet I judge it very impertinent to humour you in this desire: and if every Trades­man [Page 256] is allowed his terms; if a Faulconer or Hunts-man would be laughed at for relating their Game without the terms of their art, sure it cannot be required, that a Divine should desert his terms, which are necessary to make him in­telligible.

First then, the Reader will be pleased to un­derstand, that the Definition of Simony, which St. Tho. 2. 2. q. 100. and all Divines allow of, is that which is given in Gloss. Decret. c. 1. q. 1. in these words. Simonia est studiosa voluntas [...] ­mendi aut vendendi aliquid spirituale, aut spi­rituali annexum. ‘Simony is a deliberate will of Buying, or Selling, some Spirituall Thing, or something annexed to a Spirituall Thing.’

Secondly the Authour, from whose infamous crime this horrid Sin hath its name, is Simon Ma­gus; who would have bought of St. Peter the power of giving the Holy Ghost by Imposition of hands. For though the Authour of the Pro­vinciall Letters (a fit Advocate for such a pur­pose) say, (Letter the Twelfth, page 294. first Edit.) That it is certain that Simon Magus used no terms of Buying or Selling, yet it is most cer­tain, that he did; and upon the authority of Scripture we have it, that he would have Acts 8. 20. bought that power of St. Peter. So St. Peter understood it, and so all the world conceived it, till this Jan­senist was pleased to plead for Simon Magus.

Thirdly all consent, that according to the Definition given, to make any act truly Simo­niacall, there must be a Buying or Selling of some Spirituall Thing, or something annexed to [Page 257] a Spirituall Thing: And if there be not a Buy­ing or Selling, then all agree, that there is no Si­mony. By this means Curats, and other Church­men are exempt from Simony. For though they receive Tythes, Pensions, Stipends, and Distri­butions from the people in respect of their Spiri­tuall Functions, yet they receive them not as a price of their Spiritual Functions, but as a Tem­porall Subsistance, which out of gratitude (or to incline them to do willingly what they undertake) the people pay, or give those, by whom they are helped in Spiritualls: and this is grounded on Christs appointment. For as St. Paul tell [...]th, 1 Cor. 9. So our Lord ordained, to them that announce the Gospell, to live of the Gospell. It is therefore allowed by all, that it is not Simony (speaking onely according to the D [...]finition) to give a Temporall Good for a Spirituall, either by way of gratitude, or to encline the will, when there is no pact, or bargain of Justice interve­ning. And by this Doctrine many acts, which are commended by Antiquity, are understood. For example, Baronius in his History, Anno 929. commendeth Henry King of Germany, (whom he calleth the Ornament of Christian Religion) for having given great gifts, and a great part of the Province of Su [...]via to Rodulph King of Italy and Burgundy, for to obtain of him the Lance of Constanti [...]e, in which there was one of the Nails, wherewith Christ was nailed to the Crosse. This act is commended by Baronius; who would never have commended Simony. Nor indeed can that good King be sus­pected of Simony; since God blessed him, as Luit­prandus [Page 258] relateth, with a great victory by means of that Lance. And besides he made a vow to God to extirpate Simony in all his Realm. We must therefore say, that what he gave for the Lance, which he esteemed Sacred, was not as a price to buy it, but as a motive to induce King Rodulph to give it, or a gratitude for it. And the like we must judge of divers other such acti­ons, commended by Antiquity, and practised by Saints.

Fourthly it is to be known, that among other Divisions of Simony one very common is into Simony against the Divine Law, and Simony against Positive Law. Simony against Divine Law is that, which properly and strictly agreeth with the Definition above mentioned: Simony against Positive Law, as Sotus saith, lib. 9. de Justit. q. 5. Art. 2. is not properly Simony; for it hath not in it a Buying, or Selling, of a Spiti­tuall Thing, or any thing annexed to a Spirituall Thing. But it is called Analogically Simony, because it is punished by the Church as Simony. For the Church hath forbidden many acts under pain of Simony, for very just reasons, though those acts contain not a Buying or Selling of a Spirituall Thing. These acts are all expressed in the Ecclesiasticall, or Positive Law. So that to incurre Simony against Positive Law, is to do some act expresly forbidden in the Positive Law under pain of Simony. These acts are very ma­ny, and it imports not to set them down: we have said enough for our purpose.

These things then being foreknown, now I come to you, Sir, and will begin with [Page 159] what you say against Valentia.

Your Friend the Jansenist in his Sixth Letter, pag. 114. chargeth Valentia to have deserted St. Thomas, and to have taught in his 3. Tome. pag. 2042. this Doctrine, If a man give a Temporall Good for a Spirituall, (that is to say, money for a Ben [...]ice) and that a man give money as the price of a Benefice, it is apparent Simony; but if he give it as the motive, inclining the will of the Incumbent to resign his Interest, (non tanquam pretium Benificii, sed tanquam motivum ad re­signandum) it is not Simony, though he that re­sings, consider and look upon the money as his principall end. This is the charge he layeth to Valentia; which you, Sir, undertake to make good. The Jesuites answer, that it is an Impo­sture; and with good reason: for Valentia hath no such thing at all.

I will tell you, Sir, what passed with me, when I read these words in your Friends Sixth Letter. I imagined, that they being in a different print under Valentia's name, and the very page [...] ­ted, must needs be in Valentia. I turned there­fore to Valentia, having his Third Tome by me: But when I r [...]flected on the citation, which was onely pag. 2042. of his Third Tome with­out telling the Impression, I presently discovered your Friend the Jansenists knavery. On the one side, by citing the page he would have all the world believe, he was very exact; and on the other side, by not telling what Impression he fol­lowed, he was sure, no man should finde it out. There have been severall Impressions of Valen­tia, and in my Book, which was printed at Ingol­stad, [Page 260] Anno 1603. there is no such thing in the page cited. I was troubled at this; but being resolved to search further, and to finde it out at last, I went to the Twelfth Letter, where the the same matter is handled again. There I found, that the citation of the page 2042. was meant of the page 2044. and that it was in Tom. 3. Dispu­tat. 16. p. 3. I turned therefore for the sixteenth Disputation, hoping there to finde both what was in the Sixth and Twelfth Letter. But the jest on't was, that in that Tome there are but Ten disputations: So that your Friends citing the Sixteenth, was but to fool the world, or rather to declare himself a Knave to all the world. I suppose you will lay the fault on the Printer; but I believe the Sequell will shew where the fault was. For I being still unsatisfied, went, and read all the Treatise of Valentia concerning Simony; which is in his Third Tome, Disp. 6. and in the Sixteenth Question: and after all I must tell you, that there is no such thing in Valentia, as either the Sixth or Twelfth Letter impose on him. There are indeed p. 3. (and in the Im­pression named pag. 1983. lit. D.) some words, which make it clear, that this is the place which was meant by those citations; as for example the Latine words, which he citeth in the Twelfth Letter (for those in the Sixth are of his own coin­ing) are there, though not fully as they are ci­ted. But as to the whole matter, he hath falsi [...]ied Valentia, both in his Sixth and his Twelf [...]h L [...]t­ter. And this falsification consisteth chiefly in two things. First, whereas Valentia treate [...]h one­ly of Simony as it is against the Divine Law, [Page 261] and in the D [...]finition of all Divines, which I have set down, he maketh Valentia speak of Be­nefices: which being a matter, where Positive Law is concerned, he detorteth Valentia's sense. Secondly, he feigneth words in another print, to make Valentia deliver a Doctrine, which he ne­ver dreamt on; nay, which he hath expresly fore­warned the Reader of; using neither Valentia's words nor sense; but smothering some passages of that Author, and foisting in others to make them [...]it for his own purpose. This, Sir, you call to cite the passage of Valentia at length; for this you say, The Jesuites have nothing to answer to Valentia. This your Friend calleth Valentia's Dream. But, Sir, it is not Valentia that dreams; 'tis you that rave: Valentia hath no such thing. The words are not Valentia's; they are your Friends falsifying. You may perhaps say, that all that is laid to Valentia's charge by your Friend, may be inferred out of Valentia. I an­swer you, that it can no more be inferred out of Valentia, then out of all other Divines, who unanimously admit the Definition of Simony, as I shall shew at the end of this Letter. But allow that it might be in [...]erred out of Valentia, you should then have cited Valentia's words right, and shewed the [...]llation; you should not have changed and chopt as you do. This is manifest Imposture; and so I leave you with that good Title on your back, as to Valentia; and now I come to Tanner.

For Tanner, your Friend saith thus. Tanner is of the same opinion with Valentia, Tom. 3. pag. 1519. confessing withall, that St. Thomas is of a contrary opinion, in that he absolutely main­tains, [Page 262] that it is undeniable Simony to give a Spirituall Good for a Temporall, if the Tempo­rall be the end thereof. Here Tanner is accused first, of all that which Valentia is accused of in the sixth Letter, though he have not the words imputed to him, nor the sense of them, no more then Valentia; and next of speaking against the absolute authority of St. Thomas.

For this the Jesuite charged your Friend with Imposture; and he endeavoured to clear him­self in his Twelfth Letter: But the Answer to that Letter made him st [...]ll appear an Impostour, so clearly that I need not adde one word. After all you come, Sir, to maintain the Impostour: but your Discourse is so childish, and so manifestly against reason, that a young Logician, newly stept over pons asinorum, would be able to con­fute it all. Your words run thus.

Tanner saith in general, that it is no Simony in point of Conscience (in foro conscientiae) to give a spiritual good for a Temporal, when the Temporal is only the Motive, though the principal one, and not the price of the Spiritual. And when he saith, it is not Simony in point of Conscience, his meaning is, that it is not any, [...]ither in regard of Divine right, or of Positive right.

Here, Sir, you falsifie Tanner, in telling us he speaketh in general of Simony. He doth not in that place speak in general of Simony; he speak­eth onely of Simony against Divine Right, as is manifest; first by the words which he useth, ve­rè & propriè Simonia, truly and properly Simo­ny, which import Simony against Divine Right. And secondly by his expresse Caveat, which he [Page 263] immediately giveth, as the Jesuite hath already told you. Again, Sir, you are highly out in the terms, when you take Simony in foro conscientiae (in the Court of Conscience) to be a Generical name, according to Tanner, to all Simony; which is evidently false. For when Tanner had said, That it is not Simony in the Court of Con­science, he presently adjoyneth, That this hin­dreth not, but that it may be Simony of Positive Right: which is the exteriour Court. So he op­poseth Simony in foro conscientiae to Simony in foro exteriori: by the first he understands Si­mony against Divine Law: by the other Simo­ny against Positive Law. Nor in this is he sin­gular; but useth the terms, as other Divines do. Therefore when he saith, it is not Simony in fo­ro conscientiae, in the interiour Court of the Conscience, his meaning is not to say, that it is not Simony in point of Conscience, but it is not Simony against Divine Right; which is just con­trary to what you inferre.

You go on therefore, and say, Simony of [...]o­sitive Right is Simony in point of Conscience. I answer, that it is very certain, that he that bath committed Simony against Positive Right, is guilty in his conscience of Simony. Tanner, and Valentia, and every body say so. Yet notwith­standing the te [...]m in foro conscientiae (in the Court of Conscience) is very different from that other term, in foro exteriori, (in the exteriour Court) where Positive Law is pronounced, as every Divine can tell you.

Now (to omit some of your Non-sense) I come to the cons [...]quence which you draw from [Page 264] this; which is, Consequently there are some Spiri­tuall things which a man may, without Si­mony according to Positive Right, give for Tem­porall goods, by changing the word Price into that of Motive. I answer first, That your con­sequence followeth not out of your Antecedent; and so you erre grosly in Logick. Secondly I answer, That no consequence can make, that the change of words shall save committing Simo­ny. Thirdly I answer, That if you will frame your Proposition right, and say, That there are some Spirituall Things, which a man may with­out Simony against either Divine or Positive Right, give or do for Temporall goods, not as for a price, but as for a Motive, I grant it. This Tanner, and Valentia, and St. Thomas, and all generally say: So you may give your Curate his Fee for Baptizing your Childe; not as a price of that Sacrament, but as a gratitude, or stipend, which inclines the Curate willingly to do his Function. So I may give a poor man an Alms to move him to pray for me, or (if he be a Priest) to say a Masse for me, [...] and there's no Simony, though you are so simple as not to un­derstand it. So also all the Tythes, Stipends, Distributions, and Fees, that are given to Cler­gy-men, are given, not as the price of their Spi­rituall Functions, or administring Sacraments, but as a Motive, or as a Gratuity, as [...] told you, already: and every body knows, that the people neither give their Goods to Church-men for no­thing, nor are Simoniacall for paying their Duties.

And so, Sir, you are extreamly out in Tanner, [Page 265] as well as in Valentia and Vasquez. Tanner teacheth not the Doctrine, with which you charge him: nor is he so much against St. Thomas, as you would have him. He taketh the opinion, which seemeth to be against St. Thomas, but which is consonant to St. Thomas his Definition of Simony [...] and in this he followeth Sotus a Dominican, who explicateth St. Thomas. And if you mark it, Sir, you need not have run to falsifie either Valentia or Tanner, for to have drawn the Argument, which you and your Friend make. If you had not had a minde to butt against some Jesuite, you might have made a bet­ter Syllogisme out of the Definition of Simony, which St. Thomas and all the Schools hold. For example, you might have said thus. According to the Definition which all allow, Simony is a Buying, or Selling, some Spirituall Thing, or something that is annexed to a Spirituall Thing. But where a Temporall Thing is given freely, and is not a price, but onely a gratuit gift, or a motive inclining the will, there is no Buying or Selling a Spirituall Thing, or any thing annexed to a Spirituall Thing; therefore where a Tem­porall Thing is given freely, and is not a price, but a gratuit gift, or a motive inclining the will, there is no Simony. Thus you might have argu­ed as well out of the Definition, which St. Tho­mas and all allow, as out of Tanner, or Valen­tia, or any Jesuite. Apply this to your case of a Living of four hundred pound a year, parted with for a thousand pound in hand, or any which shock the commands of the Church; and I defie you to answer without using the distinction of [Page 266] Divine Right, and Positive Right, which the Jesuites use, and all Divines since St. Thomas his time, and long before.

And now, Sir, I have done. For all the rest that you say, of Eradus Billus, Sanchez, and who you will else, is nothing to the purpose. That which you undertook was to shew, that Vasquez, Valentia, and Tanner did teach, that which was imputed to them by the Authour of the Provin­ciall Letters. This you have not performed; and so your Friend remaineth still an Impostour. Now if Sanchez, Es [...]bar, Eradus Billus, or any body else do say what you alledge, (which is not granted) begin a new Calumny on their account when you will, and you shall be answered. But first you must grant me, that you have falsified Vasquez, Valentia, and Tanner, as it is manifest you have. And then I will treat with you of what you dare, when you appear in your own colours; that is, a convinced Impostour. And [...]o Fare you well.

AN ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Thir­teenth Letter.

Argument.

1. THat the Fable of a Box on the Ear, asserted by the Authour of the Pro­vinciall Letters, to be given to one at Compeigne, is utterly false, by the Exa­mine of Monsieur de Rhodes, the Authority of the King, Queen, and whole Court of France. 2. His sleeveless Answer in say­ing, when he was convinced of citing Lessius false, That it was not the Question. 3. That it is evidently false, that Lessius fol­loweth Victoria's Opinion. 4. His gr [...]sse errour, that having promised to give Satis­faction to the 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Impostures, he hath not touched th [...]m at all. 5. That no Casuist ever taught, that one may kill for simple Slaunders; though some have taught it lawfull, for [...]ai [...]ous Calum­nies, that concern Honour and Life: where­in the Learnedst Jesuits, as Suarez, and [Page 268] Vasquez, condemne them. And if some private men have taught otherwise, their Doctrine is disowned by the whole Body, and that by a publique disavowing. 6. That the distinction betwixt Practicall and Spe­culative Probabilities (which he maketh the Secret of the Jesuits Politiques) is a common Distinction, used in all Schools, in­treduced by Cajetan, grounded on St. Tho­mas and the Law, and even on Scripture; never esteemed (as he saith) ridiculous in any Ʋniversity. 7. An Antithesis betwixt the Jesuits and Jansenists. 8. Of the dif­ference of Opinions; and his false reasoning out of Escobar, concerning the Illation from Speculative to Practique; which he should have made quite contrary. 9. All that which he saith against Probable Opinions, retorted against himself.

SIR

YOu are ever suitable to your self: alwayes weak in your answers, and violent in your passions: alwayes cowardly in yout de­fence, and confident in your Impostures.

This of the Box o'th' Ear at Compeigne is no stale one: There I intend to begin. This questi­on of Fact is without perplexity, and is also very honourable for you. The world will hereafter [Page 269] clearly perceive what esteem men ought to make of your integrity, and how far you are from a a hazarding the losse of all by exposing your self to be discovered for an Impostour. For you could not give the world a more illustrious proof of the sincerity of your words, nor evince by a more signall instance, That a Jansenist never lies.

The King knows it; the Queen is throughly inform'd of it; the whole Court has heard the relation; and I assure my self, that it is still the discourse of all France; behold a large Theater set open to your reputation. 'Tis pity you disco­ver not your self, nor make known the name of so learned a man, who so solidly grounds his Theology on a Box o'th' Ear.

The [...]e was a rumour spread a few dayes since in the Town of Compeign, that a person, whose name is well known, had receiv'd a Box o'th' Ear from a Jesuite, whose rare modesty hath gain'd him the aff [...]ction of the greatest in France. Monsiegneur de Rhodes desirous to in­form himself thereof, learnt the falshood of that calumny from his very mouth, who was said to be the person affronted.

While this false rumour blows over in Com­peigne, and affords matter of laughter; the lye being ashamed to see it self discovered, and not daring to be seen any longer at Court, repair'd to you in your darkness, to request you to lend it that fair glosse you set upon your Impostures, that so it might passe currant through the streets of Paris.

[Page 270] You have given it welcome, because you love it; you have joyfully enter [...]ain'd it; and having painted and disguized it, you set it in the fairest part of your Letter, at the head of an infinity of falshoods which attend it as a Convoy.

Were you a grave Author, the Jesuites would be in an ill taking. For how false soever this popular opinion were, as soon as it should appear in your writings, you would oblige them by the doctrine of Probability, to grant according to F. Escobar, that it is a probable opinion, secun­dum praxim Soci [...]tatis.

But, Sir, the King is expected at the very in­stant I am writing this; when he arrives, how will this mask [...] and transformed lye once dare to appear? What will men say of that able Wri­ter, who ha's put it among his cases of Consci­ [...]nce? What will become of the Christian in­structions of that Curate, whom you onely put into your Letter, because h [...] has no great good will for the J [...]suites, and was driven out of Pa­ [...]is for [...]earing lesse affection to Religion? In [...]ine, what will the Jansenists answer, when it shall be [...]aid to their charge, that to the pr [...]judice of in­noc [...]nce you have, from a silly report, made the decisions of their Morall Divinity?

Really, Sir, I do not see what they can say, unlesse haply that Grace b [...]ing Verity in the Spi­rit, and Charity in the H [...]art, they have both f [...]led you. B [...]t since this conf [...]ssion is no [...] v [...]y Cathol [...]q [...]e, I [...]ad rather s [...]y you h [...]ve fail [...]d, as to Grace; and that it is false, that a J [...]suite hath wounded Charity by giving a Box on the E [...]r, bu [...] 'tis tru [...], that a Jansenist w [...]iting it has given Tru [...]h a buffer.

[Page 271] Here leave we then your Imposture of Com­peig [...]e; and let us see whether you defend the Fourth any better, then you have done the for­mer Thre [...].

I have convinced you of falshood upon the Text concerning Homicide; which you ascribe to Lessius a Jesuite, though it belongs to Victo­ria, whose name you conceal in your Seventh Letter. After reproof for this foul dealing, you acknowledge in your Thirteenth, that 'tis indeed Victoria's; and to [...]xcuse your self for ch [...]rge­ing it upon another you answer, That this is not the subject of the Dispute. I know not whether it be the subject you take for your dispute; but I well know, Sir, nor can you deny it, that it is the subject of your Imposture.

I perc [...]ive plainly it is a Subject that does not please you, as not finding your self in a good po­sture concerning it; and that you would be glad to shift your place: But what avails the sick man to quit his bed, if he cannot leave his weaknesse behinde, but must car [...]y his sicknesse with him? You may well fly to another Subject, because you finde not your advantage in this. 'Tis the ordinary method of Heretiques, in whom you are not meanly studied. But you cannot per­swade your self, that to father words on Lessius, which you are forc'd to restore to Victoria, is not a most visible falsification. See here the passage in Dispute, which I deliver you in your own terms. He that has receiv'd a B [...]x o'th' Ear, may not have an intentio [...] to revenge himself, but he may intend to avoid infamy, and on that ac­count immediately repell the affront, even with [Page 272] his sword. Tell me then, Sir, is not this the Text you ascrib'd to Lessius in your Seventh Letter? And [...]ell me, is not this the very same Text you restore to Victoria in your Thirteenth? Is not this a palpable falsity? In fine, is it suf­ficient for him that committed it, to say for his justification, That this is not the subject of the Dispute? I apprehend a Purser in the very fact, and compell him to restore it to the owner: is he quit for saying, that this is not the subject of his charge, and that he is guilty of many more rob­beries?

You see, Sir, the fault you have committed in ascribing that to an Authour, which he onely re­ports out of another. I might content my self with having forc'd you to a publique acknow­ledgement thereof: But because you will say, That is not the subject of the Dispute, there be­ing indeed many other faults to correct in your sheet; I will go on with the list of your Impo­stures, which grow still grosser, as they increase in number.

If it be true, say you, that Lessius does but cite the words of the Casuist Victoria, it is also as true, that he cites them not, but to follow them. This is a new Imposture, which draws indeed many other after it, but does not justi­fie the precedent. It is an ill way for the healing of your wounds, to make still fresh ones.

Had you been content with falsifying this Je­suites words, it might have been taken for an ef­fect of your distemper, which would have begot our pitty. But to change his thoughts, and cor­ [...]upt the purity of his Doctrine, is an effect of an [Page 273] affected malice, which merits nothing but disdain and indignation.

Is it to follow Victoria's opinion to say, that it ought no [...] easily to be permitted, because it is to be [...]eared, lest it might give occasion of ha­tred, revenge, and excesse? Could he declare himself against [...]hat celebrious Authour in any rougher expression, without transgressing the bounds of civil [...]y, and that respect which ought to be observ'd in this kinde of dispute against Catholique Doctours?

Is it a following of his opinion to impugne it with St. Austins authority, (which you had no minde to make known, because it would at the same time have discover'd your fraud) and to conclude with the opinion of that great Saint, that if he hardly grants, that one may kill a man in defence of his life, much lesse would he affirm it lawfull to kill him in defence of his honour?

Is it a following of his opinion to say imme­diately after, on the subject of that other Max­ime, which permits to kill in repulse of a calum­ny that admits no other defence, that he also con­demns it in the practique? Haec quoque senten­tia, (these words are remarkable to shew the con­nexion of this decision with the precedent) haec quoque, (give me leave, Sir, once again to repeat them, that I may shew you the reason I had to cite these words; not to con [...]ound them with the other, as you impose upon me, notwithstanding I had advertis'd you of it in my answer to your Eleventh Letter, but to shew you their confor­mity) Haec quoque sententia mihi in praxi non probatur [...] quia mul [...]s coedibus cum magna r [...]ipub­licae [Page 274] perturbatione praeberet occasionem. Neither do I approve this opinion in practice, because it would open a gap to many secret murthers, which would occasion great disorder in the Common-wealth; and when we dispute of the right, which every man hath to defend himself, we must al­wayes take heed, that the practice thereof be not prejudiciall to the publique.

After such evident proofs how durst you as­sert, that Lessius cites Victoria's opinion for no other purpose, bu [...] to follow it? How had you the confidence, to take to witnesse all those per­sons of quality, that saw it in the Originall, even before I had design'd to answer you? I told you in my Answer to your Impostures, that ma­ny Honourable Persons had taken notice of this before me; and I was satisfied with their testi­mony without citing you the Text, which they themselves had examined. How can you affi [...]m without blushing, that I hid it from them? I ci­ted it since in answer to that rare Elogium, you give to Raillery in your Eleventh Letter; How had you the basenesse to dissemble it?

I verily believe, you imagin'd there were not left in the world any persons of Honor or Learn­ing; and that therefore you might with impu­nity call them to witnesse, like those free sinners, Letter 4. those full and accomplisht sinners, who (you know) swear incessantly by God, and tak [...] him to witnesse without the least scruple, because they believe not there is any.

For did you fear the judgement of Persons of Honour, by what Jansenian sincerity could you accuse me of suppressing the Text of the num­ber [Page 275] 80. which directly impugns Victoria's opi­nion; since by citing it in my answer to your Ele­venth Letter, I had prevented this cavill? And did you apprehend the censure of the Learned, how could you assert, that the Text of the num­ber 82. which I cited in the refutation of your Fourth Imposture, concerns a question of a diffe­rent nature, and an opinion totally separate?

Awake your memory, Sir; it has done you great disservice. Reminde your self, that Lessius compriseth these two opinions, as two species of the same genus, in one and the same question, viz. Whether it be lawfull to kill a man in de­fence of ones honou [...]. Remember that the rea­sons he brings to overthrow the one, are of equal force against the other. Call to memory those words, which shew their connexion in this Au­thours opinion, haec quoque sententia mihi in praxi non probatur. But though you vainly glory in forgetting the most excellent of tougues, yet remember at least your own words, and reflect on what you say at the beginning of your Letter, that your 15, 16, 17, 18, Impostures, (where the second opinion is handled, that permits a man to kill a Calumniatour) are on the same Subject with that where the first opinion is dis­cussed, which permits him that has receiv'd a Box o'th' Ear to repulse the injury, even with his sword; and that therefore it is proper to give sa­tisfaction thereto at the same time. Now if it is proper to give satisfaction thereto at the same time, why is it not proper to speak of them at the same time? Shall they be all of different sub­jects for me, and of one sole subject for you?

[Page 276] I ask you, Sir, by what equivocation you can reconcile the contradiction that is between the first and second page of your Letter? I had learned out of the Abbot of St. Cyran's Indict­ment, that that illustrious head of your Sect did believe one might whisper, that the Councell of Trent was but a Councell of Divines that had much altered the Doctrine of the Church, and deny it aloud, when he was accus'd for having said it. But I must needs confesse the Schollar does far surpasse the master. For you think it lawfull to say aloud, that two opinions are o [...] the same subject, and a moment after to assert aloud, that these very opinions are totally separate, and on a clean different subject.

I do not see, Sir, how you can leap over this block, unlesse you imitate Monsieur de St. Cy­ran in one of his excellent Letters, whereof the Jesuites have the Original in Clermont Colledge, which you may see when you please; for I assure you they shew them as willingly to all the world, as you have formerly been solicitous to suppresse all the Copies.

Hear then, Sir, how this incomparable Abbot speaks, writing to Monsieur D' Andilly. If I am sometimes caught in contrar [...]ty of discourse, as I lately was by that excellent Couzen whom you love, I have reason to defend my self, being partly of a [...]clestiall composition; two contrary qualities, fire and water, meet together, which make me sometimes fall into contrary discourses; yet so as one de [...]troyes not the other. Like as in the Heavens, the fire that neighbours the Moon, which is not far from the waters that environ [Page 277] it, feels not any diminution of its heat.

Truly the Abbot of St. Cyran reason'd not ill sometimes. He knew how to reconcile the qualities of the Moon and the Fire; and to make a temper of heat and moisture, excellent to remedy the defects of the memory. This may stand you in some stead, Sir; for I perceive your memory often fails you; and that having promi­sed in the beginning to give satisfaction to the Eleventh, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18. Impostures, you are carried away so violently upon the Fourth, that you leave the rest in your Inkhorn.

I was in hope you would tell us, wherefore you attribute to Layman the Jesuite the opinion of Navarr touching Duels, which is the subject of your Eleventh Imposture: you have forgot it.

I expected a more faithfull translation of two b passages of Molina, which you have so c [...] [...]lly maimed: it was quite out of your minde.

I judged with you, that it was but just to make some satisfaction to c Reginaldus, Lessius, Fi­liucius, whose Texts you have falsified and lam'd, by suppressing one part to corrupt the other: This slipt clean out of your memory.

In fine, I thought you would have shew'd me some Jesuite, that taught what you falsly accuse them of, That the Law of God forbids not to kill for simple detractions; for 'tis the word simple that makes the jeast: and truly, Sir, you were of opinion, that it was [...]it to give satisfaction there­in. But your memory failed you. You resem­ble [Page 278] those bad D [...]btours, who daily commence new suites for fear of paying their old debts. If you must have satisfied all the Calumnies you have published, contrary to the duties of Justice and Christian Charity, you would have been found wholly insolvent. What did you do to de­ceive your Creditours? You resolved to bring an action against them upon the Doctrine of Probability, and to pursue them with such just ratiocinations, and judicious reflections, that you would give u [...] reason to doubt, which of the two you excell'd in most, Judgement or Memory.

I might send you to the first Quaternion of the second part of your Impostures, which very seaso­nably appear'd at the same time your Letter came forth, to shew you, that you are as learned in the Doctrine of Heretical Opinions, as ill instructed in the Doctrine of Probability. But because you seem extraordinarily moved, I must endeavour a new to appease you, and reduce you to reason.

To take off the scandall you have given the people by most calumniously publishing, that the Jesuites permit, according to the Law of God, to kill men for simple slaunders, and that if they forbid it, 'tis onely for politique reasons, I have thought it necessary in refuting that horrible false­hood to advertise the publique of two things. The f [...]st, d That no Casuists ever advanced that Maxime. The second, That some have written it as lawfull to kill for hainous calumnies that concern Honour and Life, when they cannot [Page 279] otherwise be rupulsed: and it is pitty, that Mon­sieur Du Vall engag'd himself with Bannes in that party. But as to the Jesuites, their most learned Authours, as Vasquez and Suarez, do absolutely condemn that Maxime: the rest con­demn i [...] in practice. I adde, that if some parti­cular men have followed that strange Doctrine, 'twas their misfortune to recede from the Sen­timents of their Order, which has publiquely disavowed them, as all the world can tell. To this what have you answered?

To elude my first proposition you have falsi­fied it, by omitting the word simple: There's a touch of your rare memory, which has found out the art (sought for by an Ancient) of forgetting what it pleaseth. And you make me say, There is not one Jesuit that permits to kill for calumnies: There's a rare si [...]k of your wit, which would de­serve a Retort, had not I many more of them to remark.

To oppose the second, you highly blame that diversity of opinions, which is among their Au­thours; where some of them disallow the opi­nion of Ba [...]nes both in Practice and Speculation, o [...]hers condemn it onely in p [...]actice; and by a new stratagem, instead of dividing your ene­mies, you will unite them against their own sen­timents. But for what design? To shew that they conspire by an admirable accord to establish that D [...]ctrine, even while they condemn it; as also that you might juggle all your Impostures out of sight, while you thus amuse the world with your Sophismes. This indeed is a subtilty wor­thy of you: but you even surpasse your self in [Page 280] the observations, and reflections you make in or­der to effect it.

You observe in the first place, That this di­stinction of Speculation and Practice in matter of opinion, which the Ʋniversity has looked on as ridiculous, is an invention of the Jesuites, and a secret of their Politiques, which is sit to be made known.

The Jesuites by this account are much more ancient in Gods Church, then I conveiv'd they had been, by rules of our Chronology. For e Sanchez the Jesuite had made me believe hither­to, That Cardinall Cajetan had introduced it into Divinity; that St. Thomas had opened him the way to it; and that many Divines had since receiv'd it. But seeing you assure me, it was invented by those Fathers, I conclude them to be of the age of St. Thomas; nay, even as an­cient as the Gospel, since Divines do ordinarily ground this distinction on that of St. Paul, f who grants, that to eat of the flesh of Vi­ctims is lawfull in it self. (This they call in the Schools lawfull in speculation) Yet that in the circumstances of the time, when the scandall of the Faithfull was so dangerous, he would never have practis'd it. (This they call forbidden in practice.)

[Page 281] Further, Sir, the Jesuites are very great Poli­ticians, to make a secret of the commonest thing in the world among the Learned; to publish this rare secret in all their Books, and to teach it in all their Schools. Where is your judgement? Sancius, g a famous Spanish Divine, affirms this distinction common among the Juriscon­sults, and that many of them dare not follow in practice the opinions of Cujas, Duarenus, and Donellus, because they think them onely good for speculation and the School. Appellantque illas opiniones solum Theoricas & non Practic [...]s, [...]an­tumque ad Scholarum ludum proficuas, & non ad judicandum in praxi. h Mo [...]sieur Du Vall has made it common in Sorbon. i Diana, and Pascaligus among the Disciples of St. Austin; Cajetan among the Disciples of St. Thomas: and yet you fancy men will believe, that the Je­suites made a secret of it in their Politiques; and that the University of Paris considered it as ri­diculous. Do not you your self deserve to be used ridiculously by all the Universities in the world?

You adde, that the secret of this distinction avails them not for questions wherein Religion is concern'd; and that they little trouble them­selves therewith, because k this is not the place where God visibly exercises his justice. But [Page 282] make great use of it, when they are to secure themselves as to the Judges; l and so by a sub­version contrary to the spirit of the Saints, are bold against God, and timerous as to men.

In good earnest, Sir, you ought not to disco­ver the secret of those good Fathers to the whole world. For besides that you give a jealousie to all Divines, by these rare commendations which they deserve as well as the Jesuites, seeing they teach the same Doctrine; you furnish Theeves and Murtherers with a pregnant argument, to se­cure themselves from the Judges, and strangely subvert the order of justice: for when by the subtlety of this distinction, they have shewn the Judges, that 'tis lawfull to rob and kill specula­tively, they will finde a way to passe (as you ad­mirably prove it) from the speculation to the practice. And why should not they have right to act, what the Schools teach? However I am confident, there are not many, that would wil­lingly trust to that secret of these Doctours, but would rather prefer that of Jansenius, who had found a method, how to take secretly as much of the money belonging to the Colledge of Saint Pulcheria, as would maintain Barcos without any mans discovering it by the yearly accounts he was to make thereof.

Behold how opposite the Maximes of the Je­suites are to those of the Jansenists. The Jesu­ites, say you, approve of crimes in speculation, and condemn them in practice: The Jansenists commit crimes in practice, and condemn them in speculation. The Jesuites, according to your vi­sions, [Page 283] seek distinctions to secure themselves against Judges: and the Iansenists invent ca­lumnies to secure themselves against the Popes. But which is much resented by those who have a reall love for that reformed Church, whose re-establishment you project, the Iesuites for the zeal they bear to the good of the State, are welcome to the Iudges: whereas the Iansenists, by reason of their rebellion against the Church, finde no favour from the Popes.

Behold the true Source of all your calumnies and reproaches. This it is, that makes you fret with envy, and which begets this third observati­on. That the Jesuites imagine, that the esteem they have in the Church, will hinder men from punishing their attempts against the Truth.

Do you not fear they will be stung at this re­proach, and offended, that you publish the credit they have in the Church? Had all the Janseni­an Sect laboured as long a time to justifie the sound Doctrine of the Iesuites, as it hath done to calumniate it, could it have suggested to you a more pregnant, clear, and invincible proof then this? For if they have credit in the Church, which is holy and wise; on what else can it be grounded, but on the purity of their manners and doctrine? Can vice have esteem, where sanctity reigns? Or unsound Doctrine subsist with honour, where verity Presides?

Recall to minde what you practis'd at Rome, with Pope Innocent the Tenth, and the arts you us'd to purchase credit in the Church. Have you prevail'd therein? Have you by all your Intrigues procur'd approbation of any one [Page 284] of your pernicious Maximes? The very name of Iansenist, is it not equally suspected of Church and State? Have not all your Books been bla­sted by an opprob [...]ious Censure? Finde you not above forty of them in the list of prohibited Books? And have they not lately condemn'd at Rome the two last Letters of Monsieur Arnauld, which made so great a noise in Sorbon? Who sees not this disgrace to be an infallible ma [...]k of your errours? and a penalty necessarily annext to Heresie?

Now therefore argue thus by the Law of con­traries. The Jesuites have reputation in the Church. Councels approve their Institute; Popes make Bulls in favour of their sound Doctrine, and good life: The Bishops honout them with employment in their Diocesses, to labour for the salvation of souls, and instruction of the people. The good and vertuous, that know them, love them; there are none but Heretiques and Liber­tines, that persecute them. Men must therefore conclude, that the Iansenists are much to blame for decrying their Morality, since it is uni­versally approv'd, that those scandalous Let­ters, which fly over all France, are fill'd with no­thing but Impostures, Falshoods, and Disguise­ments.

Really, Sir, this onely consideration might serve, as a generall Apology for all you have hi­therto said: which though you should repeat a thousand severall way [...]s, men might content themselves with se [...]ing you to Rome, and desi­ring you to presen [...] you [...] grievances to the Pope, who is the sovereign sudge, as well of the Do­ctrine [Page 285] of Manners, as of Faith. For men be­gin here to be weary of your repetitions.

How often have you tired our ears with the Doctrine of Probable Opinions? Must I again make you blush at your absurdities therein? I should willingly forbear to give you that confusi­on, but that I evidently perceive, you want light as well as Charity, and have need of inst [...]ucti­on.

Learn therefore, Sir, seeing you will make us dwell upon the subject of Homicide, that there are opinions in this matter openly repugnant to Faith, which they call Hereticall, as that of the Waldenses, who held it was never lawfull to kill a man for any cause whatsoever; no, not by the Laws of Iustice.

There be other opinions covertly repugnant to Faith, which we call suspected and danger­ous, as is the opinion you propose without reser­vation: That there is an infinite distance be­tween Gods prohibition of killing, and the spe­culative permission that is given therein by Au­thours. For seeing you never explain your self what prohibition, or what permission you mean, men have cause to doubt, whether or no (to seem more holy then the Laws) you affect not this error. m That it is never lawfull to kill a man, no not by publique Authority, nor to defend ones life, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae. Where­fore speak again, and that clearly; for there is a precipice on either hand: be it in too much re­misnisse, which corrupts the Doctrine of man­ners; [Page 286] or in an excesse of rigo [...]r, which ruines the Doctrine of Faith.

There be other that are against good manners, which we term scandalous, as those of Monsieur de St. Cyran, n who taught, that one was ob­lig'd to kill a man, when incited thereto by in­spiration, though it were contrary to the exte [...]i­our Law that forbids it.

There are some that contradict common sense, which we call Extravagant and temerarious, as that of the same Abbot, who proves in his Roy­all question, which you acknowledge for the first of his works, that men are oftentimes oblig'd to kill themselves; and that as this obligation is one of the most important and difficult, so there is required a great courage, and an extraordinary strength of minde to perform it.

There be other opinions that are receiv'd by the whole Church, from which it is not lawfull to recede, and which for that reason we term Or­thodox, Catholique, Indubitable. For instance, that he who kills a Thief, whom he findes in the night forcing the doors of a house; or breaking through the walls, ought not to be questioned for it; for the Scripture it self declares as much.

There be yet other opinions, that are not so clear and evident, which the Church leaves to be disputed by Divines, permiting them to hold what they think good; and these are they we call pro­bable: among which we must yet distinguish [Page 287] opinions probable in practice, (that is such as one may practise with a safe conscience) from those which are onely probable in speculation, that is to say, in the subtle precisions of the mind, which contemplates things lawfull in themselves; though in practice they are ever accompanied with such dangerous circumstances, as render them unlawfull.

You see the reason why Divines affirm them probable in speculation, but not in practice. And if some few, as you have observ'd, teach that all things, which are lawfull in speculation, are also allowable in practice, 'tis not in that ill sense you ascribe unto them: but in another clean contrary. For they alwayes presuppose them separable from the circumstances that corrupt them; insomuch, that from the instant of their being inseparable from them, it is impossible they should pass (accor­ding to the universall Sentiment of all Doctors) from the Speculative to the Practick. Th [...]s does F. Escobar explain himself, in the very place you quote; and had you clearly delivered his mean­ing, the most illiterate would soon have percei­ved your digressions.

o I hold, sayes he, the first opinion, because if after I have foreseen the inconveniences ari­sing from the practice, I yet probably judge this practice to be allowable, it is lawfull for me to make use of it. I grant neverthelesse, that all that is lawfull, is not alwayes expedient, by rea­son of the exteriour circumstances. And more­over [Page 288] if the Prince, or a Sovereign Court, should forbid it by their Declarations, or Ordinances, then the opinion that should be found contrary, would cease to be probable. For example, there are found some Propositions of Angelus, Ar­milla, and Sylvester, which were probable before the Councell of Trent: and yet since that Coun­cell, it is not lawfull to follow them in practice. Wherefore when it is said, that an opinion is not probable in practice, I hold, for my part, that it is not probable in speculation neither, because the inconveniences, that occurre in the practice, shew us the falshood of it.

Now, Sir, I pray does not F. Escobar reason well sometimes? Had you argued so well as he, should you not have passed from the Practice to the Speculation, instead of passing, as you do, from the Speculation to the Practice? And to speak clearly, ought you not to have concluded from this Text, that since the [...]esuites esteem the opinion of Bannes, Victoria, and Monsieur Du Vall touching Homicide not to be probable in Practice, it follows according to F. Escobar, That it is not probable even in Specula­tion.

Let us then contract our discourse; and to re­fure (in few words) the rest of your Impostures, let us make use of these certain rules, for disco­very of their injustice.

It is false in the first place, That whatso [...]ver is approv'd by celebrious Authors, is probable and safe in cons [...]ience. You take the words of Authours meerly to corrupt them. When it is said that one celebrious Authour is sufficient to [Page 289] make an opinion probable and safe in Consci­ence, 'tis not to be understood, that all he teach­es is probable. You are as far from the sense of this Proposition, as Heaven if from Earth. Car­dinall Cajetan is a famous Authour; and yet, by a supream order, they have cut oft from his writings divers decisions that were not maintain­able. The true sense of this Maxime, Sir, is, that the probability of an opinion depends not so much on the multitude of Authours that teach it, as on the strength of the reasons whereon it is grounded. For were there but one sole Au­thour that asserted it, yet in case the reasons he brought were solid, and the opinion he establisht neither repugnant to Faith, nor good manners, his authority were sufficient to introduce it into the Schools, and to give it credit among the Learned. See what it is that has deceiv'd you. You separated the authority of the Authour from the force of his reasons, conformable to Faith and good manners: and 'tis no wonder, if from a Maxime corrupted by ignorance, or disguis'd by artifice, you have deduc'd no better consequences.

It is consequently false, Sir, that the Doctrine of Probability makes the Jesuits the maintainers of all the errours the Casuists can commit; see­ing that to the contrary, Probability excludes the errors that are repugnant to the rules of Faith, and discipline of good manners.

It is false, that this diversity of probable opi­nions is fatall to Religion. This smells of Cal­vinisme: nor can you averre such a falshood, without offending the Pope, who permits them▪ [Page 290] the Universities, which teach them; and all wise men, who follow them.

It is false, that this very diversity of opinions, provided they be probable, is contrary to the spi­rit of St. Ignatius, and his Order; since it is not contrary to the spirit of the Church. When he recommends to them uniformity of minde and doctrine, he takes not from them the liberty of probable opinions, but severely forbids them to embrace hereticall and dangerous opinions: and were there any one among his Children, that had embraced Jansenisme, their Order could no more endure him, then the sea can endure a dead body, without thrusting it from its bosome, and casting it on the sand.

It is false in fine, that the doctrine of probable opinions, is a mark of their remisnesse. And when you say, That there are many other Casu­ists that are grown remisse as well as they, be­cause with them they maintain probable opini­ons; you do them more honour then you ima­gine. For if all those that teach this Doctrine are with them, and involved (as you will have it) in the same [...]snesse, you oppose your self to all Catholique Doctours, and remain really a [...]one without force or support, and indeed with­out all other defence, then that of the Disciples of Luther and Calvin.

After all, Sir, I am glad that you acknowledge a [...] the end of your Letter, the pu [...]ity of their In­stitu [...]e, the sanctity of their Founder, and the wise­dom of their first Generalls; whom you seem to involve in the confusion of that pretended dis­order of Probability, when you say in your [Page 291] Fifth Letter, That at their first appearance St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and all the rest of the Fathers vanish'd out of sight, as to Morality; and that they were spread over the whole earth, by the Doctrine of Probable Opi­nions, which is the Source and Basis of all Irre­gularities.

You have by this prevented the reproach, I should have cast upon you else where; and the Jesuites ought to hold themselves satisfied as to that particular, since their Order having spread it self over the whole earth, under St. Ignatius and their first Generalls, whom you exempt from blam [...], it is clear by your own confession, either that he Doctrine of Probable Opininions is not the source of their Irregularities, or that they w [...]re no [...] spread over the face of the earth by tha [...] Doctrine.

But I am sorry you did not at the same time observe, tha [...] St Ignatius, and Father Laines, the two first Generalls of their Order, had suck­ed in the Doctrine of Probability in the Univer­sity of Paris, which was then the most flourishing and pur [...]st fountain of Morall Divinity, and that they had transmitted it to their Children, recom­mending unto them never to recede from the common opinions of the Schools, to cast them­selves upon dangerous novelties.

What will you say, Sir, if I shew you, that though you are a declar'd enemy to the Doctrine of Probable Opinions, yet you are oblig'd in despite of your aversion, to approve what you condemn, and to bear at the same time two so different Titles, as Accuser of what you [Page 292] approve, and Approver of what you accuse?

For either you believe, that among the questi­ons of Morality there are Opinions Probable on either part, or you do not believe it: if you be­lieve it, you are an adherent to Probability: if you disbelieve it, you go against common sense. For if it be true, as the Philosopher sayes, That in no Science there is more of Probability, and lesse of evidence then in Morality, is it not absurd to expect to finde in it what is not there? I should as easily say, you have found the evi­dence of the truth, and falshood of all things, and that in case we hearken to Port Royall, we shall have nothing but Articles of Faith in Spe­culative Divinity, Canons and indubitable Rules in Morality, infallible Aphorismes in Physick, Demonstrations in Phylosophy, Que­stions of Right and Fact clearer then the Sun in the science of the Laws, and that you will banish out of the world all Probability, which in your judgement, is the Source of all Irregularities. Pardon me, if I tell you, it is more then probable, that you either deceive the world, or your self, if you be in that errour.

Moreover presupposing that you must needs passe for ridiculous, unlesse you admit of Pro­bable Opinions in Morality, either you hold that of two Probable Opinions, we must al­wayes follow the securest; or you hold it not: If you judge that men are not alwayes bound to prefer the safest, you approve what you have condemned. But if you affirm the contrary, that men are ever obliged to prefer the more [Page 293] secure, then the lesse safe opinion will remain probable onely in Speculation, and will never be probable in Practice.

Thus of a severe Censurer, behold your self become an Approver of that distinction which the Ʋniversity (say you) branded with the note of ridiculous. B [...]hold your self guilty of all the disorders it is cause of. Be­hold your self a Complice of that fatall se­cret of the Politiques of the Jesuites; a Voucher of all their Opinions; responsable for their corrupt Maximes; a Pagan with Lessius, in what concerns Homicide; a Pa­gan with Vasquez, in what regards Alms; a Pagan with Tannerus, in what relates to Si­mony; a Pagan with F. Desbois, whom you make Authour of a Doctrine he never taught, and charge with a Chymericall offence. In fine, a Pagan with all the Jesuites, in all that has rela­tion to the Doctrine of manners.

I pray God, Sir, you may be such a one as they; and I believe I cannot wish you a greater good for all the ill will you bear them, then that of a perfect confo [...]mity of Heart and Senti­ment with them; which may render you sub­missive unto the Church like them; obedient to the decisions of Popes and Bishops like them; zealous to impugn the pernicious Doctrine of Here­tiques like them; and finally modest and discreet like them, not rashly to condemn the Probable Doctrine of all Catholique Divines.

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Four­teenth Letter.

Argument.

1. THat the Jansenist is much out of his element, when he comes to be serious. 2. His Impostures against the Casuists Opinions, in point of defence of ones Goods and Honour, are meer Reveries. 3. He condemneth all to the Devil, that think not with him; and so no School escapeth his Curse. 4. Some of the Saints must be pulled out of Heaven at this mans Verdict. 5. The J [...]nsenists are no fit Judges of the Doctrine of Killing, who teach, that it is [...]awfull to kill ones self: and that when the Interiour Spirit moveth, one may, and must kill his Neighbour, though the Exteriour Law forbid it. 6. Other Maximes of the Jansenists are set down; which they teach­ing, are unfit to c [...]nsure others. 7. His [Page 295] falsifyings of Lessins, Layman, Molina, Reginaldus, &c. are again taken notice of. 8. Port-Royall complaineth of the Jansenist for his loose Divinity; and his Answer to them solveth all his own difficulties. 9. That the Casuists favour not Crimes, when they teach it lawfull to kill in the just de­fence of Goods or Honour; but the Janse­nists favour Thieves and insolent Fellows, when they say, that the Innocent may not defend their Goods and Honor against them, for fear of killing. 10. The Jansenists challenge, to shew any one that alloweth that one may kill in defence of Goods and Honor, answered, and many Authorities produced; whereof none are Jesuites, but all conspire with Jesuites in their Maximes, and none with the Jansenist. 11. That all which he saith of the Form of Pleading, signi­fieth nothing to the purpose; since a Thief in a wood cannot be proceeded with in that manner.

SIR

I Perceive a change in your manner of wri­ting, but can discover no amendment: you are alwayes in extreams; and having for a long time plaid the Scoffer, you will all on a sudden act the part of a Doctour.

You have reason to renounce that Title, since it becomes you so ill; and if you proceed with so pittifull a grace, they will be so far from recei­ving you in Sorbon, that I know not, whether people will [...]ndure you in the streets.

One may easily see you are not in your ele­ment, when you endeavour to be serious: you appear too surly and musing; your dreams are all offensive, like those of a sick man; and your talking of nothing but Murthers, Homicide, and Blood. a I speak this, Dear Brother, to draw you a little out of your melanchloy humour, which I read in your Letters, and which I believe you ought to resist with a most particular care; to the end you may overcome it, before it be too deeply rooted.

If the Abbot of Sr. Cyran would have follow­ed this good counsell, which a great Prelate thought himself bound to give him, at the time when he was beginning to form your Sect, he had never instill'd into you such deadly Senti­ments [Page 297] against the Casuists: and if you would follow it your self, you would presently expunge out of your minde all those sinister impressions you hav [...] receiv'd against them.

Those that distemper you touching the point of Homicide, are very st [...]ange: the convulsions they cause in you, shew that your disease is dan­gerous, and requires a speedy help. You seem as if you were beset with Sprights, and that you take all Divines for Furies: b Their Maximes, say you, are so horrid, that it were to be wished they had never come forth of Hell; and that the Devil, who was the first Authour of them, had never found out men so far devoted to his or­ders, as to publish them among Christians.

See what wicked People these are! But shew us, that it is their criminall Maximes, that have put you into this ill humour. You have often dis­guis'd the Truth; be once at least sincere: and haply when the ground of your distemper is rightly understood, it will be easier then you imagine, to dissipate those Apparitions that af­fright you.

Do they say it is lawfull to kill for simple slan­ders? c It is no simple one to write it to a Provinciall, as you have done: but 'tis a horrid shame to be so often rebuked for it, and to cover it with no other excuse, then that of dissimulati­on and silence.

Do they teach that a man may kill, as you af­firm, d in defending that false honour which [Page 298] the Divell transfused out of his own proud spi­rit into that of his proud Children? It is not handsome for a person of any repute to use such language: You have the Devil too often in your mouth; e the name of that Father of lies is too familiar with you: 'tis to be fear'd, lest having him incessantly upon your tongue, he shed not some of his venome into your heart. What! have you no honour to preserve, but that which comes to you from so bad a hand? Know you not that true honour, recommended by the great Apostle; which the Wise man prefers before the Diadems of Kings; the conservation of which is a Christian vertue, and its losse a civill death, more affl [...]ctive to worthy mindes, then that which puts the body in its grave?

Peradventure they permit expres [...]y to kill a Thief, who defends not himself. f This ex­pression is ambiguous; it is a snare set to surprize the ignorant. For though a Thief defend not himself with weapons, he may defend himself by flight, and carry away something of great im­portance, be it either for its value, or the necessi­ty a man has of it, (magni momenti;) in which case it being not otherwise recoverable then by killing him, some hold it may be done with a safe conscience. But that they permit a man to kill him, if he defends not himself, or being closely pursued, throws down what he had unjustly ta­ken, is a falshood of the largest size: and [Page 299] while you endeavour'd to make it passe for cur­rant, with all that boldnesse wherewith you boul­ster up your Impostures, you durst not affirm it but by halves: so base and timerous a thing is a a lie, even after it has past all the bounds of mo­desty.

In fine, do they assert that it is lawfull to kill for a crown, nay for an apple? g 'Tis clear in your opinion, Lessius has so determin'd it. How cunning and malicious are you! You imi­tate the Serpent, in making use of an apple to de­ceive poor women: but the Learned laugh at your poor subtilties. Play not the child before wise men: lose not your credit for a apple. Say freely that Lessius teaches in the place you cite, that it is not lawfull to kill for the conservation of ones goods, in case the losse be not considerable; nisi illae fa­cultates sin [...] magni momenti. Say it is most un­just, according to that Father, to take away a mans life for an apple, or for a crown; est enim valde iniquum, ut pro pomo vel uno aureo servan­do alicui vita auferatur. Say that a Gentleman may at the instant draw his sword, to recover what an insolent fellow has taken from him to in­sult over him, though it be but an apple: because it is not his goods he defends, but his honour; tunc enim non tam rei quam honoris est defensio. Say if you please, that in this case he may kill, if it be necessary for the defence of his life which he hazards in disputing his honour, not his crown, or apple, & si opus est occidere: But adde these words which you suppres'd, juxta Sotum: ac­knowledge [Page 300] it to be the opinion of Sotus, whose name is illustrious in the School of St. Thomas: Fling not the apple at Lessius, h who does but report the opinion of that excellent Divine, who appear'd with honour in the Councell of Trent, and govern'd the conscience of the Emperour Charles the Fifth. And when you have restor'd what belongs to him, you have nothing remain­ing to your self, but the shame of having aim'd to do a mischief, but could not, though there's not any thing more easie.

Come then to the point of our difference, and tell us in fine, what it is you finde horrid in the Doctrine of the Casuists. But speak it clearly; for I ever mistrust this turning of the hand, which with a Back-blow absolves you without scruple from your Imposture of Compeigne, and puts you, as you believe perhaps, into a security of Conscience.

They say what nature teacheth us, and what all Laws, Divine and Humane, confirm, that it is never lawfull for a private person to take away his Neighbours life, but on the terms of a just and necessary defence; and you agree with them therein. They extend this just defence to the occasions, wherein one cannot otherwise avoid the losse of life and chastity; and you are of the same opinion. But they also comprise therein the losse of goods and honour which St. Thomas calls the two prime Organs of life, without which [Page 301] it cannot possibly subsist. This heats your zeal, and so far transports you, as to treat the Authors of this Doctrine, as if they were the Devils Proctors, come out of Hell to publish it on Earth. Really, Sir, you damn men with too great facili­ty: and this excesse of heat has I know not what of resemblance, with the transports of those phantastick spirits, who give all the world to the Devil, having first given themselves over to the Demon of choler, which predominates in them.

Did you hold intelligence with that Prince of Darknesse, you could not advance his tyranny over nobler Subjects. You make all Universi­ties tributary to him; and oblige the most Learn­ed Schools, to leave to him for a prey the flower of their Doctours, as men devoted to his orders, Ministers of his fury, Emissaries of his errours, and Complices of his crimes.

Sorbon, to give you satisfaction, must sacrifice Monsieur Du Vall, i because he teaches that the Laws of a just defence may sometimes be extended to goods and honour.

The School of the Thomists must deliver up to him Cardinall Cajetan, k who defended this opinion, before there were any Jesuites in the world.

The School of the Clarks Regulars must leave to him their Generall, who has lately pub­lish'd the same, even in the Court of Rome, and [Page 302] dedicated it to Cardinall Carassa, whose name he bears. l

The same Court of Rome must tear from its bosome the Learned Cardinall De Lugo, and condemn the judgement of the Pope, who has cover'd this murthering Doctrine, as you call it, with the splendor of his Purple. m

You spare not the very Saints themselves; and though their vertue and wisdom have gained them never so high a c [...]own in Heaven, yet you fear not to make them slaves of Hell. The Or­der of St. Domminique presented to Pope Cle­ment the Eighth the Works of B. Raimundus, together with the n glosse wherein this Max­ime is contain'd. The Church has hitherto gi­ven to St. Antonine, a rank among the Blessed, though he also teaches o the same Doctrine: But they were both deceiv'd in your opinion, and deserve (if you might be believ'd) to be thrust out of Paradise with shame, as men so far devoted to the Devills Orders, as to publish among Chri­stians those horrid Maximes, which were too bad to have come even out of Hell it self.

Who gave you the Keys of Heaven to dispose of them in such a manner? Who put into your hands the thunderbolts of Gods justice to strike his friends with; you who are beaten in pieces with the thunderbolts and Anathema's of the Va­tican? [Page 303] Had you the pride of Giants, and not felt their punishment, I should not be astonish'd at an enterprize so insolent. But having been so often beaten, so often thrown down and hum­bled by a sovereign and inevitable power, how have you the boldnesse to lift up your head, and open your mouth against the Children of the Church, especially being declared infamous by the judgement of their Mother? Does it belong to Criminalls, to pronounce Decrees? to Corrupters of the Faith, to make themselves Arbiters of Manners, and Interpreters of Laws? They that teach, That it is lawfull to kill ones self, and that a man is often oblg'd to do it, p have they right to define, when it is lawfull to kill their Neighbour? And they that hold, q That we must follow the interiour motion that incites us to Homicide, even when the exteriour Law pro­hibits it, are they not gracious people to take up­on them to determine, at what time that exteri­our Law permits, and leaves it in our pow­er.

Have you already lost the memory of those perni [...]ious errours that caus'd so great a scandall among Christians; viz. r That Christ did not dye for all men; s That he is not the Re­deemer [Page 304] of those that perish; that they have rea­son to reproach him for not being so; that he prayed not to his Father for their eternall salva­tion, no more then for the Devills; t That the old Law it self induced the Israelites to sin; that the Grace, which God gave them, was an obstructing Grace, that rendred justice more diffi­cult and impossible, as if it had put a wall be­twixt them and it: u That sufficient Grace is a gift for the Devill to give, and that the De­vils would willingly give such gifts, if they had them to bestow: x That one may renounce all Gods promises, and the power that souls have to subject themselves to him; that we may wish that God would not think of us, nor regard any thing that passes without himself; that souls should renounce the meeting with God, and not present themselves unto him, but to be rejected of him, chusing rather to be forgotten by him, then by being in his memory, to give him cause to de­part from the application of himself, to attend to Creatures.

These are the horrid Maximes you ought to detest, if your zeal were true and sincere, and to advertise all the world, that they are come out of Hell, that the Devill was the first Author of [Page 305] them, and that it were to be wished he had not met with men so far devoted to his Orders, as to publish them among Christians. You should say no more, then what the Vicars of Christ have pronounced from the Throne of St. Peter: then what the Bishops of France have declar'd in their generall Assemblies: what all Orthodox Doctours have taught in their Schools: and last­ly what the Universall Church holds for certain, no man daring to contradict, that is not a mani­fest Heretique.

But this is strange indeed, that in lieu of sub­mitting to the voice of the Sovereign Pastour, you should chuse rather to be a Master of Error, then a Scholler of Truth; that being voluntarily blinde in the wayes of God, you should presume to enlighten the Children of light, and that even while you sin against your own conscience, in­trude your self to regulate the conscience of your Neighbour: doubly culpable; to believe that the whole world is deceived, and not see how much you are deceiv'd your self.

Open your eyes, Sir, and of an infinite num­ber of errours acknowledge those at least, you have committed in your last Letter. I will not tell you, it is onely a common place, which you have reserved a long time to secure your retreat, or rather that it is a perpetual dig [...]ssion, which to all men of understanding discovers your flight, and that having nothing to answer to the real Im­postures I have convinc'd you of, your anger and despair carry you away so far beyond judge­ment, that a man cannot chuse but laugh, to see how you run your self out of breath. I will not [Page 306] blame you that you accuse me of departing from my subject; since I onely do it to reduce you thi­ther; and am necessitated to do so, if I ever in­tend to meet you; who seldom or never come near it, but by compulsion.

Neither will I force you to blush at your strange boldnesse in making me say, that Layman a Jesuite followed Navarr in the point of Du­els; whereas I my self had laid it to your charge in the first part of my answers, that you falsly ascrib'd to Layman that opinion, by concealing the name of him, who was effectively the Author of it.

I will endure, that instead of justifying your self of the Fourteenth Imposture wherewith I upbraided you, and of giving an account why you make Molina say in your Seventh Letter, That he durst not condemn of sin one, that should kill the man that would take from him to the va­lue of a crown, or lesse, suppres [...]ing this clause, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae, which is essen­tiall to that Fathers decision; because it presup­poses, that the party l [...]ll'd is an unjust Aggressor, and that the killer cannot otherwise repell the vio­lence offer'd him, nor the danger he is in; since he that defends his goods, defends at the same time his own person, which he ordinarily exposes to danger, as the same Father affirms: instead I say, of giving a reason of that falsification, you maintain by the most notorious of all falsi [...]ies, that whatever Molina sayes, he means in that place, that 'tis lawfull to kill a Thief that will [...]ake from us a crown, though we run no hazard of life, without bringing any proof of what you [Page 307] say, saving that in another dispute, far off from this, and in a case quite different, he affirms, that one may remain in the moderation of a just de­fence, though one take arms against those that have none, or not of equall advantage with ours; as if in this latter proposition the question were onely of the losse of a crown, as it is in the for­mer. Which is false and ridiculous; seeing there is not the least probability, that a Thief, who had no weapon, should dare to set upon a man arm'd to take from him a triviall thing, and hazard his life for a crown. This is absurd: you fail in gi­ving colour to your Impostures.

In fine I will not presse you any further to sa­tisfie Lessius and Reginaldus, whom you falsifie afresh; because I look upon you as a man that has suffer'd shipwrack, and is disabled to satisfie his debts.

I take onely what you give: I tye my self wholly to the question you treat of, (though it be nothing to the purpose, where the matter in debate is to justifie your citations, which you per­form the least of all.) And to shew you what ad­vantage truth has over falshood, I will onely make use of your own weapons to fight against you.

You grant, a man may kill to avoid the losse of life, and chastity, without exceeding the mo­deration of a just defence: but cannot keep within that moderation, if he kill to avoid the losse of goods and honour.

Fear not that I shall accuse you of being too severe. If I must take your measure by your for­mer Maximes, I shall finde you but too remisse: you are no longer that conscientious Jansenist, [Page 308] who told us resolutely heretofore, I am for the Sure, not for the Probable; and I believe Port Royall has cause to complain of you in that re­spect. It may say to you, who sees not that it is safer for an Innocent person to lose his corpo­ral life, then to take the life of the soul from one who is wicked? Death is not to be fear'd by a just man: let an enemy assault him, he can do him no considerable hurt: he fears nothing but the losse of God: and so far is death from doing him that prejudice, that on the contrary it gives him the fruition of God. But if he kill that un­just Aggressor, he does him an irreparable evil: he prefers a brittle life which is but a blast, before the blood of Jesus Christ which is of an infinite value: and instead of dying with honour to save the soul of his brother, he hazards even his own by destroying anothers. 'Tis true he is allowed to make a lawfull defence: but to be such, ought it not to remain within the bounds of the Gos­pell, which has heart enough to give blood, but no hands to draw it? Usque ad Evangelium, sayes St. Ambrose, x non autem postea. The Civill Law indeed does sometimes give a man that power: But as I dare not blame the Laws that permit it; so do not I see how you can excuse such as make use of them. Truly the famous Chancellour of the University of Paris in his Tract of the Euchari [...]l; and Augustinus de Ancona in his Treatise of the Power of the Church, q. 52. a. 3. affi [...]me, that it is never lawfull to take away a mans life by [Page 309] private authority: and this was the Maxime of the y Ancient Divines, is agreeable to the Sentiments of St. Cyprian, St. Cyrill of Alex­andria, Lactantus, and St. Augustine: z that this prohibition may be a counsell to the imper­fect, but 'tis a precept to the perfect.

How comes it to passe then, that you have aban­doned the Doctrine of the Ancient Fathers, to follow that of the new Casuists in questions of Morality? How are you fallen from the rank of the perfect, to range your self amongst the imperfect? and by what unexpected change have you embrac'd the Doctrine o [...] Probable Opini­ons, which is the Source and Basis of all Disor­ders, by preferring it before the Gospel, which is the unalterable Rule of all the duties of Christi­anity? What will you say to those of your par­ty, when they reproach you herewith?

You will answer, that you follow the example of St. Thomas; that a throng of Doctours hath trodden you out the way; that reason it self hath serv'd you for a guide, and that you could not shut your eyes against that clear beam of naturall [Page 310] Light, which shews you that we must not disarm Innocence, to expose it to the insolence of the wicked: that it were an inhumane meeknesse to abandon it to their outrages, and deprive those of force, who may make good use of it, to put it in their hands, who solely employ it to the hurt of [...]thers, and prejudice of the Publique Peace.

I shall t [...]ke heed of saying with you, That I make no account of this rule. I receive it, I ap­prove it, I commend you for submitting at last to reason. But I think it strange, that after you have follow'd it, in a moment you turn your back to it again; and that having denied Assa­sins and Lascivious persons the impunity of com­mitting evill and assailing the vertuous, by gi­ving leave to kill them, in case it be necessary for rep [...]lling their violence; you should leave it intire to Theeves and Robbers, by forbidding to touch their persons, as if they were sacred and inviolable. By what Prerogative exempt you these from danger rather then the other? Why give you them more liberty to sin, since they have not a greater right? For you cannot be igno­rant, that 'tis onely against those publick plagues that Divines arm Persons of Honour: that it is their constant Tenet, that where there is not an unjust Aggressor, there is no just defence: and that their decisions are so far from favouring vices, that on the contray they obstruct their course, by repressing the boldnesse of those that would com­mit them, had they but as much power as they have malice. This point is decisive, Sir; let me make you conceive it: For it is the rock you of­ten run upon, and see not the consequence of it.

[Page 311] When Casuists affirm it lawful to kill in de­fence of goods and honour, to whom do they grant this right? to the good and innocent; to those very people, to whom you grant it for de­fence of life and Chastity. There is then no fear of their abusing it; or if there be any danger, 'tis on both sides equal. Against whom do they grant it? against men that live by their own Crimes, and subsist by other mens misfortunes. Nor do they allow it, but in case of extream ne­cessity, when there's no other refuge; when there's a question of a notable loss; when they cannot have recourse to the justice of the Lawes; when they are in danger, not onely probable, but certain, evident, and indubitable of losing either their Fortune or their Honour: I mean not the false honour which dazles your eyes; but that honour which the most wise and vertuous hold for such. The rules of Morality go no further: If any one imagin the contrary, he is deceived; and if he dares affirm it, he is a Deceiver. Con­sider, Sir, the equity of this Maxime; the wise­dom wherewith it was establisht, the advantage it affords good People; and the pleasure you do the wicked by endeavouring to destroy it.

Take from the rich the right of defending their goods, and Theeves, when they shall be out of danger, will not expect the dark of the night; nor offer more vowes to the Moon to render her Propicious. They will rob by open day-light, and shall be quit for saying, that their quarr [...]l is to your Pur [...]e, not to your Life. Take from persons of Quality the power of defending their honour, and a Gentleman must hold forth his [Page 312] cheek, and bow his shoulders to the first that shall lift up a cudgel to beat him. For to make oppo­sition were (as you will have it) to put himself in danger of killing him, and to usurp from Justice the right of Life and Death, while he makes him­self Judge, Party, and Executioner in his own cause.

See whereto all your Ratiocinations tend; and if one well examine the long discourse you make of the m [...]ekness of the Spirit of Christia­nity, which the Church recommends to her true Children, and of the rigour wherewith she was wont to punish Homicides, it will be found, that all the benefit of that austere reformation, and those furious invectives you make against the re­laxation of Morality, tend onely to facilitate theft, and offer impunity to Theeves and Rob­bers. Truly, Sir, they are much oblig'd to you; and if they have any resentment of the good you do them, they will chuse you for their Director: and though you should gain nothing over the Je­suits, you would purchase at least this advantage to be call'd the Casuist of Theeves and Cut­purses. That glory is due to you without dispute; you have deserv'd it: for the Jesuits having, with all other Divines, taken the part of the Innocent against Murtherers, you boldly forsake them all, to plead against them the bad Thief's cause, to uphold the Insolent against the Honourable, the Robber against the Rich, and the Pirate against the Merchant.

I say all, Sir; because though they agree not among themselves in all the conclusions they make upon this subject, yet are they in a manner [Page 313] all united against you in the Principle; and I know not wherefore you have challeng'd me to produce you one Law, one Canon, and Interpre­ter of the Law, that is opposite to you; unlesse haply it be to shew you what a prodigious multi­tude of Enemies you have drawn upon you, and with what temerity you assail them, neither knowing your own strength, nor the merit of your opposers.

Would you know the opinion of the Divines? Bannes a a famous Disciple of Saint Thomas sayes, there is hardly any one of them, but per­mits a private person to defend his goods and ho­nour, against him that would unjustly take them from him; nay, to kill him at the instant, if he cannot otherwise avoid the wrong; provided al­wayes he observe the moderation of a just de­fence, Haec conclusio est consensus Philosopho­rum, & sere omnium Theologorum. This is clear.

Would you have b Cardinalls to warrant this opinion? Cardinall Cajetan, Cardinall Tolet, Cardinall Richelieu, and Cardinall Lugo prove it by pregnant reasons; and the last assures us, that this is the common and true Doctrine of the School, Sententia communis & vera. This speaks all.

[Page 314] Would you have Saints? St. c Antoninus, who was one of the Oracles of the Councel of Florence sayes clearly, that when a man will by violence take from us our goods, if there be means to repell the force by way of justice, it is in no wise lawfull to kill; but if that means be wanting, it is lawfull to defend them, any way whatsoever, even by killing the person. Tun [...] li [...]et qualitercunque defendere, [...]tiam personam occidendo. The [...]e can be nothing more expresse, and yet it is a Saint that decides it; who has the science of the Divines, and the cons [...]ience of the Just.

Require you the authority of the Civil Laws? A private person, sayes Sylvester, d (who has that incomparable glory to have been the first that writ against Luther) may kill a man accord­ing to the Civill Laws, without incurring the penalty wherewith Homicide is punished in ju­stice: First in defending his person; secondly [Page 315] in defending his honour; thirdly in defending his goods, if he cannot otherwise recover them, Se­cundum multos Legistas. He could not expresse himself more clearly.

Would you have the authority of Canons for you? Navar one of the most este [...]med Cano­nists, who drew his science of the Law from the University of Paris, who read it in the two most flourishing Universities of Spain and Portugal; who sanctified it by his rare vertues, usually di­viding the day between the School, the Hospi­talls, and the Prisons; who made it glorious by the reputation he had acquir'd with Pope Pius V. Gregory XIII. and Sixtus V. who made a particular esteem of his Counsels, gives to this Doctrine all the extent it can have without trans­gressing the bounds of a just defence; and grounds it (contrary to your sense) upon the Laws and Canons. See them in the Fifteenth Chapter of his Summe; you will be am [...]zed at the number.

Covarruvias c B [...]shop of Segovia maintains, that one may stop a Thief that [...]lics after Rob­bery, [Page 316] and kill him, if he defend himself, even at Noon-dayes, without incurring irregularity, which he proves both by the Canons, and by the Laws.

S [...]bastian Medices, f who hath made a Summary of all Heresies, your own excepted, because it is yet too young, sayes, A man may defend his honour, as well as his life, even by kil­ling his enemy; and proves it by the Law justa [...]ff. de man. vind. which equals the losse of ho­nour to that of life; quia periculum famae [...]qui­paratur p [...]riculo vitae.

Brun [...]llus g a Learned Lawyer of Orleans assures us, that if it be lawfull (which he proves) to kill a man in defence of his life and goods, it is lawfull, à fortiori, to do it for the preservation of his honour; because Honour is preferrable before Interest, according to the Law. Causa bonoris potior est quam emolumenti. L. Juli­anus.

Bartolus h asks the question, whether a man be oblig'd to fly from the Aggressor when he can, for fear of being engag'd to kill him for his own defence: and he answers in the nega­tive, if the slight be ignominious and dishonour­able. Dico quod si tu es Perusinus, qui times ver [...]undiam, dico quod optime potes usque ad actum occisionis.

[Page 317] i Peter of Navarr extends the same Max­ime not to life onely, but to honour and goods, and maintains that it is clearly so decided in the Law; Et aperta est decisio. c. olim. de Restit. spol. 1.

And as to the Text you quote, to prove it un­lawfull to kill in defence of goods, except in oc­currances where life is also concern'd, se suaque liberando: It is evident by the sense, which all these Authours give it, that you understand it not aright; and that if we could not remain in the moderation of a just defence, without insepa [...]a­bly joyning the interest of goods and life [...]oge­ther, a man could no more defend his life with­out his goods, then his goods without his life.

Must I then, after so many clear testimonies, open you all the Libra [...]ies, and lead you through­out all the Universities of Europe, to finde In­terpreters to expound to you the Canons? Must Major k speak for me in the University of Pa­ris? Sylvius l in that of D [...]way? Sancius [Page 318] in Spain? Bonacina in Italy? Sotus, Bannes, and Victoria in the Schools of the Thomists; Caraffa and Diana in that of the Clarks Re­gulars?

Are you not asham'd to see all these great Schollers so firmly united with the Jesuites, in the opinions you reproach them with, as the sole Authours thereof? Have you no regret for ha­ving treated them with so little respect, like men so far d [...]voted to the Devills Orders, as to publish among Christians a Doctrine come out of Hell?

If you place them in that rank, tell me whom do you acknowledge for the Disciples of Christ, who speak the language of the City of peace, cal­led mysticall Jerusalem, unlesse haply Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, and Du Mouli [...]? Compare a little your Morality with that of the Jesuites; and of that multitude of Catholique Doctours who embrace the opinions of the Jesuits, give me but one onely that favours Jansenisme? Give me but one that teaches with Monsicur de St. Cyran, m That the Church is corrupted in her Doctrine, that she is at present in her declensi­on, and that God himself destroyes her? Give me one that teaches with Jansenius, That there are Commandments which are impossible to the Just? Give me one that teaches, as you do in the second page of your second Letter to the Proivncial, That sufficient Grace is sufficient [Page 319] without being such: and in the last page of that same Letter, That one may without perill doubt of Potentia Proxima, and sufficient Grace, pro­vided he be not a Dominican?

And yet after all this, you have the confidence to lead me to the Tournelle, or Court of Crimi­nal causes, to learn the formalities observ'd in that August Temple of Justice; as though one could observe those long proceedings at the cor­ner of a wood, when a Thief surprizes you and demands you [...] purse? Or as if it were then a time, for satisfaction of ones conscience, to get witnes­ses examined, and to know certainly if he have any design upon your life; to look out an advo­cate to maintain the sincerity of your intentions, and to take the opinions of the seven Judges, to decide whether [...] be killable or not in this case?

Are you not a pleasant Reformer of Morality? and have you not reason to tell us, That you will bring us back to the most simple Principles of Religion and common sense? You your self, Sir, stand in no little need of being reduced thither: for you could not well go further off: and though I had no other proof of the great judgement you shew in your Letters, yet this alone would suffice me to tell you, that the Silence wherewith you menace me at the end of the Fourteenth Letter, will do me a pleasure, and not be unprofitable to your self: You will at once learn to speak more modestly your self of those holy and most cele­brious Doctours; and you will [...]ase me of the trouble of upb [...]aiding your insolence.

Keep your promise with me, Sir, and you will surpasse my hopes; but if you will fully satisfie [Page 320] my desires, make better use hereafter of the wit which God hath given you: turn not again the point of your knife against the Altars; do not consecrate your Heart any more to Revenge, your Understanding to Errour, nor your Pen to Ca­lumny.

'Tis now above an Age agoe, since that foul­mouth'd Vice [...]ndertook to persecute the Jesuits; it has stuck close to their Society from its very cradle; it has pursued them, where ever they have had the honour to publish the Gospel, and even at this day it has people over all the earth, so far de­voted to its Orders, as to make this Company suf­fer a cruel persecution: You are not the first that has attaqu'd them; nor are you like to be the last, that will have the shame and repentance of ha­ving done it. Relinquish that [...]ad employment, Sir, which can bring you nothing but dishonour with men, and in the sight of God charge you with an heavy account: there is no jeasting with Divine Justice; the Wisdom of God is not sub­ject to surprize; men cannot impose on the prime Verity, which endures not falshood with­out destroying it: in vain do you disguise the matter; you cannot make it probable to him; and except you sincerely dis [...]vow it, you shall ne­ver be in safety of Conscience.

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Fif­teenth Letter.

Argument.

1. THe Jansenists foul Language in sol­ving difficulties with a mentiris im­pudentissimè; whence he learnt it. 2. Since the Jansenists have used ill language to Popes and Prelates, and accused his Ho­liness's Bulls of falsity, it is not to be won­dred they use the Jesuits as ill. 3. Before Pope Innocent's Bull the Five Propositions were acknowledged by the Jansenists to be in Jansenius: since they are condemned, the Jansenists will give him the Lye, that saith they are in Jansenius. 4. The Jansenists are condemned of all sides; and laying all that on the Jesuits, to revenge themselves they expose the Jesuits Morality quite dis­guised to the laughter of the ignorant: and by so doing, they are themselves become the [Page 322] laughter of wise men. 5. Their false Ac­cusations of Fath. Dalby, Pintereau, Bau­ny, and others, refuted. 6. That if one Caputin at Prague and a Jesuit had a Contrast, yet the whole Body of Capucins conspireth with the Society, and other Or­ders also, against the Jansenists. 7. Di­castillo's opinion hindereth not the verity of all that is laid to the Jansenists charge: which is made good by shewing the Ori­ginalls.

SIR,

I Perceive you are nettled, and that your game does not please you. When I had accurate­ly examin'd the principall parts of your Let­ter, the whole force and substance of it seem'd comprisable in these two words, which in your opinion amount to a just Apology, and do wholly acquit Port-Royall; mentiris impuden­tissimè: a That is to say, Sir, (as you know very well) you lie most impudently. We must pardon you this exorbitancy: you are in Choler, and your minde not being in a calm posture, seems to have lost the government of its passions; so that in this confusion of thoughts, and violent motions that tosse it to and fro, it is hardly able to make a good election of its words.

[Page 323] That Learned man, whose errours make up the Theology of your Sect, and whose name is one of the most magnificent Titles of your glo­ry, a said very ingenuously, (you know it, Sir, and have graven it since his death, on the Fron­tispice of his Work) b that the humor predomi­nant in his constitution, participated of the qua­lities of Salt-peter; which being of a thin and simple substance, takes fire in an instant, and as suddenly goes out, leaving no ill smell nor smoak behinde it. Your fire is more offensive; your Salt peter has Sulphur in it; and those injurious writings, which degenerate so much from the naturall Civility of the French, smell too much of the German Powder.

I sought at first, with some astonishment, for what reason, or rather out of what giddy hu­mour, you were gone amongst strangers to learn to speak opprobriously in Dutch; since without going so far, you might have learn'd as good lan­guage as this in the common Market-place, or among the Wash-women at the River side. But I recall'd to minde. that you had good Friends in that Countrey; and that Luther, who first found out this excellent Method how to vindi­cate Heresie, had made an advantagious use of it against the highest powers; opposing both to [Page 324] the Writings of a King, and the Anathema's of a Pope, the same impenetrable shield, which se­cures you against all the darts of your Adver­saries; mentiris impudentissimè, You lie most im­pudently. For thus in his Answer to the King of England, who had undertaken the defence of the Faith against that insolent Apostate, he scossing­ly terms him your Thomisticall Majesty, c to clude those invincible reasons of St. Thomas, which that Prince had urged; and makes him this respectfull complement, Ego fine larva, sed aper [...]è, dico, Regem Angliae Henricum istum mentiri. I fear not to unmask my self, and speak freely, that this Harry King of England lies. And in his Refutation of the Bull of Pope Leo the X. upon the subject of Free Will, like that of Inn [...]ent the X. against the Jansenists: d You lye, sayes he; cease to calumniate those who maintain the Truth, which for three hundred years past, you have unjustly oppressed. c And again, You have the face of a Curtisan, (Holy [Page 325] Vicar of Christ) which cannot blush: You show so much impudence, and so little sense in your words, that you deserve no Answer.

Questionlesse it was from this Originall that you took your pattern; from hence you have learn'd to give the lie so readily to him that dares contradict your Sentiments: It was not possible to copy him more perfectly, then you have done, and to compare you both together, a man may say you have full as much boldnesse, but more of ad­dresse then your Master. Indeed if all that af­ford you good advice, accuse your insolence, or condemn your false Doctrine, be Traducers and Liars, and that against such you employ the darts of your Lutheran Eloquence, the Jesuites have no more to do, but to bow down their heads, to avoid the blow, which you direct much higher; your aim is at Miters and Diadems, and you strike no heads but such as wear a Crown. For in fine what is it you complain of, and what in­jury has been done you? Men call you Here­tiques, and you would make us believe it is a ca­lumny. You do but jest: 'tis not an Obliquy, but an Oracle utter'd from the mouth of Christs Vicar, Constitutio Innocentii X. contra 5. Jansen. Propositiones. who assures us that your Maximes touching Grace are Hereticall, Scandalous, and Impious. If you be offended thereat, addresse your self to him; declare your self; and to justifie your Faith, answer him accoring to your usuall stile, menti­ris impudentissimè. You cannot endure to be call'd Jansenist: It is a fair name; are you [Page 326] asham'd to bear the name of your Father? that cel [...]brious name, known over the whole world? that illustrious name, which Popes themselves have given you? Ʋt Janseniani Apostolicis de­cretis tandem acquiescerent. g If you take it for an injury, complain of his Holinesse, and be not ashamed to say to him, Mentiris impudentissimè.

Men tell you that you are an Impostour; and that your boldnesse in corrupting and falsifying the Jesuits Morall is insupportable. I do not onely say it, but prove it, and you cannot deny it; I do no [...] whisper it, I publish it on the house top▪ I am not the first that sayes it; I say it after Ur­ban VIII. who so often complains, that you de­cry his Constitutions as false and surreptitious, h and treats you with a just indignation, as Light headed, Temerarious, Insolent, Refractory Rebels, who by a pernicious example seek to di­minish his Authority, to the prejudice of mens eternall salvation. i If these high praises [Page 327] please you not, wherefore do you fall upon me, who do but barely report the words of that great Pope? Fall upon your Judge, and to shew that you are not insolent, tell him aloud, Mentiris im­pudentissimè.

You have done it, Sir, and that more then once; you did, upon the Bulls that were not fa­vourable to you, assay the art of Lye-giving to such, as convinc'd you of Imposture and Errour by proofs so clear, that you were not able to an­swer them: and I am not astonisht at your high carriage against the Jesuits, seeing you have be­gun your apprentiship upon the Popes.

When the Church denounced her first Ana­thema against your pernicious Errours, and Pope Ʋrban VIII. struck dead at one blow the true Jansenius, and the false Augustine; Port-Roy­all startled at the thunder-clap, found no better shelter in that conjuncture, which requir'd a quick and hardy resolution, then by publique writings to give the lye to those that sp [...]ke to you of the Bulls; saying to every one of them, it is false, mentiris impudentissimè. That was bu [...] the triall of your skill, which yet might have past for a Master-piece. k The Jesuites, said you then, have forged this Bull against the Do­ctrine of St. Augustin, explain'd in the Lord Bishop of Ipre's Book: They could not defend their cause, but by a proceeding so infamous, and so unworthy not onely of Christians, of Religi­ous, of Priests, but even of Persons of reputa­tion. [Page 328] All Godly People are in hope, that his Holinesse will not let such a Crime go unpunish­ed, and that he will shew, by the condemnation of so great an excess [...], what injury they have [...]one to the Holy Sea, who endeavoured to make it a Complice of so many black and palpable [...]a [...]sities.

The event did afterwards shew what Spirit of Divination it was, that made you speak in the stil [...] of the Prophets, when you were not indued with their lights: Men knew the voice of their P [...]stour, whom y [...]u made passe for a Thief: that Constitution which you had violated by two scandalous obse [...]vations, was confi [...]m'd by above six of the Popes Bre [...]fs; and that which you had [...]e [...]ry'd through all the st [...]eets of Paris, was re­cei [...]'d in all Churches by his order. Yet [...]scap [...]d he not the lye, and your Apology, which had tri­ed the [...]orce of those two terms of your Poli­tiques, menti [...]is impudentissime, forgot not to make use of it, cunningly strewing upon it this handfull of flowers: l A man must put out his eyes, to doubt still that this Bull is not sur­reptitious; and that the Bishop of [...]pre's Adver­sarics have not by under-hand working, obstruct­ed the prosecution of the Popes intentions, and rendred this Bull as conformable to their passion, as it is contrary to the will of his Holinesse. Could any man give the lie with a better grace? Could any man vindicate Jansenius more dex­terously from the censure of Rome? Could it be affirmed more tenderly, that the Pope by con­demning [Page 329] Jansenius, had put out his own eyes, and suffer'd himself to be led by the Jesuites like a blinde man?

Not long after this the thunderbol [...] fell upon your two heads, which make but one: and Pope Innocent X. beating down that two-headed Mon­ster, which came out of your desarts, decla [...]'d to all the world, that though there were many m [...]m­bers in the Church, yet there was but one Head, and that he knew how to take the Sword of St. Paul, without giving him the Keyes of St. Peter. But after all he could not avoid that Serpen [...]s tongue: the [...]atall blow that bere [...]t that monster of life, could not stifle his voice; his his [...]ings were still heard as he lay expiring, and casting forth the last drops of his venom against his Van­quisher. Mentir [...]s impudentissi [...]è. This deadly cry resounded on the other side of the Moun­tains; and Italy was amaz'd to hear men speak, in the midst of the Church, a language she had never heard. m That his Holin [...]ss [...] had suf­fer'd himself to be surpriz'd by false reports; that the censurers of a Doctrine so holy and ad­vantageous to the Sea Apostolique had not read it, or if they had, that they understood it not: that they were both Judges and Parties. That Cardinall Lugo had tyed himself to the generall of the Jesuits by the Vow of a blinde Obedience. That Cardinall Spada, ashamed that he could not make that censure prevail, which he had undor­taken, had complotted with the J [...]suits to save [Page 330] his own credit by exposing the reputation of the Pope: and finally that the whole affair had been managed rather by Politick Considerations, then by the Rules of Ecclesiasticall Discipline, and so­lid Reasons of Theology.

What was left unattempted by the whole party to set the Prelates against the Pope; to draw the Universities; to gain particular persons; to en­gage Communities; to seduce the people; to mislead souls and insensibly corrupt the purity of their Faith, and the fidelity they owe to the Uni­versall Pastour of Christs Flock? Neverthelesse in fine the Providence of God, who watches over his Elect, and laughs at the malice of the impi­ous, disappointed all your designes; and unspeak­able was the grief that seiz'd your mindes, when you understood, that above fourscore Bishops of this Kingdome, had demanded the condemnati­on of the Five Propositions, that make up the Fundamental Maximes of Jansenisme: that af­ter a long deliberation, the Pope had granted it; that Heaven had given a blessing to it, as the fruit of so many Vows, Prayers, and Tears shed by the Children of the Church, to extinguish by such an amorous deluge, the conflagration you had rais'd in the midst of their bowels: and finally that those three famous Columnes, erected with so much cost and preparation, to uphold the credit of your Doctrine, which visibly tended to its ruine, were not able to support that totter­ing Machine, nor hinder the fall of your Sect. Then it was that drawing forces out of despair, you intrench'd your selves within your Fort, [...]ntiris impudentissimè, and thence as from a [Page 331] safe Rampart, scoffing at Fulminations and Cen­sures, you gave your friends to understand, n That certain persons having carefully per­us'd a Book, and not found therein the Proposi­tions which are attributed to a Catholick Bishop after his death, in the narration of a Popes con­stitution, could not declare against their consci­ence, that they are in the Book. Who would have thought that after you had given the Lye to Popes and Bishops, who expresly affirme the contrary, there could any thing have been added to your insolence? Yet you rested not there, you perceiv'd there was something wanting, and that to crown so manifest a Rebellion against the Sea Apostolique, it was requisite to give it the name of Obedience, protesting with pompous words, o that the Disciples of Monsieur d' Ipre had made it apparent to all France, that they can humble themselves under Gods Vicar, not onely when he honours them with his favour, but even when he seems to abandon them to the Impo­stures of their Enemies: p that they who sus­pect them of Errour, should have much ado to assigne the pretended Heresie, which every one fancies to himself as he pleases; since if they re­duce it to the Five Propositions condemn'd by the Pope, that Heresie which he imputed to them, would prove to be but a Chimera, there being no Divine that maintains those five condemned Pro­positions.

[Page 332] What, Sir, is this the Jansenian humility, that so vaunts with ostentation of having submitted to the Vicar of Christ, while it rejects the narration of his Bull, and accuses the Oracle of truth of fals­hood & lying? Is this the sincerity where with you justisie your Doctrine, by condemning those of remerity who opposed it before it was condemn'd, and accusing those of calumny, who ascribe it to you, since the publique voice of the Church hath blasted it with an eternall ignominy? Before the Popes Bull the Heresie of Jansenius appear'd with lustre in your Works, it march'd with great attendance, and nevershew'd it self, but guarded with the Fathers of the first Ages: It was the Doctrine of the Church, the Doctrine of the Apostles, the Doctrine of the Popes and Coun­cils: After the Bull, this Heresie is nothing but a Chim [...]ra, which every man fancies such as he pleases, and no man knows in very truth. Before the Popes Bull, it was a crime to question the Five Propositions, and they that held them sus­pect, were Semipelagians, Enemies of the grace of Christ; such as attempred to destroy the most ancient Verities, and to obscure the clearest Lights of the Gospel. After the Bull, it is an injury to impute them to you, and they that re­proach you with them are hainous Detracters, and most impudent Lyars. Before the Bull, those Maximes were as so many unalterable Rules of Faith, where of Tradition was he Source, Saint Augustine the Oracle, and Monsieur de Ipre the faithfull Interpreter that had renew'd them in our Age. After the Bull, those very Maximes by a strange Metamorphosis, are become meer [Page 333] Impostures, which Envy alone hath invented, Calumny div [...]lged, and nothing but Ignorance, to the prejudice of Innocence, can believe; since there are no Divines, who hold these condemned Propositions.

Thus, Sir, it appears that you have an ambigu­ous Faith, which you explicate according to the time; a Faith that has two faces, and which be­gets illusions in mens mindes: at this day it is a Chimera, because you dare not produce it, so odious it is to all the world: when you have wip'd away the shame of it, and that the Censure is forgotten, it will again be the spirit of the first Ages. To grant; to deny; to say yes, to say no, are things indifterent to you: You put all in practice to advance the pretended reformation you promise, and that imaginary dominion which you affect in the Chu [...]ch. 'Tis onely the hatred you bear to the Jesuites, that never changes; be­cause your bad inclination towards Religion ever continues. You look upon their zeal as an ob­stacle that retards the progresse of your designs; and because you cannot shake their vertue, you endeavour, at least, to ruine the reputation it gains, and the approbation it deserves. Hence it comes that you make them Authours of all your disgraces, and not daring to complain of the hand that strikes you, at every blow you feel you bite the hand that would heal you.

If the Pope condemneth the works of Port-Royall; the Jesuites presently become Falsifiers, and Forgers of Bulls against the Doctrine of the Fathers. If he command the Marble of Jansenius's Tomb to be taken up, and that the [Page 334] marks of that proud monument, which serv'd as a Trophy to Heresie, be effaced; the Jesuites are men of prophane spirits, they suffer Idolatry in China, they traffique in Canada, they favour Li­bertines in Europe, and uphold remisnesse and disorder in all parts of the world. If the Cler­gy in France reprove the surreptitious Elogium of the Abbot of St. Cyran; the Jesuites every where persecute Persons of Honour, and are so far from sparing the living, that they forbear not even the memory of the dead. If Sorbon do justice on it self, and couragiously cut off its own members, where they see inflamation and cor­ruption to be gather'd by the contagion of your errours; the Jesuits (say you) are the Corrupters of Discipline, and it is necessary to extermi­nate them for the good of Souls, and Glory of God.

What ever advantage they may have in the Doctrine of Faith, yet must they still be attaqued in the point of Manners. Their Writers must all be racked, and nothing left intire in any of their Books: they must be falsified by infamous forgings; they must be altered by unfaithfull suppressions; a false aspect must be given them by malignant interpretations; some passages of them must be shortned, others lengthened; those must have that cut off which justifie [...] them; and these must have something added, which may make them appear blameable. Divines will soon discover these illusions; but the People, who are not [...]o clear-sighted, will be apt to take such ap­paritions for solid bodies; and so you will still finde your account. The wise will admire that [Page 335] you take upon you such a wretched employment, and that after you have spoken so long, like Ora­cles, the language of the Ancient Fathers, you are now reduc'd, like Moaths, to eat the Books of the new Casuists. But the wise are not the greater number: for one Person of Honour that will be afflicted at this disorder, you will make a hundred Libertines laugh, who are so pleas'd with detractions of this nature, that even the false do often delight them more then the true. In fine the Jesuites will not fail to defend them­selves, and make you blush at your gulleries. But you are ready to welcome them; if they presse you with the force of reason, you will [...]ire them with your importunities, and repeat so often those words, mentiris impudentissime, that they will be forc'd to hold their peace; perceiving plainly, that you have nothing to lose, and that they can get nothing of you but injuries.

Truly, Sir, you are fallen upon a very com­modious way of defending your self, and assault­ing others; since all your dexterity consists in lying impudently, which is not hard to do; and in giving others the Lye with impunity, which is yet more easie; in aspersing the Innocent with hideous Calumnies to make them criminall, and calling them Calumniators, to vindicate your self of all your crimes. Let us take a view of your proceeding, and see how you reduce to pra­ctice the method of Port-Royal.

You make Father Al [...]y say, that Monsieur Puys is an Heretique, excommunicate, and wor­thy of the sire: You quote his first and second Book, and assure us, that he confirms in the lat­ter, [Page 336] what he had said of him in the former. This is an apparent falshood. For it is to be seen, that from the third page of his second Book, he declares to the contrary, That men are much to blame to accuse him of having call'd that Pastour Here­tique; that there is no man of judgement, who examines the terms of his first Apology, (for he assaults not, but defends himself) but will judge this glosse too violent, and that complaint very tender. You are therefore an Impostour, and that a signall one. But what does it avail me to convince, and presse you to an answer? As your accusation is onely a lie, so all your Apolo­gy will be to give me that complement. You who made no consci [...]noe to lye in imposing upon that Father, will have no shame to give me the lie in justifying your self, and say, Mentirls im­pudontissimé.

You accuse Father Bauny of having taught, That it is lawfull directly, primo & per se, to seek out the next occasion of sinning, for the Spi­rituall or Temporall good of our selves, or neigh­bour. This is a palpable falshood. Those words primo & per se are none of that Divines. I ad­vertis'd you of it in my answer to you ninth Im­posture. I told you that decision was capable of two contrary senses; the first, that one may expose himself to an occasion of sinning upon reasons important to the conversion of Souls, and welfare of the State, as St. Ambrose, and many other Saints have done: yet so as he have hope, by the help of Heaven to overcome the danger, and be firmly resolved in himself to overcome it: and this is the opinion of F. Bauny, and of the [Page 337] famous Basilius Pontius, which is not rejected in the Schools. The second sense is, that one may temerariously expose himself to those occasions, and even formally seek them out upon light grounds. And this Doctrine the Abbot of Boi­sic, who passes with you for F. Pinthereau, calls detestable. As to the first sense, I accus'd you of ignorance, for making a crime of an opinion common in Divinity; and for the second I con­vinc'd you of malice, in regard there is not so much as the least print, or foot-stop, thereof in F. Bauny's Book, and consequently cannot be im­puted to him, (as F. Caussin said) but by an in­strument of the Devill. Neverthelesse as though you had quite forgotten it, you take me for Surety against your Creditours, and make me an Approver of what you say against them that accuse you: was there ever seen such a piece of knavery as this? But you may do any thing; you have a dispensation generall from Port-Roy­all, which [...]xempts you from speaking truth, and impowers you to give the lye to all that reproach you with unfaithfull dealing. See yet another example; for you are very [...]ruitfull in Impo­stures, as having in you an inexhaust [...]ble Source of them.

You impute to F. Bauny this Proposition, That Priests ought not to deny absolution, to those that remain in the habits of Crimes against the Law of God, Nature, and the Church, though they discover not any hops of amendment: And you assu [...]e us that F. Pinther [...]an and F. Brisaci­ [...]r are fallen into a contradiction about the an­swering your Imposture. This is a fal [...]hood [Page 338] more evident then the day: the answer of the one destroyes not the answer of the other; they are both of them alike good, and satisfactory to all such, who are not sick of envy like your self. One answers, that Absolution cannot be given to that sort of Sinners, when they shew no desire of amendment; and denies that ever F. Bauny taught the contrary; all this is true. The other answers, that in the apprehension which a Priest may have of his Penitents relapses, considering the frailty of men, he is to rely upon the promise of the Penitent, and to content himself with his sincere and resolved will to live better, testified by his words and regrets, without expecting ex­traordinary revelations to ascertain him of the good disposition of the Sinner, and of the infal­lible eff [...]ct that is to follow his present protesta­tions and resolutions; which the greatest Saints cannot promise themselves: and this he avowes for F. Bauny's opinion. This is also true. Where is then that imaginary contradiction you accuse them of? Where is that streit which is so difficult to get out of? The first rejects the bad Doctrine you father upon a famous Divine: the second defends the true decision. The first un­vails your malice; the second justifies the inno­cence of his Brother. The weapons they use are different, but are equally good and strong; they assault you on both sides, but the blow which each of them gives you, is inevitable. In fine as they have both their particular way of encounter­ing you, so they both of them obtain the victory, and pu [...] you in such disorder, that you are con­strein'd to fly into Germany to learn opprobrious [Page 339] language, and to answer each of them in parti­cular with mentiris impudentissimè.

You will say that you have learn'd this lesson in a good School; that you practice it but in imitation of a good Religious German, and that the Capuchins being then very fatall to the Jesu­ites, no man ought to be offended that you profit by their misfortune.

I grant it is of great concernment to you to gain the R R. F F. the Capuchins, and that if you could divide them from the Jesuites in the cause of Jansenius, you had plaid your game well. For besides that their Holinesse of life has acquir'd them the Love and Veneration of the People, they are vigorous defenders of the Faith, and of the Popes B [...]ll; and consequently great Enemies of Jansenisme, which you maintain. But 'tis in vain to hope for such a rupture, and the Decree which they have this year renewed against your Doctrine, declares to you suffici­ently, that the Jesuites are on better terms with the Capuchins then you imagine; and that if they have not been so fortunate in respect of one par­ticular, you are undoubtedly most unfortunate in regard of the whole Body. You shall, Sir, par­ticipate of that Decree, and le [...]t you should think your self unfortunate onely in the Capuchins and Jesuites, I will adde divers others; whereby you shall understand how hatefull your Party is to all Religious Orders and Societies, wherein Vertue and Science are in any kinde of repute.

Learn therefore, if you know it not already, what are the Sentiments of all godly people touching [Page 340] your Doctrine, and judge by the universall odium it lies under, if you be not the most unfortunate upon the Earth. The Reverend Fathers Capu­chins desirous to testifie in all occurrences the respect and obedience they owe to the Holy Sea, [...]ave prohibited in their Generall Chapter, held this Year at Rome the 25. of July, That no per­son of their Order presume to expound or defend the Doctrine of Jansenius, which hath been c [...]n­demn'd and cut off by Pope Innocent X. neither the Doctrine of Arnauld, nor of the Arnauldists. Whosoever shall do the contrary, besides the pe­nalties sp [...]eified in the said Apostolicall Consti­tution, if he be a Superiour, let him be depriv'd of his Office; if a Reader, of the Faculty of Teaching; if a Preacher, of the power of Preaching; and they shall also be liable to other Punishments, as their Superiours shall think fitting. B [...]hold you are already very unfortunate in the Capuchins. The Reverend Fathers [...]ue­illans, assembled in their Generall Chapter, in the Year 1649. made the like Prohibition, and ordain'd, that the Constitutions of Pope Urban VIII. against Jansenius should be sent, publish'd, and exactly observ'd in all the Monasteries of their Order. See, you are unfortunate also in them. The Reverend Fathers Carmelites Dis­calceate, established the same in their Provinciall Chapter, in the Year 1649. with a strict Prohi­bition against teaching or defending the Do­ctrine of Jansenius, which hath raised so great Disturbances in the Church. For instance, That Christ dyed not for all the world; That all the actions of Unbelievers are sins; That God has [Page 341] no will to save all men. There again are you unfortunate in the Carmelites. The Reverend Fathers Minims made the like Ordinance in their Provinciall Chapter, in the Year 1650. To the end (say they) efficaciously to retrench that dangerous novelty of Doctrine, which creeps into mens mindes to the scandall of the Church. There likewise you are unfortunate in the Mi­nims. The Reverend Fathers of the Congre­gation of St. Maurice made the like Decree in their Assembly Generall, enjo [...]ning under great penalties their Professouts of Divinity, to t [...]ach Sufficient Grace, and not to go astray out of the grand Road of Catholique Doctours, to follow new and exo [...]ick Maximes. There again are you unfortunate in the Benedictins.

I will not dilate my self in a longer enumera­tion of your misfortunes, lest I should seem wil­ling to insult over the unfortunate. Your sad condition touches me too sensibly, to make any Triumph upon that subject. My designe is to undeceive you, if I can, and to oblige you to ac­knowledge, how dangerous it is to depart from the Sentiments of the Church, and to relinquish God; since it is the least punishment, that attends on a Deserter of the Faith, to see himself aban­doned of all the world. This is it that has be­fallen you, Sir, and you see the sad consequences of it, by an unhappy experience. Popes excom­municate you; Bishops declare you Heretiques; the Religious Orders have a horrour for your Doctrine; the Universities condemne you by their Censures, and Sorbon cannot suffer you in her bosome: she cuts you off alive from her Bo­dy, [Page 342] and deprives you of Funerall Honours after death. You have a fresh president thereof before your eyes, which ought to startle you. That sage and couragious Mother suppress'd the ten­derness she had for one of her Doctours, who dy­ed not long since in Paris, to testifie the great­nesse of her aversion for your Errours: she de­serted him, because he would not renounce the commerce he held with you: she disavow'd him, because he would not know himself: she re­main'd inflexible in her severity, because he ob­stinately persisted in his disobedience: and as he dyed in the forgetfulnesse of his duty, so she would render him no other devoirs, then that of an eternall oblivion of his memory.

Yet after all this, Sir, you will persist to tell me, that the Jesuits are Traducers, because they maintain the Jansenists to be Heretiques; and you'l go seek out proofs as far as Germany, to give the Lye touching what is done in France, and what we see with our eyes. How weak is your Ratiocination, and how violent your Pas­sion! F. Dicastillo a Jesuit, say you, maintains against the R. F. Quiroga a Capuchin, that it is no sin of Injustice, but onely of Lying, to repell on [...] calumny by another that is equall, and to im­pose false crimes to the ruine of his credit, who imposes others on us equally false. Dicastillo proves his opinion by the authority of Bannes, who is one of the Celebrious Disciples of Saint Thomas, as also by the authority of Vega, Orel­lana, and many other Authours; nay even of the Universities of Prague, and Vienna The R. F. Quiroga alledges for warranty of his Te­nent, [Page 343] three Authours, whereof two are Jesuits, viz. Lessius and Filiucius: These School-Di­vines grow insensibly hot one against another, as it usually falls out in such Disputes; some words escape their mouth, not so well consorted as might have been. This is all you bring us from those remote Conntreys; which you dis­play magnificently, making them serve to fill up the pages of your Letter. What do you conclude from thence? Therefore the Five Propositions condemn'd by the Pope are not to be found in Jansenius, as he declares they are in an q ex­presse Brief? How weakly is this argued! Therefore those very Propositions are not Scan­dalous, Hereticall, and Temerarious, as the Pope asserts them to be in his Bulls? How frivolous is this! Therefore Monsieur Arnauld's second Letter, which protests they are not in the Lord d' Ipre's Book, has not been censured? How ridiculous is that! Therefore it is not an He­resie condemned by the Pope to say with Mon­si [...]ur Arnauld in his preface, that St. Peter and St. Paul are the two Heads of the Church which make but one? How irrationall is this! Therefore the Abbot of St. Cyran sayes not in one of his Letters, That he professes to know nothing but what the Church has taught him twelve hundred years ago; that he had known all Ages, and spoken with all the great Succes­sours of the Apostles? Therefore Janseni [...]s promises not that Abbot to maintain his Nephew Barcos with Colledge Moneys he had in his [Page 344] hands, so as no man in the world should discover it in the Accounts he was to render? Therefore he writes not to the same Abbot, r That God has taken away two Ecclesiastiques within a few Dayes, to cast a Canonry into his hands, and that he is already proffer'd for it six hundred Florins, together with a Bene [...]ice? There­fore Mother Agnes of St. Paul Abbess of Port-Royall sayes not in writing to the Abbot of St. Cyran, That there are some of her Religious, who have not been at Confession for the space of fifteen Moneths; and that this were enough to astonish a Confessour, who requires onely words, and not dispositions?

By what Laws of Logick can you reason in this sort, without exposing your self to the laugh­ter even of the meanly learned? The Jesuites have no no need to impose upon you false Here­sies; you have publish'd but too many real ones. They do not falsifie your Books, that so they may finde them stuft with errours in Doctrine and Morality; they have mark'd you the place, the page, your very words: they alter not the Letters of Jansenius, and the Abbot of St. Cyran [...] they have the Originalls in their Archives of Clermont Colledge: they conceal them not, they shew them to all the world. You have sent thither, and have had a more faithfull relation then you desired; what have you to say in answer? what have you answered hitherto? Certainly, Sir, you were never more in the right, th [...]n wh [...]n you [Page 345] protested you would onely answer en passant, as passing by. For it is true, you very dexterously passe by all the accusations brought against you, and take no notice of them. It is not so, as to the aspersions you cast upon the Jesuites: They an­swer clearly; they dissolve your int [...]icate ambigu­ities; they unvail your Impostures; they dissipate your illusions; they plainly convince you of ig­norance and falsity. The whole world sufficient­ly perceives it.

They know wherefore you treat the Kings Confessour so unworthily; why you worry Vas­quez, Suarez, Molina, Lessi [...], and so many fa­mous Divines, whose radiant lustre dazles your eyes: they know why it is, you so violently at­taque one while the whole Body, another while particular men, as F. Danjou, and F. Crasset, without imputing to them other crime, then ha­ving preach'd against Jansenisme, (which is at this day so infamous) and having clear'd certain Persons, who suspected themselves tax'd, and made great complaints thereof. This is it that angers you; this is the reall cause of the strange animosity you expresse: 'Tis not your zeal for the Discipline, that makes you scatter so many calumnies in Paris: 'Tis the grief you feel to see your self condemn'd at Rome, the very place where you should present your grievances, were they reasonable, that has held you these six moneths in perpetuall extravagances.

Return then, Sir, to the point of our diffe­rence; let us resume the subject of our Dispute: I will not oblige you to justifie the Doctrine of Jansenius; that were to require an impossibility: [Page 346] but it is easie for you, nay advantagious, sincerely to condemn it, by retracting the Heresies you have advanced in your four first Letters, and which Monsiuer de Marande s has impugn'd with such eloquence and strength of judgement, as that generous Defender of Grace has shewn in all his Works against Arnauld, which are unanswer­able. This is the subject of my wishes, the pub­lique hope, the interest of the Church, and the answer I resolve henceforth to make to all your obloquies; for leaving to you that fair Apology of Port-Royall, men [...]ir [...]s impudentissimè, I will not otherwise defend my self in the future, then by remonstrating your errour, and bidding you at every Maxime I refute, Be no longer a Jansenist,

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Com­plaint of being called Heretiques: By Father Francis Annat.

Argument.

1. THat the [...]ansenists are Heretiques, because they maintain the Five Propositions in the sense of Jansenius; which the Pope hath condemned and declared He­reticall. 2. The [...]ansenists vain distincti­on of Matters of Fact, and of Faith; see­ing they were agreed in the Matter of Fact long since, as appeareth by severall Confes­sions of theirs. 3. A Parallell of Pope Celestins commending St. Augustins Do­ctrine, and Pope Innocent the Tenth his condemning Jansenius his Doctrine. 4. The Five condemned Propositions, with the expressions of Jansenius conformable to eve­ry [Page 348] one of them. 5. The great stubborn­nesse of the Jansenists denying what is ocu­larly evident, and what they themselves have confessed. 6. The Jansenists as tru­ly Heretiques, as the Arians, Nestorians, &c. 7. It is enough, to know that the Pope and Church hath condemned Jansenius his Doctrine, for to be obliged to condemn it, (and call them Heretiques, who maintain it) without knowing what the particular sense of Jansenius is: as to condemn Ma­homets Doctrine 'tis enough, to know that he hath taught Doctrine renounced by all Christians. 8. It is evident, that the Propositions are in Jansenius; and it is of Faith, that they are condemned in his sense. 9. The Jansenists false Submission to the Bull of Pope Innocent, like the fraudulent Submissions of Ancient Heretiques. 10. The Jansenists Miracles in reuniting the the Love of God with Hatred of their Neighbour; of Justice with Calumny; of Sincerity with Falsity; of the Doctrine of Christ with War against the Church of Christ.

[Page 349] I Have newly receiv'd the Complaint of a Jansenist, who believes I am much to blame for calling those of his Sect Heretiques, and demands satisfaction for so great an injury. He sees not how I can well excuse my self, since it is manifest, as he imagines, that they who are termed Jansenists, have perfectly submitted to the Popes Constitution, which condemns the five Propositions; and do hold the same Propositions for well and duely condemned.

I have often and long since satisfied this ob­jection: But because we have to deal with such as are voluntarily deaf, who will hear but what they please, and have ears impenetrable to the voice that informs them, what they ought, but will not do; I shall here again unfold the reason I have to call them Heretiques. Though it pre­vail with them no more then formerly, yet will it serve to undeceive those, who might be caught with the fair shew of their Complaint.

I affirm therefore, that the Jansenists are Here­tiques, and that without all dispute, they ought to be call'd by that name. The reason is, for want of a due submission to the Constitutions of the Holy Sea, and the Declarations made by the Church to advertise, that the Doctrine they main­tain is Hereticall. I will not speak of the Bull of Ʋrban VIII. which affirms Jansenius to have reviv'd a Doctrine already condemn'd, to the s [...]an­dall of Christianity and contempt of the Sea Apostolique; and therefore condemns his Book anew. Every man knows, that both in France and Flaunders they have publish'd a number of Books, to perswade the nullity and falshood of [Page 350] that Bull. And if after all they will still vaunt of their submission, a man must say, that to obey after the Jansenist fashion, is to dispute against the command.

I onely speak of the Constitution of Pope Innocent X. and maintain that they have not submitted to it, nor hold the condemned Pro­positions for well and duly condemned; the de­monstration whereof is easie. For the Pope in condemning the Propositions did not condemn the characters they are written in, nor the voice they are p [...]onounced with; but the sense of those that write or pronounce them; that is to say, the judgement corresponding to the proper significa­tion of the voice and characters. And that we might not be put to the trouble of divining that sense, the Pope, who condemns the Propositi­ons, declares it to us in the same Constitution, when he calls them opinions of Jansenius; shew­ing by those words, that he pretends to condemn the opinions of Jansenius, in condemning those Propositions, and which comes all to one, that be intends to condemn those Propositions in the sense they have in Jansenius's Doctrine. Since that Constitution, the Pope has made another Decree, by which he twice pronounced, that in the Five Propositions he condemned the Doctrine of Jansenius: Wherefore he proscribes, or pro­hibits afresh the pretended Augustine of Jan­senius, and all Books either written, or to be written, that shall defend his Doctrine. The Bishops of France having explicated the Con­stitution in the same manner, and affirmed that the Five Propositions were condemn'd in [Page 351] the sense of Jansenius; the Pope in avowing their explication rejoyced thereat, and has again the third time pronounced, that he condemn'd the Doctrine of Jansenius in the Five Propositi­ons. The assembly generall of the Clergy have receiv'd his Brief, and confirm'd it by the testi­monies they have given of their satisfaction therein.

The manifest result of all which is, that 'tis not a submitting to the Popes Constitutions, to say they condemn the Five Propositions; and yet approve the Opinions, Doctrine, or Sense of Jansenius. Wherefore we ask the Jansenists, whether in condemning the Five Propositions, as they pretend to do, they condemn the Opini­ons, Sense, and Doctrine of Jansenius? If they say yes; praised be God, that they return to the Churches sense, and [...]en [...]ounce Jansenisme, and let us call them no longer Heretiques. If they say no; they are manifestly Hr [...]tiques, since they maintain the Five Propositions in that sense, in which the Pope has declar'd them Heret [...]call; and by the same reason they have not submitted to the Pope's Constitution. And because they have hitherto refused to confes [...]e that truth, th [...] so constant a refusall being not otherwise inter­pretable th [...]n an avowment of the contrary, we have most just reason to call them absolutely He­retiques, as people obstinately defending a Do­ctrine declar'd and condemn'd for Hereticall. So that we cannot change our language, except they alter their mindes.

Their usuall evasion, by distinguishing betwixt questions of Right and question of Fact, cannot [Page 352] secure them. We must consider in that Sect two sorts of persons, the Captains or Con­ductors of the Flock, who are their Doctours; and the Followers that are blindely engag'd in the Party, by faction, Caball, and adherence to their Conductors. The former understand the fact by their own knowledge, and therein ought to remain agreed with us: The latter know it by adhesion to the knowledge of their Leaders; Which is to say, that they who make Apologies for Jansenius, and daily dispute in defence of his Doctrine, and who have written a hundred and a hundred Pieces in Latine and French, to per­swade men that their Doctrine touching the Five Propositions is the Doctrine of St. Augustine, (that so it may not be said they have gone sot­ [...]i [...]hly to work, and disputed on a businesse they understood not) are oblig'd to confesse, that they know it to be the Doctrine of Jansenius: as also that it has relation to the Five Propositions; and that in the same relation, the Five Propositions have a sense conformable the Doctrine of Jan­senius. We are therefore accorded as to matter of Fact.

But in case they should deny it, they are caught by their own confession. They have often avowed it. They have acknowledg'd those Pro­positions to be laid down in Jansenius, and that they might be consider'd, a Ʋt in Jansenii Augustino jacent, vel quoad verba, vel quoad ver­borum [Page 353] vim & sententiam. They have noted the places where they are found: saying of the first. b Veniamus ad Jansenium, & expendamus quo ille intellectu positionem han [...] usurparit, justis omnibus volentibus & conantibus, &c. Habetur ea apud hunc authorem, lib. 3. de Gratiâ Salva­toris, cap. 13.

And of the Second, c Acc [...]dat modo An­tistes Iprensis; Asscrit ipse & expli [...]at ex pro­fesso prop [...]sitam thesim, libro t [...]rtio de Gratiâ Salva­toris, [...]ámque firmat solid [...]ssimè, &c.

And of the Third, d Quoad Iprensis Epis­copi hâc in parte sententiam, vide ab ipso Au­gustini aliorumque Patrum omnis atatis congesta loca innumera, quibus [...]vincit invictissi [...]è, solam lib [...]rtatem à coaction [...] ad veram libertatem, ac proi [...]de ad meritum esse necessariam. And notes in the Margent, lib. 6. de Gr. Salvatoris, cap 6. & seq.

And of the Fourth, e Quid vero senserit de islo argumento Iprensis Episcopus, fusissime reperies à sexto ad undecimum caput lib. 8. de Hist. Pelagiana, &c.

And of the Fifth, f Augustini verba & sententiam summa side repraesentavit Iprensis Episcopus lib. 3. de Gr. Salv. cap. 2. Ʋbi & retulit veterem Ecclesiam Lugdun [...]nsem, & Si­nodum Valentinam expressissime defini [...]ntes ve­lut [Page 354] [...]idei Catholicae dogma, Non pro omnibus om­ [...]ino, sed pro [...]idelibus solis, mortuum Christum & Crucisixum.

The Author of the Book of Victorious Grace with six Approbatours sayes, That those Pro­positions are most true, and most Cotholique, according to the sense of Grace efficacious in it self. g As it is also in that sole sense that the Lord Bishop of Ipres maintains them against the errours of the Jesuites: That they have a good sense, in which the Lord Bishop of Ipres and the Disciples of St. Augustine have alwayes defended them. And where is it that the Lord Bishop of Ipres has defended them? Is it not in his Augustinus? And how should he defend them in that Book, if they were not there? They are therefore the Propositions of Jansenius: and they that cannot finde them there again, need onely resume the eyes they had before those Pro­positions were condemn'd.

Since the Authour of the Memoire touching the Jesuites design, affirms, That Jansenius's opinions on the Subject of those Propositions are the same wi [...]h St. Augustins; and conse­quently, that one cannot determine them con­demn'd in Jansenius's sense without violating all the rules of the Church; As also that the ablest Divines would be oblig'd to acknowledge the capitall points of St. Augustine's Doctrine condemned, if the Five Propositions had been condemned in Jansenius's sense: Does [...]e not grant those Propositions to have a sense in the Doctrine of Jansenius; and consequently that [Page 355] they are Jansenius's, either as to the Letter, or as to that sense?

And the Authour of the Illustration upon some new Objections, supposeth he not the same, when he sayes, That though the Jesuites should by surprize have extorted a generall condemna­tion of Jansenius's sense—Yet all the Learned who are vers'd in St. Austines Doctrine, would not be able to believe that they could (without wounding their consciences) so far blinde them­selves, as to take the most constant Maximes of that great Saints Doctrine for Heresie and Im­pietics? He is carefull to forbear denying the Five Propositions to contain the sense of Janse­nius; and contents himself with the common evasion, viz. That Jansenius his sense is also the Doctrine of St. Augustine.

'Tis notoriously known, that the five Depu­ties at Rome, a few dayes before their condem­nation, protested before the Pope in the name of themselves, and all the Disciples and Defenders of St. Augustine, that they did, and would maintain, during their lives, the Five Proposi­tions in their legitimate sense, as containing the undoubted Doctrine of St. Austin, and con­sequently of the Church. They well knew that in their opinion, the sense of St. Augustine and Jansenius were not different. But rightly judging that the defence of St. Austin would ap­pear more reasonable then the defence of Janse­nius, they in a Bravado stil'd themselves the De­fenders of St. Augustine, though they were in eff [...]ct but the Defenders of Jansenius. And consequently till such time as we have a constat [Page 356] of their revoking that generous protestation, we are bound to believe them on their Parol, that they and the other Disciples and Defenders of St. Austin, that is to say, all the Jansenists do still and will, during life, defend the Five Proposi­tions in their legitimate sense, which is just the sense of Jansenius.

We are therefore agreed of the Fact, by the Jansenists own confession; to wit, That the five Propositions are of Jansenius, either as to the words, or as to the sense they may receive; nay, as to their legitimate sense, if we will believe their Deputies at Rome. We must therefore hence forward dispute onely of the Right, to know whether the Fact which we are agreed on deserves approbation or condemnation. For 'tis just as when in secular judgements the supposed criminall confesses the fact he is charg'd with; as when Milo, for example freely grants that he [...]lew Clodius; after which it remains onely to enquire whether he had right to do it. So, since the Jansenists have confessed, that they maintain the Five Propositions in Jansenius's sense, there's no further di [...]pute, but whether they have right to maintain them. But the Pope decides the con­troversie; saying, That in those Propositions he condemns the sense of Jansenius. And conse­quently if he be deceived, he is deceived in the decision of a point of Right, not a point of Fact. And if the Jansenists refuse to obey that decision, the pretext of its being a question of Fact, will not excuse their refusall: For 'tis but a mear mockery to say they have submitted to the Constitution; unlesse in their Morality [Page 357] they call it a submission to refuse to act what is ordained.

Nor can they alledge that Jansenius's own sense of the Propositions, and that which we pretend to be his, are divers senses. We call no other the sense of Jansenius, then that which Jansenius himself has express'd in his Book; then that which the Jansenists have preach'd, taught, publish'd by an infinity of Writings, and have abridg'd in the Paper of Three Columns. That is the sense we call Iansenius his sense, and which also the Pope intends. And therefore it was, that in the pursuance of his Bull he con­demned all Books that defend that sense, and namely the Paper of Three Columns. That is to say, he condemns the expression, which Iansenius and the Iansenists themselves have made of their Doctrine in the Five Propositions.

In a word, the Pope having declar'd that he has condemn'd the Doctrine of Jansenius, we press the Jansenists with their own Maximes, so as 'twill be impossible for them to escape without retracting what they have said, or renouncing the infallibility of the Church. For see how they argue; Pope Celestine writing to the Bishops of France, declar'd St. Augustines Doctrine touch­ing matter of Grace to be the Catholique Do­ctrine: Therefore they that impugne the same Doctrine of St. Augustine are Heretiques. We say in like manner, Pope Innocent X. writing to the Bishops of France, declar'd that Jansenius's Doctrine is condemn'd as Hereticall: There­fore the Jansenists, who defend that Doctrine, are Heretiques. What is there replyable? It is, [Page 358] they will say, a question of Fact, wherein the Pope is not infallible, viz. whether the Doctrine he condemnes, is, or is not the Doctrine of Jan­senius: And 'tis also, say we, a question of Fact, wherein the Pope is not infallible, viz. whether the Doctrine he established, be, or be not the Doctrine of St. Augustine. What know we, say they, whether Pope Innocent ever read Jan­senius? And what know we, whether Pope Ce­lestine ever read St. Augustine? Pope Cele­stine express'd in a certain number of Proposi­tions the Doctrine which he establish'd as St. Augustines Doctrine: so Pope Innocent ex­press'd in the number of Five Propositions the Doctrine which he condemn'd as Jansenius's Doctrine. We are not agreed of the sense of the Propositions condemn'd by Pope Innocent. We are every whit as much agreed of it as of the sense of the Propositions decided by Pope Ce­lestine. But was Pope Innocent a School-Divine? And how do we know that Pope Ce­lestine was more a School-Divine then he? Ce­lestine to [...]k the Sentiments of his Church: And Innocent did the like of his. The Sentiments of Celestine's Church were indubitable: And are not the Sentiments of Innocent's Church equally undoubtfull? Here's the difficult passe and dan­gerous leap the Jansenists are brough [...] unto. They must over of necessity; and either with Monsieur de St. Cyran scoff at the present Church; or else go back to fetch the better leap, that is, retract what they have said, viz. that the Five Propositions are true in the sense of Janse­nius, since their condemnation by the Sea Apo­stolique.

[Page 359] And this I have said, not to violate the Au­thority of Pope Celestine, which I do, and shall ever hold inviolable, and worthy of the respect and submission of all Christians, as well as that of Pope Innocent; but to shew the Jansenists the blindeness of their proceeding, while they endeavour to justifie their contempt of Pope In­nocent's authority, by Reasons equally dest [...]uctive of the authority of Pope Celestine; whereon ne­ver the lesse they ground their principall De­fence.

But that you may judge whether the condem­ned Propositions be not really those of Janse­nius, and as expressive of his sense, as those of Pope Celestine were of the Doctrine of St. Au­gustine; and consequently whether there be not as great reason to affirme, that Pope Innocent X. condemned, in the Five Propositions, the true sense of Jansenius, as to say, that Pope Celestine establish'd the true sense of St. Augustine in those eight or nine Heads of his Epistle; I desire the Jansenists to cast their eyes on the subsequent Table, and consider on the one hand the Pro­positions condemned by the Pope as Hereticall, and on the other, those which are the expression of the sense of Jansenius. Aman needs not be a Doctour of Divinity to understand their con­formity.

[Page 360-361-362]

The first Hereticall Proposition.Jansenius's Proposition. [...]tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 13.
Some of Gods Commandements are impossible to the Just, according to their present for­ces, though they have a will and do endeavour to ac­complish them; and they want the grace that renders them possible.And therefore all things plainly shew, that in St. Au­gustines Doctrine there is nothing better establish'd, nor more certain Then this verity, That there are some Precepts which are impos­sible not onely to the Un­faithfull, but even to the Faithfull and Just, consi­dering the forces of their present state, though they have a will, and use their endeavour therein: and that they want Grace to make them become pos­sible.
The second Hereti­call Proposition.Jansenius's Proposition, tom. 3. l. 2. c. 4, 14, 25.
In the [...]ate of Nature corrupted, men never resist interiour GraceThe succour of the sick Will is not subject to the Free Will—but invincibly determines the Free Will to chuse and embrace this or that.
 The whole Body of St. Augustines Works tends to this, as its scope, that Chri­stians believe, and also un­derstand if they be able, That there is no Free Will that can hinder the force or influence of Grace in any action.
 There is no medicinall Grace of Christ that hath not its effect.
The third Hereti­call Proposition.Jansenius's Proposition, tom. 3. lib. 6. c. 38.
To merit and dem [...]rit in the state of Nature corrupt­ed; it is not neces­sary to have th [...] li­berty that excludes necessity: but it suffices to have that liberty which ex­cludes [...]o [...]ction; or constraint.The most holy and lear­ned Doctours unanimously and invariably teach, that the Will is therefore Free, because it is reasonable: and that no necessity of Immutability, In [...]vita [...]i­lity, or by what other name s [...]even you will call it, i [...] repugnant to it, but [...]nely the necessity of [...].
The fourth Hereti­call Proposition.Jansenius's Proposition, tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 6.
Th [...] Semip [...]la­gians admitted the necessity of inte­riour pr [...]venting Grace to every action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were He­retiques in this, that they would have that Grace to be such, as the Will of man might resist it, or obey it.That the Massilians (they are the same with the Se­mip [...]lagians) did not from the Will of Believing, exclude an interiourly assisting Grace, is eviden [...] from that which &c—In this therefore properly consists the Massilians Er­rour, that they think we have some reliques of our originall liberty left us, whereby corrupted man might at least believe if he would; yet not without the help of interiour Grace; whereof the good or bad use is left to the Free-will and power of every man.
The fifth Hereti­call Proposition.Jansenius's Proposition, tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 21.
It is S [...]mipela­gianisme to say, that Jesus Christ dyed, or shed his Blood generally for all men.Whereas they say that J. Christ dyed for all men, it is an Engine advanced by the Pelagians, but rejected by the ancient Church—The Pelagian [...], and princi­pally the Massilians, ever repeated that argument—Christ dyed to give life to those eternally who recei­ved Faith, Charity, and Per­severance to the end, not for those, who wanting Faith and Charity die in iniquity—Christ prayed not to his Father for their salvation, (viz. for unbelievers, or for the just who persevered not) no more then he did for the salvation of the Devil.
Th [...] Proposition understood so, as that Christ dyed onely for the Pre­destinate, is Here­ticall. 

[Page 363] It would be difficult to finde elsewhere, save among the Jansenists, such couragious spirits as durst deny so known a verity, and maintain, that the Hereticall Propositions, and those of Ian­senius set over against them, agree in nothing, neither as to words nor sense; and that they are different expressions. I challenge them to assign that diversity, and discover any thing in the sig­nification of the one sort, that may not be as fitly accommodated to the signification of the other. Wherefore we rightly and with reason, tell the Jansenists they are Heretiques: for in defending the opinions of Jansenius, they de­fend those which are the same either formally or virtually, and are acknowledg'd and declar'd Hereticall by the Church. And we shall still be obliged to speak in that Dialect, till they have de­clared themselves to hold the Propositions of Jansenius for well and duly condemned. This we require at their hands: and they are much to blame for complaining of it, there being no Ac­cuser more humane and innocent then he, who having named the offence he informs against, is content to receive the lie. That is the part we act in accusing the Jansenists, for not acknowledging the Five Propositions well and duly condemned in the sense of Jansenius, but defending them in his sense. If this be not true, let them give us the lie: It is a Complement familiar enough with the Jansenists. 'Tis easily met with among their civilities, even when they have more reason to take it to themselves, then give it to others. When therefore we check their stubbornnesse for not avowing the Five Propositions to be Hereti­call, [Page 364] explain'd in Jansenius's Sense; or the Do­ctrine of Jansenius to be Hereticall, so far as it is con [...]prized in the Five Propositions, let them give us the lye, by avowing the contrary, and we shall soon be agreed; promising to call them He­retiques no more on that account, so long as they persevere in that confession. But [...]if they refuse it as they have done hitherto, they must not take it amisse, that men call them by their name, that is to say, Heretiques.

Now by this whole discourse it appears, that their argument, who complain of being termed Heretiques, is retorted on themselves: and serves for nothing, but to evidence their confusion. They make an Induction from the Arians, Ne­storians, Eutychians, and Men [...]thelites, who have been acknowledg'd as Heretiques for not renouncing Propositions condemned by the Church, but defending them, notwithstanding that condemation: and they would perswade us, they proceed not like those men, for that they sin­cerely condemn the Propositions condemned by the Pope; and consequently ought not to be ac­counted Heretiques like those. But by the pre­cedent discourse it appears, that the Jansenists act the same part that those Heretiques did. For the Pope condemn'd the Five Propositions as Opi­nions of Jansenius, and as containing the Sense and Doctrine of Iansenius: and affirm'd them in that Sense to be Hereticall. But the Janse­nists to this day defend them in that sense, and stoutly deny them to be Hereticall in that sense. Therefore the Jansenists are Heretiques, as were the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Mo­nothelites. [Page 365] And 'tis impossible they should clear themselves, till they deal candidly, and confesse what is daily expected from them, that the Do­ctrine of Iansenius is Hereticall.

But if they run back to their old song, that they know not what the Doctrine of Iansenius is, we have already answered, that the Iansenian Doctours know it by their own study; that they have avow'd it, that they cannot be ignorant of it; that it is ocularly made manifest to all, that can but understand what they read; that this Doctrine is expressed in the Five Propositions. And for such as cannot read, or are not able to understand what they read, and yet obstinately follow that Belief, they are Heretiques, in regard that being oblig'd by the conscience of their in­capacity and want of Schollership, to refer them­selves to the judgement of the ablest Divines, they prefer the Opinion of three or four Doctors of Port-Royall, before the judgement of the Pope, and Church of Rome, of the Bishops of France, of Sorbon, and all other Universities, and in a word of the whole Church: for that must needs be attributed to the whole Church, which is received by a part incomparably greater then that which contradicts it; nay, which alone makes the whole Church, by excommunicating and cutting off the part resisting. So that the Leaders are Heretiques and Heresia [...]ks, like Ari­us, Nestorius, Eutyches, Cyrus, Sergius: And their Followers are Heretiques like the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Mon [...] ­thelite people.

I adde, that to be an Heretique it is not ne­ [...]essary [Page 366] to be instructed in particular, in all the points contained in the false Doctine which He­retiques follow. A man that had seen Saint Paul do miracles, and heard of the Sanctity of his life, might not he have been inspir'd of God to produce an act of Faith, and to believe the Do­ctrine of Christianity to be true, which St. Paul preached, though he neither understood the lan­guage of St. Paul, no [...] knew in particular what the Doctrine of Christianity contained? In like manner as he, who rejecting the inspiration, should condemn the same Doctrine, and believe it to be [...]alse, could not be excus'd from commit­ting a sin of Infidelity, or against Faith? A Christian that knows no more of the Doctrine of Mahomet, but that it is abhor'd by all the Faithfull, may he not make an act of Fa [...]h, cooperating with God's inspirations, to disap­prove that Doctrine, without knowing distinetly any one article, or point thereof? And in case some one, upon light conj [...]ctures should obsti­nately say, though but in generall, that the Do­ctrine of Mahomet were not to be rejected, would it not be an act of Heresie in him, or something worse? And what does the Councell of Trent bid us do, when it requires all Christians to say, Haereses quascunque ab Ecclesiâ damnatas, re­jectas, & anathematizatas, ego pariter damno, rejicio, & Anathematizo. All Heresies whatso­ever condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the Church, I do also condemn, reject, and Ana­thematizo. Is it not a professing of our Faith, by renouncing of Heresies in generall, without knowing in particular what they are, but con­ [...]enting [Page 367] our selves to understand, that they are condemn'd by the Church? Could not the Councell (if it had pleased) have named [...]he Heresie of Wicliff; of Luther; of Calvin, &c. as the ancient Councels [...]sometimes named other Heresiarks, viz. Dioscorus, Nestorius, & c▪ in their Anathematismes, when they professed the Catholique Faith? And had the Councell na­med them, would it have been necessary to know what those Heresies contained? Since therefore it is an act of Faith to reject Heresies in general, when the Church proposes in generall that it ought to be done; why shall we s [...]ruple to affirm, that it is also an act against Faith, and an Heresie to contradict her therein?

Wherefore seeing an Authority, sufficient to oblige a man that acts rationally, (such as is the authority of the Pope, Bishops, and Doctours) proposes the Doctrine of Iansenius, as a Do­ctrine containing errours, and condemned under the notion of Heresie; though we knew no more of it then this, yet that alone ought to suffice for believing in generall that Iansenius's Doctrine contains errors contrary to the Catholique Faith; and consequently it sufficeth for the calling of those people Heretiques, who obstinately defend it, and contradict the Declarution of the Church, without further need of a particular information of those errours.

I know 'tis no matter of Faith, to believe that a man call'd Iansenius was ever in the world, that he was a Bishop, and writ a Book in­tituled Augustinus; and that he treats in that Book of Questions of Grace, Predestination, and [Page 368] Free-will; but upposing the experimental, certain, and indubitable knowledge men have thereof, I maintain, that it is a matter of Faith to believe, that the Doctrine which is known to have been treated by that man, in that Book, and upon that Subject, is in some points Hereticall; and con­sequently, that this cannot be contradicted, but by an Heretique. Like as it was not an act of Faith, when St. Paul preached, to believe that he was a man, and that he preached and spake of Iesus Christ: but it was an act of Faith to be­lieve, that that mans preaching, whom they saw and heard, was true; and an act of infidelity to deny it, supposing the knowledge of the motives that rendred it credible.

But if we must descend to the Five Propositi­ons in particular, though it were granted to the Jansenists, that 'tis no point of Faith, that they are in Iansenius, or that in him they have a sense consonant to their signification; yet they that can tell, how the Church has spoken of them, and know that those Propositions either are in Iansenius, or have there that sense, perform an act of Faith in believing, that those Propositions they so know to be Iansenius's, or in his Doctrine to have a sense agreeable to their signification, are Hereticall in that sense: and they that contra­dict it are Heretiques.

In like manner answer is to be made to what they alledge, that true it is, who ever affirms At­trition, such as the Councell of Trent has de­scribed it, to [...]e bad, is an Heretique: But if one had a doubt, whether that Proposition were in Luther or Calvin, he should be no Heretique. [Page 369] For it must be said, that since the Definition of the Councell of Trent, they who shall acknow­ledge either by their own study [...]or report of those on whom they rely, that the said Proposition, or one which speaks the same thing, is found in Lu­ther and Calvin, (and we must adde Iansenius, as indeed it is in him) are oblig'd to say, That the Proposition which they know to be in Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius, is Hereticall, and that they who obstinately defend it, are Heretiques.

It is just here, as in the Baptisme of Infants. For 'tis no matter of Faith, but rather of hu­mane Science, or Knowledge, that there are lit­tle Infants who receive Baptisme. Yet that knowledge suppos'd, it is matter of Faith to be­lieve that they are justified; and to believe the contrary is the Heresie of the Anabaptists. We must therefore say by the same reason, that see­ing it is evident, both by the Jansenists own confession above reported, and by ocular in­spection of the thing it self, that the condemned Propositions meet with their sense in the Do­ctrine of Jansenius, and that the same Doctrine may be understood by the expression of those Propositions; it cannot be denyed, but that the Maintainers of them in Jansenius's sense are Heretiques, by the same principle, by which they maintain that the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychi­ans, and Monothelites were such; that is to say, because they formally contradict the deter­mination of the Church.

Yet is not that principle so absolutely necessa­ry, that a man cannot be an Heretique, without declaring expresly that he contradicts what Faith [Page 370] teaches, and the Church has determined: 'Ti [...] well known, that the ancient Heretiques did sometimes dissemble their Errours, and play their parts as the Jansenists do now adayes, when they say they condemne the Five Propositious in whatever Authour they are found. All History is full of the like fictions: and it was alwayes re­quisite to be sollicitous in discovering the [...]ail of the Scorpion, which lay hid under the mask of their counterfeit Confessions. St. Jerom a tells us that Arius made a shew of recanting, and sign'd the Rule of Faith that had been made by the Council of Nice. St. Gregory Nazianzen b info [...]ms us, that Apollinaris did the like, and that by ambiguous Propositions he surpriz'd Pope Damasus himself, to whom he professed to submit, as the Jansenists now do to the decisi­ons of Pope Innocent. The Letters of St. Leo c to Flavianus tell us, that Eutyches had re­course to [...]leights, and would have made Pope Leo himself believe that he acquiess'd in his de­terminations. St. Augustino d informs us, that Pelagius deceiv'd the Council of Palestine, and obtain'd the approbation of his Doctrine from the Bishops, upon a false shew of a sincere subscription to the Propositions presented to him. St. Augustine assures us further, that he was himself so near being over-reach'd by two Let­ters he receiv'd from Pelagius and Celestius, [Page 371] that he was upon the point of giving them his hand in signe of agreement. The Ecclesiasticall History e observes the same deceptions from the Chiefs of the Monothelites. Athanasius Pa­triarch of the Jacobites, made the Emperour Heraclius believe, he had submitted himself to the Council of Chalcedon, and having referred him to Cyrus and Sergius, who were of the sa [...]e Faction with himself, under colour of reducing all the Heretiques of the East to the Catholique Faith, he insensibly engag'd that Emperour in Errour, and made him Protector of the Monothelite Heresie. Sergius wrought so cun­ningly with Pope Honorius, that by appearances of submission, and a good intention to defend the Catholique Faith, he drew from him that ap­probation, which gave occasion, though not with sufficient reason, to the suspi [...]ion men have since had of him, (viz. of Pope Honorius) that he was a Favourer of those Heretiques. Such were also the Heretiques of St. Bernards f time, who for that reason compar'd them to Foxes, and ap­plied [Page 372] to them those words of the Cantioles, Ca­pite nobis vul [...]es parvulas; Take us those little foxes. The Foxes are a subtle creature, so in­dustrious in their shifts, and so strangely con­founding their traces, that 'tis no easie matter to discover where they go. And such also are He­retiques for the most part. If you demand an account of their Belief, there i [...] nothing s [...]em [...] more Christian: If you examine their lives, no­thing more irreprehensible: Nay, they will prove many ti [...]es by their actions the profession they make of vertue. They frequent the Chur­ches; they shew respect unto Church-men; they come to the Sacraments. Yet aft [...]r all they are Sheep but onely in appearance▪ they are Foxes in subtl [...]ty, and in mali [...] and cruelty Wolves. Oves habit [...]s, astu Vulpes, actu & [...]rud [...]litate Lupi [...]. If the Jansenists, who pretend themselves devoted to the Holy [...]ea, and submissive to the Coun [...]i [...] of [...]r [...]nt, and the Constitution of Pope Innocent X. will behold themselves in this glasse of St. Bernard, they will finde it a true one.

I [...] conclude therefore against their Plea for avoiding the name of Heretiques, to wit, That they behave not themselves: like the Ancient Heretiques, and averr [...], that they therefore ought to be t [...]med Heretiques, because they do all those things, they practise all those [...]leights which the Ancient Heretiques did: one while contra­dicting the Decision [...] of the Church; another while dissembling and palli [...]ting that contradicti­on; acting, as St. Bernard sayes, now the Wolf, and anon the Fox. The Church [...]ells us, that the Five Propositions taken in Jansenius's sense [Page 373] are Hereticall; the Jansenists affirm, That the Five Propositions taken in Jansenius's sense are the most constant verities of Catholique Do­ctrine. This is acting the Wolf, and declaring point-blank against the Church, which is Christs Flock. Yet they say withall, they condemn the Five Propositions where ever they finde them. Now that's to play the Fox, to wit, by a mentall reservation, and exception of Jansenius's sense; which neverthelesse is that sense, which is con­demned by the Church.

I say nothing of their acting the Sheep, by that Innocence and Sanctity of life, which they vaunt of, and which they endeavour to confirm even by Miracles. And to say but the truth, they work Miracles to prove their Sanctity far greater then any man is able to believe. For what greater Miracle in persons that regard onely the love of God; thenthen the accord, which they make betwixt that love, and the hatred of their Neighbour; which they have shown from the beginning, and that even before they could pretend to have re­ceiv'd any displeasure from men? 'Tis well known, that when Jansenius's Book was first brought into France, one of their Patriarchs, who laboured to engage many Doctors of the Sorbon in the defence of that Doctrine, and begg'd their Approbations, having met with one of those Doctours, who would not be perswaded by his other reasons, to approve the Book with­out reading it, as some of his Colleagues had done, he had recourse to his last reason, which he thought so prevalent that he could not but sub­mit to it, and shewing him the Book, Behold, [Page 374] saith he, the Jesuites Tomb. He is fallen him­self into it, and I pray God he may rise happily from it. But is it not a great miracle, to recon­cile so charitable an intention as this, with that purified Zeal for the love of God, whereof they make profession?

And is not that another great Miracle which appears in their Letters, viz. The attonement of Justice, (which is so dear to them) with the liberty of calumniating? Their Calumnies are so clearly display'd in [...]ur Answers, that it will b [...] a new Miracle of boldnesse, or rather impudence, if any man, that looks but in the Books, shall engage himself to defend them. Which Miracle involves a Third, viz. The agreement of that faithfull and sincere dealing, of which they make profession, with the impo­sture and falsity of their Allegations? This il­lustriously appears in the same Letters. And af­ter I had particularly shown it in Seventeen seve­rall Citations, they had the candour to affirm in lieu of a full answer, that I had no [...] touch'd their six last Letters. Which is in effect to say, that 'tis but a Peccadillo, (a small matter) to have been taken, upon seventeen severall occasi­ons, in Imposture and Falsifying. I thought it had been sufficient to have prov'd it in one onely instance: as it suffices to make a man infamous for his whole life, to be but once convinc'd of bearing false witnesse. But seeing this is not enough for the Jansenists, I must entreat them to tell me, near about what number of Impostures will go to the making of a Jansenist be declared an Impostor, seeing that to be taxed of seventeen [Page 375] is counted but a tri [...]le, and not sufficient. How­ever their Writings are so [...]uxuriant in fruits of this nature, that require as many as you will, it will be no hard matter for them to make up their account.

I should be over tedious, if I meant to relate all the other Miracles of the Jansenists. It shall suffice me to adde onely that, which is the most visible one in all their conduct, viz. The re­conciling of the true Doctrine of Christianity, with the war they make against the Church of Christ. I call war against the Church of Christ, their combating against the Decisions of the Ho­ly Sea, receiv'd and approv'd both by the Bishops and Doctors, I speak not here of Sorbon onely, or apart by it self; which is yet Body consi­derable enough to prevail against the authority of certain particular Doctours, whose number is much lesse, and whose quality (to speak modestly) is no wayes preferrable to that of Sorbon. Nei­ther speak I of the Bishops separately, whose judgement yet in Causes Eccl [...]siasticall, is far more considerable, then that of single Doctors. No, nor do I speak of the Holy Sea apart by it self, which yet in the judgement of all Antiquity, was believ'd to be sufficient to make those ac­knowledg'd for Heretiques, who were declared such by the Pope; and those also reputed Ca­tholiques, whom the Pope receiv'd into his Com­munion, and declar'd to be such. I con [...]oyn all three together and [...], to whole establishment the Pope, Bi­shops and Doctors do unanimously concurre, is to make war against the Church, whose Sentiments [Page 376] neither ought, nor can [...]e be better represented, then by the common consent of the Head and principall Members, which compose it. And since that whole united body conspiringly informs us, that the Five Propositions are condemn'd in Jansenius's sense, and his Opinions and Doctrine condemn'd in the Five Propositions, it is unde­niable, that the Jansenists, who hitherto make a practice of contradicting it, do work so great a Mi [...]acle, as not any Faith, save that of the Ari­ans, Nestorians, Eu [...]ychia [...]s, Monothelites, (adde likewise Luth [...]rans, Zuinglians, Calvi­nists, &c.) is able to believe: which is, The agreement of the true Doctrine, (which they b [...]ag to be taught by them in its purity) with the war against the Catholique, Apostolique, and Roman Church. Judge, Reader, whether one ought to require any other Miracls then these, in proof of what I have aff [...]rted, That the Janse­nists are Heretiques.

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Six­teenth Letter; addres­sed to the Directors of Port-Royall.

Argument.

1. THat the Authour of the Provin­ciall Letters, not deserving an Answer, for his Rudenesse, Calumny, and Ignorance, this is addressed to the Port-Royall; meaning thereby the whole Party of the Jansenists. 2. That Port-Royall holdeth Intelligence with Geneva and Charenton; whilest the Jesuites are maintained by Popes, Councells, Kings, and Nobles. 3. Port-Royall's greatest Hap­pinesse is, not to be known; on the contra­ry the Jesuites when they are known, are made happy in the Love and Respect of all: and none despise them, but such as know them not. 4. That they pretend Reforme, [Page 378] and set upon the Jesuites Moralls, as giving scope to Liberty; whilest really they aim, not at a Reforme, but Destruction of the Church, (which they see is much maintain­ed by the Jesuites) and the establishing the Heresies of Geneva, impugned by the Jesu­its. 5. A Parallell betwixt Port-Royal and Geneva in points of Faith. 6. That all other Heretiques cry up Port-Royall, as consenting with them. 7. Apostata's profess to have learnt Calvinisme in Jansenius his Books, and Jansenisme in Calvin's Works. 8. The Book of Arnauld of Frequent Communion commended at Geneva; which likewise agreeth with that Book in the Articles condemned by the Catholique Church. 9. A Challenge to Port-Royall to disprove what is objected to them; and then to use the ill language, of which the Provinciall Letters are full, when they have shewed the Errour. 10. A Continu­ation of many Errours of the Port-Royal. 11. The Foolish and Impious Devotions of Port-Royall. That all the Books of Port-Royall are condemned, and do manifest [...]y [...]ontradict themselves.

SIRS,

I Have too long maintain'd the Innocence of a Society celebrious in Gods Church, a­gainst a person unknowne, whose Impo­stures yet are no lesse evi [...]ent then himself is in­visible. I have cause at present, to shew him that contempt which he deserves; finding him re­duc'd to that strait, as to answer onely en passant, a cursorily; or rather in running quit [...] away and making an escape. It is your interest to en­joyn him silence; since his weak discourses and violent invectives do visibly turn to the honour of his Adversaries, and the disgrace of his Sect.

Truly, what hea [...] soever he may shew in taking upon him your Defence, [...] performes it in so jeasting a way, as though he had no great will to be believ'd. And to declare to all the world, that he aims at nothing but laughter, he playes the Buffoon, at your cost, in his very first Letter. Whether Monsieur Ar [...]uld be teme­rarious or no, he declar [...]s he is not troubled a jot, because his conscience, say [...] [...]e, is nothing there­in concern'd: and faining the voice of the Pro­phe [...]s, who being extraordinarily enlightned, foretell us future events with an infallible assu­rance, he protests in his dispair that that Doctor, what ever he do, till he cease to be, will never be a good Catholique. But as I ought to hope bet­ter of his conversion, so will I believe, that this prediction is but ra [...]llery: I should be so [...]y it should prove true, and that i [...] could not be shown [Page 380] but by such sad proofs, that there are Prophecies at Port-Royal. But you will grant me, Sirs, that a wise man cannot possibly have any great esteem of a Scoffer, who equally mocks his friends and enemies; and that men ought not to credit his words, since they cannot certainly know when he is serious.

Besides, as he is vain and impertinent in his pleasant humour, so when he comes to be angry, he is no lesse rude and savage. Do but advertise him of his defects, and make him see his weak­nesse, he growes so extravagant upon it, that you would think he had lost his reason. He declaims against Detractors, and his own wri­tings are fraught with nothing else but Detracti­ons: he is angry that men call him Heretique, even whilest he undertakes the defence of your Errours: his Answers are injurious speeches, his Justification is meer calumny, giving the Li [...] is his complement, his Caresses are no better then Threats, and the whole straine of his Dis­course a perpetuall digression.

These considerations, Sirs, have oblig'd me to addresse the Refutation of this Sixte [...]nth Let­ter to your selves, to tell you, that if I hereafter neglect the Authour of it, 'tis because such an injurious Writer (who forgets and tramples up­on all the Lawes of Honour and Vertue) rather deserves Correction, then an Answer. But that I satisfie his complaints, is because they con­cerne the whole party; and I am willing to let you understand the reasons, many l [...]arned Di­vines have had to believe, that Port-Royal (I mean the Sect of the Jansenists, and not those [Page 381] poor Maids, who are so unfortunately engag'd in your conduct there) holds Intelligence with Ge­neva, not onely against the Jesuites, but against the Church; nay, against the most holy Sacra­ment the most Adorable of all our Mysteries.

b That Port-Royall holds intelligence with Geneva against the Jesuites, I believe, Sirs, you will not much contest it. You intend not to make a secret of that Conspiracy: You glory in wearing the same Live [...]ies; you match under the same Colours; you enter the battel clad in Du Moulins Armour, whereof you make almost as good use, as that Minister himself. Your Di­vinity is but an abridgement of his Roman Tra­ditions; your Provinciall Letters are but Com­ments upon his Text; you have compil'd your Morality out of his Impostures, and your Let­ters out of his abusive and impious Satyres. You scoff like him, you asperse like him, you misquote like him, you dogmatize like him: You have the same Sophismes, the same Disguise­ments, the same Illusions, the same Artifice. Thence it is that the Reform'd Church, which has an interest in all that concerns you, makes publique prayers for the good successe of your enterprises, which she [...] for [...] She is af­flicted at your losses, rejoyces at your advantages, grows proud with your imaginary triumphs, and reckons the wars of Port-Royall among those of Charenton, which are the most memorable.

[Page 382] This conjunction was easily made, because it was very advantagious to your Allies, and seem'd absolutely necessary for your selves: for without being united with Heretiques, from whom could you hope for succour against a Religious Order, that makes profession of planting the Faith, where ever the sun diffuseth his light? 'Tis true, the Jesuites still me [...]t with contradictions where­soever they come; and though their intention be to serve all the world, yet fail they not to finde persecutions in every part of it. Their Society has this peculiar, that sufferances encrease it, and patience crowns it. But who in fine are they that persecute it? Are they the Vicars of Jesus Christ? The firm adherence of those Fathers [...]o the Holy Sea is the object of your hatred, and the favours they thence receive, is the cause of your jealousie and complaints. You murmure in your Letters c at the reputation they have in Gods Church, just as Heretiques are scandalis'd at the obedience they yield to the Head that go­verns it. The Lutherans call them the Popes Slaves; the Calvinists affirm, that the Jesu [...]tes, the Councell of Trent, and the Pope are but one Body, and one Soul, when there is question how to hurt [...] d [...] J [...]su [...]tae [...] Concilio Tridentino [...] discordántne à Popa? Nonne unum corpus sunt, una anima? Are they Catholique Kings and Princes? They need not carry you to the Courts of Spain, Portugal, [Page 383] and Poland, to shew you how welcome they are to those Princes; for there can be nothing added to the favours which they daily receive from our own Kings of France. They are the Heirs of their heart by e Testament, Depositaries o the secrets of their Conscience by an honourable Election; lodged in their Palace, and fed with their Patrimony by a Royall Magnificence, de­fended and upheld by their Protection with such extream happinesse, as makes them finde a San­ctuary even in their Princes Cabinet, against the storms that menace them. Are they the Prelates and B [...]shops? They have approv'd this Order in a Generall Councell; they have establish'd it in the heart of the Realm; they have extended it from the center of the Monarchy to the utmost limits thereof, and when it was under considera­tion to procure confirmation of it in the last Generall Assembly of Estates, they did it in such terms, as shew the esteem they made of the life and doctrine of those that belong to it. The great fruits, say they, and the remarkable servi­ces, which those of the Society and Company of the Jesuites have done, and daily do in the Ca­tholique Church, and particularly in your King­dom, oblige us most humbly to beseech your Ma­jesty, that in consideration of their learning and piety, whereof they make profession, you will be pleas'd to permit them to teach and perform their other Functions in the Colledge of Clermont, in the City of Paris, as they have formerly done. [Page 384] May it further please your Majesty, that conser­ving them in the places of your Kingdom, where they are at present, you would grant them like­wise to those who shall desire them hereafter, and that you would take the whole Society into your Royall Protection, as the King your Predeces­sor was pleas'd to do f In [...]ine, are they the Vertuous people who still conserve (amidst the disorders of the present Age) the sense of the anc [...]nt Piety and Faith of their Forefathers? It may be there are some that know them not, as having never contracted acquaintance or com­merce with them: but there are none that hate them without Errour, nor condemne them but by surprize, nor suspect them but on false reports, nor yet have any ill apprehension of them, but from such monstrous Disguisements and Misre­presentations of them, as they finde in your in­famous Libels.

Know you not what answer was made by Hen­ry the Fourth to their Enemies, who were not a little griev'd to see the Innocence of those Reli­gious secur'd from their calumnies by his Royall Protection. I have been heretofore deceiv'd like you, said that incomparable Monarch, but I have since understood that this Society is benefi­ciall both to Religion and the State. Consider, Sir, the judgement of the wisest Prince in the [Page 385] world, and you will soon condemne your own. It is not with the Jesuits as it is with their Ca­lumniators, who conceal their names to publ [...]s [...] their Impostures with more impunity. The Je­suits crime is, that men know not their Inno­cence, and their enemies Innocence is, that men know not their crimes. O that they were un­vail'd! O that God would reveal the Mystery of iniquity to the whole world! We are lost, if we be known, said those Criminalls so famous in History, seeing themselves surpriz'd by a compa­ny of Passengers: and I, replied one of the Sa­ges of Greece, am lost, if I be not known. Thus may these Fathers say, whom you assault with so great passion and fury. They were lost, if they were not known; if Popes, Kings, Magistrates, Vertuous People were not better inform'd of their carriage, then by the mouth of calumny, they were lost: whereas on the contrary their Detractours would be lost, if they were known. Wherefore they do all they can to conceal them­selves; they never go unmaskt, they walk not, but as if they were mov'd by engins; they sub­sist not, but by Hypocrisie; they so explain them­selves, that they may not be understood; they disavow not their errours, but to maintain their Sect; in fine they appear nothing lesse then what they are, and they are nothing lesse, then what they would appear.

It is not therefore strange, Sirs, that you had recourse to Geneva's weapons, that is to say, to calumnies and injurious speeches, to decry the Jesuites Morality: You could not oppose Tru [...]h, but by Falshood; Innocence, but by Imposture; [Page 386] nor the Children of the Church, but by the de­ceits of Heretiques. It is also easily perceivable where at you drive; and the curious searches [...]ou make into every thing, to finde some blemish in that great Body, are as so many evident marks of an ente [...]prize, that has a further reach then [...]ou will yet own. What does it avail you to dis­semble? 'Tis no [...] the loosenesse of manners that displeases you: The best people are the w [...]st for your turn. You make them Idola [...]ers even in China and Japan, where Tyran [...]s Martyr them: You finde out Castors skins to apparrell them with like Merchants, even in those vaste Forrests, wh [...]re the Iroquois cast them sta [...]k na­ked into [...]mes. And there are Countreys, which having nothing but Prisons and Gibbets for the Jesui [...]es, do yet fo [...]bear to question you, because you stigmatize them as Rebells, and En [...]mies to the State. This your so violent and unjust pro­ceeding discov [...]rs your craft, and makes the clearer-sighted judge, that while you seem to b [...]ea [...]h no [...]hing but reforma [...]ion, y [...]u seek that which you care not much to finde, and that all your ill language (to speak truly) has Religion [...]n [...]ly for its obj [...]ct; but not daring [...]penly to oppose it, you are [...]o [...]c'd to seek other false pre­ [...]nc [...]s, to cover the env [...]nom'd hatred that you [...]ar towards those, whom you esteem capable of opposing your designs. Entertain us no longer wi [...]h th [...]se vain [...]lamou [...]s against their Morall Di­vi [...]ity; that is not the thing that gauls you: they are not od [...]ous to you for any other reason, [...]ut because you love not the Holy Sea which ap­ [...], no [...]: he Church that employes them, [Page 387] nor yet the Faith they teach; in a word, you had never [...]aln out with them so much, but because you are fal [...] in too far with the Church of Ge­neva, against that of Rome, which has onely C [...]n­sures and Anathema's for you.

g This accusation (I confess) is a great one, and were it not well grounded, I should pardon all those bloudy invectives, and horrid injuries which passion forc [...]s from your mouth, and casts, like foam, upon your Accusers. For if it be a crime of State to hold intelligence with the Ene­mies of our Prince, what s [...]all it be to hold intel­ligence with the Enemies of God?

But, Sirs, if this crime be reall, if it be pub­lique, if you be convinc'd of it, if you have been arraign'd for it in the sight of all Europe, if the Pope after examination and a long Audience given to the Deputies of Port-Royal, hath judged you, condemned you, and declared you guilty of high offence, why do you accuse the Jesuits? A [...]e they Traducers because they presse you to submit your selves to the Decisions of Councils and Popes? Are they base and cruel Impostors, because they are affl [...]cted to see you obstinate and rebellious against evident light? Are they De­tractors and most impudent Liars, because they exhort you to acknowledge sincerely, that the Five Propositions cond [...]mned by Pope Inno [...]ent X. are Hereticall, which you are at this day con­strain'd to avow? And that they are in Janse­nius's [Page 388] Book, which you maintain'd with so great confidence before they were censured, and now deny so stoutly?

You know it, Sirs, and cannot deny it; you have defended it by a publique writing, in [...]ituled Propositiones Gratiae, wherein you exactly no­ted the places of Jansenius, whence they were drawn. Abuse not, I pray, the credulity of the simple. 'Tis in value to personate the blinde, and protest (since the censure) that you never read them in his Bock. You your selves have told us they were there, when you were not oblig'd to it; and now that Popes and Bishops assure you as much, you seem to have lost your sight: Heretofore they were there, because it was no shame to confesse it; but now they are not, because they have been condemn'd. This art serves onely to proclaim you no lesse deceitfull, then temeratious; temerarious to deny what has been decided by a sovereign authority; deceitful to dissemble what you have so solemnly publish'd in your Works But as to the point of Intelligence, though you had not discovered your selves, it is but opening your Books to finde the articles of that criminall League that is betwixt you and Geneva, interchangeably signed; and thereby to shew the injustice of your accusations, and the charity of them that advertise you of your fall, to withdraw you from that precipice, or at least to hinder others from following you in your ex­orbitant courses.

Port-Royall h teaches, That there is no­thing more certain, nor better grounded on the [Page 389] Doctrine of St. Augustine, then this Propositi­on, That there are some Pr [...]cepts which are im­possible not onely to the unfaithfull, blinde, and hardened; but likewise to the faithfull, and the just, even when they have a will, and do endea­vour according to their present forces: and that Grace is wanting to them, whereby they may be rendred possible. These are the very words of Jansenius, which have been condemn'd by the Pope, as Hereticall, full of Blasphemy and Impiety.

Geneva agreeing to this article i assures, that what the Papists were wont to object, that God commands not things impossible, is of no force, because though his Commandments be im­possible to man corrupted by the sin of Adam, they were not so to man in the state of Inno­cence, before he became criminall.

Port-Royall holds, That the old Law made justice more difficult and impossible, as if it had set a wall betwixt: k Lex justitiam reddit disficiliorem, & quasi muro interposito impossibi­lem; that before the coming of the Son of God, the Grace of accomplishing what was command­ed, was given to very few; much lesse the Grace sufficient to Salvation. But contrariwise, That that kinde of Grace was absolutely repugnant to the institution of the Law, and Gods design: l Talis gratia lationi Legis, ac scopo Dei ca­pitaliter repugnabat; In fine, That they who [Page 390] lived under the yoke of the old Law, had not sufficient Grace to performe it: but rather an impeding Grace: m Status veteris Testamenti non afferebat Judaeis gratiam sufficientem, sed potiùs impedientem.

Geneva quickned with the same spirit be­lieves, n that the Jewes had never Grace suf­ficient for their conversion; that it was not in their power to believe the word of God, o that he spake not to them, but to make them deaf, that he enlightned not them but to blind them, p that he instructed them not but to render them more blockish; and that he gave them remedies, but to the end they might never be cured.

Port-Royal laughs at the proximate Power, and sufficient Grace, as a Grace that is mon­struous, q monstruosa Gratia; as a Grace that sufficeth, and sufficeth not r; as a Grace, which the Devils would willingly bestow, if the [...] had it, sayes Jansenius's Apologist, in his first Apo­logy.

Geneva likewise speaks of it as a Dream, s which has nothing of solidity; as a deceitfull [Page 391] trap, that makes men fall into Pelagianisme, cal­lidum Pelagianismi operculum: as an Illusion t that beguils us, promising what it gives not, and never saving any man.

Port-Royal u assures us, That God will save none but his Elect, because if he willed to save all men in particular, (since he does what he pleases in Heaven and Earth) he would save them all.

Geneva also embraces the very same opinion, and sayes, it is the common belief of all the Churches of France that are united to her. x Haec est simplex & fidelis sententia nostra, fides Ecclesiae nostrae, fides omnium Ecclesiarum Gal­licarum, quae confessioni Gallicae adh [...]rent.

Port Royal maintains, That they who dye in their infidelity, have reason to say, that Christ is not their Redeemer, (they are the terms of the Apology for Jansenius, pag. 217.) y That God by his Counsels most secretly just, and most justly secret, hath predestinated to give Faith, Charity, and finall Perseverance in the same charity to some persons, whom we call Predesti­nate; to others Charity without perseverance; to others Faith without Charity. As to the first sort, that he gave and delivered himself up for them, as his true Flock and People; that he was a propitiation to abolish their sinnes, and [Page 392] bury them in everlasting oblivion; that he dyed to revive them [...]ternally; that he prayed to his Father to deliver them from all evil: and not for the others, who losing Faith and Charity dye in their Iniquity.

Geneva pretends that it is an Article of Faith that Christ dyed not for those that are damned: the Calvinists have printed above sixty Volumes to mitigate the horrour, which all Christians conceiv'd at the first broaching of a Doctrine so injurious to the Divine Goodnesse; and having cloak'd with St. A [...]gustine's name and autho­rity, they have moulded it into one of the un­doubted Maximes of their Synods of Charenton, Alets, and Dort, to oppose it to the Council of Tr [...]nt, z which assures us, that though Christ dyed for all men, yet all receive not the benefit of his death.

Port-Royal complains of Pope Ʋrban VIII. who condemned the Errours of Jans [...]nius by an expresse Bull; and his Scholars protest in their observations upon that Bull, a That it is pro­per onely to scandalize the world, because it condemnes the Doctrine of St. Austine, as the most blinde, say they, are constrain'd to avow.

Geneva sayes no lesse against the Council of Trent, protesting with Calvin, that all the Ana­thema's of that Council fall upon St. Austin, [Page 393] and that the Authours of them understood not the Doctrine of that great man. Melancthon quarrels with Sorbon, and having said, that those Doctours condemne St. Augustine under the name of Luther, he cryes out with astonish­ment, b Is it not strange that in all Sorbon there is not a man, that understands St. Augu­stines opinion?

In fine, Port-Royal crecting a Trophy to the memory of Jansenius, as the learnedst man of his time, whose minde was enrich'd with the knowledge both of Scripture and also Tradition, c calls him the Hercules of our Age, who van­quish'd that Monster Sufficient Grace, brought St. Austin down from Heaven, re-establsh'd his Doctrine, and clcar'd it, twelve hundred years after the decease of that excellent Father, in a time when it was cont [...]mned and obscured.

Geneva gives the same El [...]gium to d Cal­vin, which Melancthon does to Luther, affirm­ing almost in the same terms, that he has, as it were, reviv'd St. Augustine in these last Ages, re-establish'd and marvellously clear'd his Do­ctrine, which was for so long a time obscured.

Who could have believ'd, Si [...]s, that the Eccho of Port Royal would have been so faithfull to repeat verbatim what it had learn'd of Ge­neva, to publish the same Maximes, to defend them by the same reasons, to explain them with [Page 394] the same expressions, to ground them on the same passages, even to the citing (as Jansenius does) of one sole Text of St. Augustine a [...]un­dred and seventy times, which Calvin had al­ledg'd but twenty? Who would have imagin'd that the Jansenian Heresic, which appears so young under the trim ornaments of a new lan­guage, had been an Age old? That the most remarkable lines of its beauty should be but the wrinkles of a face burn'd and blasted with light­ning from the Vatican, which has been seen to fall above twice upon its head? Who would have been perswaded, that Gen [...]va could have com'd so close to Paris, as to make a part of its Suburbs? Or that Port-Royal should in so short a time have gotten as far as Geneva? and that those pious Solitaries, who make themselves in­visible in the Roman Church, should be so well known in all the Lutheran, and Calvinian Churches scattered over Europe?

Passe the Sea when you please, Sirs, and go visit your friends in Great Brittain, you will there finde great support; yea even though your onely Credentials were the London M [...]rcury of the third of January, 1656. who has every where given you this testimony, That your Doctrine is in many things the same with that of the Re­formed Churches.

Descend into the Low-Countreys, and all the Schools of Holland will be opened to you; all Calvins Disciples will give ear to you as Oracles, all the Ministers will subscribe to your Cate­chisme of Grace condemned by the Pope; all their Oratours will labour to set forth your Pa­negyrick, [Page 395] and will charm your ears with the sweet harmony of your praises, which Mr. Marsh Pro­fessor of Groiuing has already made resound over the whole Earth: e Macte illa vestrâ vertute viri docti, quod audeatis in os resistere impio illi Pontifici, qui in suorum Jesuitarum gratiam damnatâ Orthodoxissimâ sententiâ, pu­ri puti Pelagianismi putidam & impiam pro­tectionem susceperat. Take courage you gene­rous and learned men, who durst openly oppose that impious Prelate, who to gratisie his Jesuits, undertook the defence of pure Pelagianisme, by condemning a most Orthodox Opinion.

Go into Switzerland, there the Protestant Cantons will give you great entertainment; your Deputies were feasted there in their return from Rome; your selves will be far more regarded, and making Victorious Grace triumph in despi [...]e of the Pope and Jesuits, (as f sayes one of their famous Ministers) in the Academies of Zuric, Basil, and Berne, you will be [...]avished to behold your selves covered with Laur [...]ls in the Zuingli­ans camp, for having generously defended the [Page 396] fundamentall Maximes of their Doctrine.

Now if you hold so good Intelligence with these strangers, what may you not hope from the Hugenots of this Kingdom, among whom you have two remarkable Disciples, L' Abadie, and Le Masson, who being turned Calvinists with­out leaving to be Jansenists, do publiquely set forth in their preachings at Montauban what they have heard in your Assemblies; testifying by an acknowledgement worthy of those Ministers, that they learned Calvinisme in the Books of Jansenius, and Jansenisme in the Books of Cal­vin? Hear, Sirs, what the latter of them sayes, who violating the honour of his Character, and the dignity he not long since bore of a Pastour, while he exercis'd its Functions in a Parish of Normandy, findes no better excuse to justifie his perfidiousnesse, then to say, that being a Disciple of Jansenius he changed not his Party in coming to that of Calvin; and had done no more but declar'd exteriourly what he already was in the interiour of his soul; and manifested to the eyes of men what had appeared before to the eyes of God?

g It was written me from Paris, sayes that wretched Runaway, that some of my Friends did attribute my change to an effect of Jansenisme, and a just judgement of God, who had forsaken me in my errour, to punish my curiosity for being a little too examining of Things; whereas I ought to have kept my self submissively in the Commm­nion [Page 397] of the Church, and have had a better Opi­nion of Rome, and believ'd her infallible in de­cisions of Faith. Forasmuch as concerns Janse­nisme, I answer, That before Jansenius was known in France, I was a Jansenist, as I may say, that is, I had the same Sentiments twenty years ago, touching matters of Grace, Free-will, and Predestination, that I have at this day. And could a man acknowledge any other Master of the Celestiall Mysteries then Jesus Christ, I might adde, that the Book of Calvin's Insti­tutions had made me a Jansenist before the Book of Jansenius, by reason of the great con­formity of those two Authors in matters of Grace, what ever attempts have been made to prove the contrary by the sharpest wits amongst those they call Jansenists; who indeed were much to blame (for avoiding the Jesuites cla­mours) to term Hereticall the opinions o [...] Cal­vin upon this Subject, which after all are no other then their own. Thus much by the way to give testimony to the truth.

Behold, Sirs, (you of Port-Royall I mean) behold the strait alliance that unites you with Geneva, and the great advantage your Doctrine gives you; b [...]ing assur'd to be associated with the little Flock, when you please, without abju­ring your Faith, or changing one sole ar [...]le of your belief touching matters of Grace: Nay, (which is no lesse true, then it seems horrid) without altering any proposition of the Book of Frequent Communion, which the Romane Church rejects, but Geneva receives and ap­proves.

[Page 398] h Be not angry, I pray you; temper your cho [...]er, and frame the motions of your Spirit to moderation, while I make proof of it to you, which is the last thing that remains for me to make good. I will not judge you (since you think it not fit) upon the deposition of Monsieur [...]llea [...], whose name and merit neverthelesse is too well known to suffer the least reproach, un­lesse it be from the mouthes of Criminalls. I will not condemn you, no not upon your refu­sall to use the terms of locall Presence, to justi­fie your belief on the subject of the Eucharist. I will not tell you, that the Councel of Trent teaches, i (what you pretend to be ignorant of) That there is no repugnancy in this, that our Saviour be alwayes sitting at the right hand of his Father, according to his naturall manner of being, and yet be Sacramentally present by his own substance in many other places, multis aliis in locis: which is the onely thing that Father [...]i [...]cau urges you to acknowledge, and which you cannot refuse without rendring your self guilty of errour. Neither will I reproach you, that you abuse the authority of St. Thomas, to [...]lude the au [...]hority of the Counc [...]ll: and that [Page 399] if the Angelicall Doctour sayes that the Body of Christ is not locally in the Blessed Sacrament, Alexander de Hales should have given you the meaning of those words, when he affirms in his fourth part, That k the Body of Christ is in two manners contain'd in the adorable Sacrament of the Altar; the first under the Species of the Sacrament, sub signo; the second in the place where the Species are, in loco: Now 'tis true as to the first way, that Christ's Body is not lo­cally under the Species, but is there as a substance is under its accidents, though after a more divine and miraculous manner: and this is the sense of Saint Thomas in the place by you cited in your Letter. As to the second manner, it may be said to be a kinde of locall presence, Illa conti­nentia habet modum continentiae localis, and is like that of bodies, which are not in the accident of quantity, as in their place, but are in place by their quantity; yet with this difference, That bodies are in place by their proper dimensions, mediantibus propriis dimensionibus, as St. Thomas sayes, l whereas the Body of Christ is there but by the dimensions of another Body, medi­antibus dimensionibus alienis: and this is F. [Page 400] Meyniers sense, which is agreeable to the language of the Fathers and Councells, when they teach, That Christ's Body is at the same in many pla­ces, (multis in locis) by the ineffable presence he hath in the Sacred Mysteries; which gave them occasion to say, That the Altar is the seat of the Body and Blood of Christ: m Quid est Altare, nisi sedes corporis & sanguinis Christi?

I need not these Scholasticall subtleties to judge of the purity of your Faith; my aim is not to convince you of Intelligence with Geneva by any thing you have omitted in your Writings, but by what you have dared to affirm. I passe by your sins of omission, and judge you by your Wo [...]ks. I shall set you down, out of the sole Book of Frequent Communion, which is the prin­cipall subject of this Dispute, five Maximes (for the most part contrary to the honour and reve­rence of the Blessed Sacrament) which the Ro­man Church rejects, and that of Geneva ap­proves. See if my proceeding be not sincere.

You have presumed to say pag. 25. of the Pre­face, That St. Peter and St. Paul are two Heads of the Church, which make but one. Is not that a Maxime condemn'd by the Catholick Church, and receiv'd by that of Geneva? What have you to reply? How can you vindicate your self of so criminall and publique a Conspiracy?

You have dared to affirm page 628. of that Book, n That the most usuall practice of the Church in the Administration of the Sacra­ments [Page 401] favours the generall impenitence of all the world. Carry this Proposition to Rome, it will there be reprov'd: Carry it to Geneva, it shall there be receiv'd. How can you defend your self from so just an accusation?

You have dared to say, o That there are Souls, which would be ravished to testific to God their regret for having offended him, by deferring their Communion till the end of th [...]r lives. Without all question the Roman Church detests this Maxime; and if Geneva approves it not, it is not because 'tis Orthodox, but because it is [...]oo impious.

You have presumed to say, p That as the Eucharist is the same food that is caten in Hea­ven, so is it necessary that the Faithfull, who eat it here below, have such a purity of heart as may hold agreement and proportion with that of the Blessed; and that there be no greater diffe­rence, then there is between Faith, and the clear Vision of God; on which alone (mark that word alone) depends the different manner of eat­ing it on Earth, and in Heaven. Excuses will not serve you; this is not the langu [...]ge of Rome; men speak not thus any where, but at Geneva.

In fine not to overwhelm you with the prodi­gious number of your errours, you have dared to say, q That God does us an infinite honour to admit us to the participation of the same food [Page 402] in time, which the Elect enjoy in eternity, with­out any other difference, saving that here be affords us not the sensible sight and taste of i [...]; reserving them both till we come to Heaven. If you admit no other difference then that, hope not for the approbation of your Doctrine in the Ro­mane Church; that of Geneva onely will ap­prove it.

Now if these Maximes be not faithfully ex­tracted out of the Book of Frequent Communi­on, convince me of Imposture. If the first be not censured, the second impious, the third li­centious and prophane, the fourth and fifth sus­pect of Heresie, convince me of falsity and igno­rance: If I attribute them to you undeservedly, convince me of slaunder and malice. But if you be the Authours of them; if you have produced them under Monsieur Arnauld's name; if some of them have been condemn'd by the Pope, (as that of the two Heads) others reprov'd by all Per­sons of Piety, (as the two following) others again held for suspect against the B. Sacrament by the ablest Divines, why have you not retra­cted them? Wherefore, in lieu of suppressing them, do you accuse of detraction, lying, im­posture, and cruelty those who advertise you of your obligations?

Though you had not published them as you have done; though you had contented your selves with whispe [...]ing them in mens [...]ars, and making a s [...]cret Caball of them, they that should have heard them, had they not been bound to become [...]formers, unlesse they would have entred into the Conspiracy of your Crime? Why then wi [...]l [Page 403] you needs have the Jesuits to be detractours for disclosing Heresies, which they cannot conceale without sinning? Was the deceased Dishop of Langres r a Calumniatour for having declar'd that the Abbot of St. Cyran induced the Reli­gious of the Monastery of the Blessed Sacrament to Confesse but seldome, and to communicate yet lesse frequently then they Confessed? in so much as Mother Mary Angelica Arnauld, though a Superious, was once five moneths without recei­ving the Blessed Sacrament, and likewise pass'd over an Easter day without communicating? Was the deceased Bishop of Sens a Calumniator, because he sent a writing, a little before his death, to the Popes Nuntio, containing his last Senti­ments touching the Disciples of the Abbot of St. Cyran, to the end he should informe his Holi­nesse, and assure him, that the affected singula­rity he had alwayes abserv'd in them, their pride, their presumption of minde, their contempt of others, and care to hide themselves from those, that were not wholly theirs, had oblig'd him to believe the whole party suspected of the Church, as having seen, that their beginning had been in illusion; one of whose effects was a false Devotion, called the secret Rosary of the B. Sacrament, condemned as such by eight Do­ctours of Sorbon; who had understood by per­sons of credit, that Monsieur de St. Cyran spak [...] of the Council of Trent as of a Politique As­sembly, [Page 404] that was in no wise a true Council; and had also been inform'd by many very credible persons, that the same Abhot endeavour'd to take away the frequency of Communion even from the best Souls, under the pretence of a Spirituall Communion, which he made passe for more Holy and fuller of Grace then the Sacramentall Com­munion.

If therefore we had no other proofs of your corrupt Doctrine against the B. Sacrament then the testimonies of those two illustrious Prelates, should we not with them have reason to hold Port-Royal suspect of Intelligence with Geneva? But suspicion is not now the businesse. Your Maximes are no longer secret, nor are your Er­rours still known but to a few. You have pub­lish'd them in your Works, and when you were reprov'd on that account, you obstinately defen­ded them. Shall I again be forc'd to set them before your eyes, and shew you your offence in artificially disguising what you ought rather to wash out with tears? Must I produce the Errours, Blasphemies, Impieties, and Extravagances noted by those eight Doctours of Sorbon in your Secret Rosary, which your Apologists have made passe for the pious thoughts of an excellent Religious Woman, of great wisdome and vertue, and Su­periour of an Order? Must I after so many fa­mous Writers summon you to tell me, whether the Solitaries of Port-Royal persist in those Sa­crilegious wishes noted in that scandalous Wri­ting, which seems to have no other scope then the dishonour of Christ, and contempt of the most adorable of our Mysteries? Whether they [Page 405] can desire without horrour, what I cannot here write without trembling? s That Christ be in the Blessed Sacrament in such sort as he go not forth of himself; that the Society which he will have with men, be after a manner separate from them, and resident in himself, it being unreason­able that he should make an approach to us, who are nothing but sin: That he dwell in himself, leaving the Creature in his incapacity of ap­proaching him; that all that he is, have no re­lation to us; that his inaccessiblenesse hinder him from going forth of himself; that Souls renounce their meeting of God, and acquiesce to his dwelling in the place proper to the condition of his being, which is a place inaccessible to the creatures, where he receives the glory of being onely accompanied with his sole Essence. That he regard not any thing that passes without him; that Souls present not themselves to him as the object of his application, but rather to receive a repulse by the preference he owes to himself. That he stoop not to communications dispropor­tionate to his infinite capacity; that Souls re­main in their unworthinesse of so Divine a com­munication; that they esteem themselves happily portion'd by having no share in the gifts of God, but rejoycing, that they are so great, that we are not capable of them?

Is it possible to read such horrid Sentiments without an indignation against their Authours and Defenders? Compare the judgement given [Page 406] of them by the late Archbishop of Sens and the most famous Doctours o [...] Sorbon, to wi [...], Mon­si [...]ur du Val, Monsieur le Clerc, Monsieur Chape­las, Charton, Hallier, Bachelier, Moret, Cornet, with the approbation of Jansenius, and your Apologists.

That Archbishop [...]ssures us, that the Se­cret Rosary of the B. Sacrament wherein those Maximes are compriz'd, is but a false Devotion, whose first originall was an Illusion that gave beginning to your Sect: And the Authour of the Letters to a Provinciall maintaines the con­trary, t That 'tis a transcendent wickednesse to affirm, the Rosary to have been the f [...]rst fruits of that Conspiracy against Christ.

The Doctours of Sorbon averre that writing to be stuff'd with Imperti [...]ences, Extravagan­ces, Errours, Fooleries, and Blasphemies, t [...]nd­ing to the separation of Souls from the practice of vertues, especially of Faith, Hope and Cha­rity. And Jansenius in his Approbation say [...]s the contrary, That love it self did dictate it, and that it containes nothing contrary to the rules of Faith.

The forenamed Doctours declare it a Work tending to the destruction of the method of pray­ing instituted by our Saviour Christ: And your Apologists u say, That it is full of most Ca­tholique, high, and elevated conceptions, like the lights of the Superiour Angels, which St. Denys sayes to be more obscure then the lights of the inferiour ones.

[Page 407] The Doctours of Sorbon judge it perillous, and of dangerous consequence, because it tends to the introducing of opinions contrary to the effects of Love, which God has expressed to­wards us, principally in the adorable Sacrament of the Eucharist, and the Mystery of the Incar­nation: And your Apologist on the contrary, make us believe, that those extravagant motions are the desires of a Soul inebriate with the love of God, which cannot well be comprehended but by him that understands the language of love, and knows what thoughts ought to possesse that Soul, which being happily gone forth of it self swims in the abyss of the Divinity. O what blas­phemy! O what impiety!

That a Soul inebriate with the love of God, should be able to frame such a cruell and inraged desire, as to wish, That all whatsoever Christ is, may have no relation to us! Alas! he is the fountain of Salvation; and if he have no relati­on to us in that respect, we are then in the rank of Reprobates: He is our Sovereigne Good, our Hope, our Support, our Glory, our Beatitude, our All; and if he have no relation to us, we are infinitely miserable.

That Souls renounce the meeting of God! Whither shall they go, if they walk not towards him? He is the Life: Will you that leaving him they run blindely upon death? He is the Way: Will you that they stray, and perish in their re­motenesse from him? He is the Truth: Will you that they embrace falshood, and languish in the dark? 'Tis our good fortune to live in his Church, our security to walk in his wayes, our [Page 408] felicity to be illuminated with his light: Wi [...] you have them renounce their good fortune, their security, their felicity, to abandon themselves to the motions of a mortall despair?

That Souls present not themselves to J. Christ as the object of his application; that he regard nothing that passes without him; that they chuse rather to expose themselves to his oblivion, then by being in his memory, to give him occasion to go out from the application of himself, to apply himself to the creatures? Can [...]e not then be minderful [...] of us without forgetting himself, nor apply himself to the creatures, without depriving himself of the contemplation of his own great­nesse?

Can he not be happy by a delicious enjoyment of his being, but he must quit the government of the world, lose the emp [...]e of the Luminaries, leave all the creatures at random, and permit all to hazard, and to the malice of men?

What [...] Sirs, approve you these Sentiments? You give them Vogue by your Writings, you au­thorize th [...]m by magnisient approbations: you say they are most Catholick Thoughts, Thoughts most con [...]ormable to the language of God in the Scriptures, high and sublimated Thoughts, like the Lights of the superiour Angels, Thoughts dictated by love it self, and lastly the Thoughts of a most vertuous Nun, who being rap [...]ur'd, swims in the bosome of the Divinity. Do you thus pervert the use of words (as well as things) the most sacred in the world? Do you thus cover illusion and blasphemy with the Liveries of Pie­ty? Do you thus give errour the title of Faith, [Page 409] and Falshood the name of Truth? Vae qui dici­tis malum bonum! A ridiculus, but dangerous, presumption! which believes it has right to dei­fie all its thoughts, sanctifie all its works, and make all its errours passe for in [...]allible rules of Faith.

For if it be lawfull to wish with Port-Roal, that the society, which Christ has with men in the B. Sacrament [...]e in a way of separation from them, is it not also lawfull to wish with Geneva, that Christ have no reall existence under the Species of Bread? That his body be not in our Churches? That he enter not into our mo [...]hes? That he des [...]end not into our stomachs, to unite himself intimately to us? If one may desire with the Jansenists, That Christ according to his Divine Greatnesse be not in any thing that is lesse then himself, may we not desire with the Calvinists, That Christ be not under the Spe­cies, nor in those co [...]uptib [...]e elements, which of themselves have nothing equall to him, and are subject to many changes, the shame and disho­nour whereof seem to reflect upon his Person [...] If one may consent with Mother Agnes, That Christ remain in a place proper to the condition of his Being, which is a place inaccessible to the creature; may one not consent with Calvin, That Christ be not in the B. Sacrament, to the end he remain not in a place disproportionate to his Greatnesse? And so passing from the wishes of Port-Royall to the wishes of Geneva, and from the wishes of Geneva to its Belief, is it not easie to proceed so far as to imagine that which one desires; to wit, That Christ is not under [Page 410] the Sacramentall Species by a reall, and not fi­gurative, Transubstantiation; and consequently that the Masse is but an illusion, and Sacramen­tall Communion but a Superstition?

And yet, Sirs, you complain that men suspect you, and lay that abominable reproach at your doors, that Port-Royall holds intelligence with Geneva against the Sacrament. If it be abomi­nable, why have you not avoided it? Why have you given occasion of the scandall by your Rosa­ry? Why have you made so many pompous Apologies to defend such impious Maximes, as are those which the Sorbon Doctors discovered? Why have you inserted into that great Volume of frequent Communion, Propositions either Hereti­call or suspect, either condemned or condemnable, which I have related? Why having been adver­tis'd of the suspicion which the two last had cau­sed, have you not made it your businesse to cor­rect them, or at least explain them?

You will tell me, that the Assurances you have given of your Belief, free you from all necessity of engaging your selves in new declarations, on a Subject so clearly handled in the Writings of Port-Royall. Of what Writings speak you, Sirs? Is it of those which your Secretary has the boldnesse to cite in his Sixteenth Letter with such vain Encomiums; though there be not one of them not blasted with cen [...]ure, or stain'd with Heresie? Is it of Mr. Arnaulds Second Letter, which the Sorbonists judged rash, scandalous, hereticall? Is it of Monsieur de St. Cyran's fa­miliar Theology, which rais'd such troubles in Paris, even before it had drawn upon it the cen­sure [Page 411] of the Arch-Bishop of that City? Is it of the Canonicall Hours of Port-Royall, which were condemn'd at Rome? Is it of the Defence of the secret Rosary, which undertakes to justi­fie the impieties and extravagances of that Li­bell? Is it of those he esteems so profi [...]able to the publique, and recommends withou [...] naming them, for fear the people should be info [...]med, that there is hardly any work set forth by Port-Royal, which is not ranked in the number of prohibited Books, taking up a great deal of room in the Roman Catalogue? Have you no other proofs wherewith to justifie your Faith, then that which gives us cause to suspect it? Can you alledge no other Writings to prove your opinions Catho­lique, save those which the Roman Church has prohibited, because full of Hereticall Maximes?

Be it that all the Texts you have drawn out of them, appear most Orthodox, it follows not, that those which I have quoted render you not suspect of Intelligence with Geneva. All that can be gather'd from that diversity is, that you are contrary to your self: that in your Books are found many conradictions, but no appearance of your justification: that they all have two faces, which you shew or hide ac­cording to the time, the one Catholique, the other Calvinist. If men cry heretick, when you shew the Geneva-face, you make it vanish, and dexterously turning the Medall, shew the Catho­lique face in an instant. So you never publish an Heresie, but you have your Apology ready made: you couple together Truth and Errour, Poyson and its Antidote; and by an artifice common to [Page 412] all the enemies of the true Faith, you employ one part of your works to defend the other, excusing the crime at the same time that you commit i [...]. This craft, I confesse, may surprize the ignorant, but cannot justifie you before the wise.

You are accus'd for instance, of this Maxime of Aurelius, That every [...]in that violates chasti­ty, destroyes Priesthood, which differs in nothing from the Heresie of the Hus [...]ites; and you an­swer that he sayes in the same Book, That the Church cannot take away the power of Order; because the Character is Indelible: Behold in­deed a manifest contradiction; but that is no justification.

You are tax'd for saying, That Christ ad­mits us in time to the participation of the same food which the Blessed enjoy in eternity, with­out other difference, save that here be affords us not the sen [...]ible sight and taste of it, which is the language of the Calvinists; and you answer, That the Author of the Letters to a Provincial, says, that there are many other differences between the manner of his communicating himself to Christians here, and to the Saints above. I know not whether he be avowed by you, for he averres that he has no establishment at Port-Royall, fearing least you should be oblig'd to war­rant all his Letters: But in fine though he were, his testimony would be, at most, but a manifest contradiction, not a just defence.

You are accus'd of saying, that the practice of the Church favours the generall impenitence of all men: and to divert the blame, you answer in your Apology, that you condemn not the ordi­nary [Page 413] practice of Penance, which is now in the Church. 'Tis clear, that this is only to crosse and contradict, not to purge and justifie your selves.

You are charg'd with writing in the Book of Frequent Communion, that the Church is cor­rupted in her Doctrine of Manners; and you an­swer, the contrary is also found in your Apology, to wit, that the Church is in corruptible, not onely in her Faith, but even in her Doctrine of Man­ners. Th [...]s evidently shews the truth of what I say, that you fill your Books with contradictions: But it proves not what you pretend, that men ought to receive them for justifications.

'Tis not enough to shew for your defence, that of two contrary Propositions, whereof one is Orthodox, the other Hereticall, the former is in your Books: It must be shewn that the lat­ter (the Hereticall one) is not there; which done, you will have right to burst out in re­proaches, and say to every one of your Accusers, mentiris impudentissimè. But if effectively it be there, if of all the Here [...]ies I have tax'd you with, there is not one, but what is faithfully ex­tracted out of your Works, who sees not, that all the opprob [...]ious accusations you return men for their good advice, fall upon your selves; and that instead of evincing your divorce from Geneva, they prove you culpable not onely of the Errours, but even of the Insolence of Heretiques?

Think on it, Sirs, I conjure you; and if you would have us entertain more favourable thoughts of your Faith, brag no more (as Mr. Arnauld does) that you never fell into errour. [Page 414] Acknowledge that you are subject to failings: yet that as you have the weaknesse of men to be mi­staken, so have you their docility to be unde­ceiv'd, and admit of purer lights, Retract your errours, re-enter Sorbon by a generous disavow­ment of your evill opinions, and submit your private judgements to the Pope. What ever else you do, that is lesse then this, I may say without Raillery, You will never be good Catholiques.

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Se­venteenth Letter: By Father Annat of the Society of Jesus.

Argument.

1. THat the Jansenists, quitting the defence of the other Accusations and Impostures laid to their charge, endea­vour to clear themselves, in their last two Letters, onely of the crime of Heresie; and therefore by their silence are convicted of the other crimes, viz. Imposture and Ca­lumny. 2. That the Summe of their ex­cuse is reduced to two Mediums: The first is the Pretext of Difference betwixt Deci­sions of Fact, and of Right; which is an­swered fully in the Tract called, The An­swer to the Jansenists Complaint of being called Heretiques. 3. The se­cond Medium, which is by the Tomists opi­nion [Page 416] of Efficacious Grace, (which is Ca­tholique) to defend the Jansenian opinion, is here refuted: and it is shewed, that Janse­nius neither explicateth, nor defendeth his opinion, as the Tomists do, but as the Cal­vinists do; asserting what Geneva assert­eth, and denying what Geneva denieth. Therefore Calvins Disciples allow of Jan­senius; (as hath already been shewen, and again is recapitulated) but the Church condemneth him: Consequently his Opini­ons are Heresies.

Dear Reader,

THe seventeenth Letter of the Secretary of Port-Royall is now newly arriv'd; da­ted the 23. of January, and published the 29. of February. All the Interim was but requisite for its journey from Osuabruck, where he affirms it was Printed; the Jansenists being unwilling to put it to the Press at Pa [...]s; so obedient they are to the Civil State and to the Ordinances of the Magistrate.

It is a long Letter of the size of the other six­teen; which like the precedent (by me newly answered) tends to prove, that the Jansenists are no Hereticks. For, as to their merited title of Impostors and Falsifiers in their Letters to the Provincial, (which was all I pretended to demon­strate in my Book, of The fair dealing of the [Page 417] Jansenists) their Secretary yields us the victory; and will no longer contend but with those that call them Hereticks, as I had occasionally done in the Preface of the Book. From this accusation he intends to vindicate the Party, by the diffe­rence there is between the judgements of the Pope and Councils touching questions of Fact, and their judgements concerning questions of Right; the former not being infallible, as it may be the later are; and by the unquestionable certitude of the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace, (that is, Grace efficacious of it self) maintained in the Writings of Jansenius; and which there is no probability that the Pope intended to touch.

By this it appears that the Secretary played the Schoolman at the beginning, in his first four Let­ters, disputing against the censure of Sorbon; and perceiving that he advanced little by striving to overbear a judgement maintain'd by the au­thority of the Pope and Bishops, was forc'd to fall upon the Jesuites Morall, which furnish'd him with the matter of the Twelve following Letters. But being also driven out of that field by the conviction of his falsities, [...]e returns again to the Scholastick in his Seventeenth, dis­puting of the infallibility of Pope and Coun­cells; and of the truth of the Doctrine of Effi­cacious Grace.

It would require a Letter longer then his, to refute all his extravagances, illusions, bravadoes, falshoods, vanities, and all that he speaks imper­tinently, and contrary to the respect he owes to the Sea Apostosique. I shall onely take notice of his two principall Mediums to prove that he is [Page 418] no Heretique. As to the first, which is the pre­text of difference between decisions of Fact, and decisions of Right, the Reader will see, that there is nothing necessary to be added to what I have latelely said in answer to the Jansenists Com­plaint; and that the stories he reports concerning Pope Honorius and others, avail him not at all.

As to the point of Self-efficacious Grace, the good Secretary understands it very ill, and shews not onely that he is no Doctor, (as he confesseth of himself) but that he deserves not to be one. He pretends that the Five Propositions are not hereticall in Jansenius's sense, if that sense be no more then the Doctrine of Efficatious Grace; not seeing that by the same argument Calvin may justifie his Doctrine on the same subject; affirm­ing also, that he pretends nothing else, but to defend the verity of Efficacious Grace. The Secretary must learn, that there are two wayes of defending Efficacious Grace, one which is He­reticall, and relying upon Hereticall Principles: the other Orthodox, maintained by Principles established in Councills. Calvin follows the first, and is therein Hereticall: The Catho­lique Doctors, Thomists, Scotists, Sorbonists, Jesuits agree in the second: and therefore not­withstanding their particular disputes, they all remain in unity of Faith, and in the Communi­on of the Church.

To know therefore whether Jansenius's Do­ctrine be secured by his profession of defending Efficacious Grace, it must be known which way he defends it; whether by Calvin's way, or that of the Catholique Doctors.

[Page 419] Calvin so defends Effcacious Grace, that he be­lieves it leaves us no other liberty, then the liberty from coaction, or constraint; subjecting us in other respects, to a necessity of acting; which deprives us of the power of resisting it, so long as Grace perseveres.

The Catholique Doctors agree that Efficaci­ous Grace so rules the Will, as it leaves us a power of dissenting; so that these two things are found together, Grace in the Will, and in the same Will under Grace a power sufficient to hin­der its consenting to Grace: and they doubt not, but this is the true sense of the words of the Councill of Trent, Potest dissentire. Bun­nez and Molina, and all Catholique Doctours, even the most divided in their opinions, and the most opposite in the disputes of Grace, are united in this point.

They are so likewise in this other, That Grace under that formality of efficacious, is not so ne­cessary to good actions, as that it cannot be suffi­cient without it, and give us all power requisite to make that which God requireth of us, and which yet we perform not, to be truly possible to us, even when we fail to do it; whence it fre­quently happens, that through our own fault, Grace attains not its effect.

I ask the Secretary therefore, whether Janseni­us be of that opinion, when he teaches, that we need not fear lest necessity, by what name soever call'd, deprive us of liberty, so it be not a necessi­ty of coaction? Or when he disputes against the indifference of liberty, and leaves us not any that Calvin has denied; nor acknowledges [Page 420] any that Calvin has not likewise acknowledged? Or when he takes sufficient Grace for a Monster in Divinity, and denies, that there was ever any medicinall Grace, that had not its effect? Or when he imputes as errour to the Semipelagians their saying, That the Will can obey or resist Grace? And seeing it is evident, that this Do­ctrine is dissonant to the Catholique Doctours way of explaining Self-efficacious Grace, and is rather consonant to that followed by Calvin, it must be concluded, that reducing the sense of the Five condemned Propositions to the sense of Efficacious Grace, as it has been explicated by Jansenius, is to reduce it to an hereticall sense: and that all they who follow this explication, are not onely Disciples of Jansenius, but of Calvin too.

Whence it appears, that the Secretary accuses me in vain for having granted, that the deceased Pope touched not, in his Constitution, the Controversie of Efficacious Grace. For in the Cavilli, from whence he hath taken it, I speak expresly of the point in controversie between the Fathers of St. Dominique's Order, and the Jesui [...]es. 'Tis very true, the Pope was not willing to touch that; but he touched the point wherein they and we are agreed, in confirming it by the condemnation of the Heresie of Jansenius, which is opposite to it, as being the sense of Calvin.

Wherefore 'tis no wonder if the Calvinists have every where stretch'd forth their arms to embrace the Jansenists, owning them for their School-fellows. The Protestant Cantons, by the mouth of Henry Ottius, chief Professor of [Page 421] the University of Zuric, cryes out; In nostras cum consortibus Jansenius transit partes, Janse­nius and his Followers are come over to our side: and they finde so great a conformity between their Doctrine of Grace, and that which the Jansenists have expounded in their Catechisme, that they verily believe there is, nec aliud, nec plus, nec minus, neither more, nor lesse, nor any other thing taught in the one, then in the other. The States of Holland encourage the Jansenists by the voice of Samuel Marez Pastor and Pro­fessor of Groyning, who exhorts them to stand firm. Macte illâ vestrâ virtute, viri docti quòd audeatis resistere impio illi pontifici. Be of good courage, sayes he, you generous and learned Jansenists, seeing you da [...]e resist that wicked Pope. With the rest joyns England, who makes even her Mercuries attest, That the Doctrine censured by Sorbon, is in many things the same with that of the reformed Churches. Du Moulin dotes not, when at Sedan he avowes the same uniformity of Doctrine. Rousselet publishes it at Nismes; Eustache at Montpelier; and of the two famous Apostates L' Abadie, and Le Mas­son, who are now at Montauban, the first confes­ses; that to Calvinisme he passed through the gate of Jansenisme; the second, that he learn'd Jansenisme in Calvin, long before Jansenius printed his Augustinus. We have in our hands the Book he hath lately printed, containing the Motives of his Apostasie, which hapned the last year, after he had preach'd the Lent for [...]going in the Dioc [...]sse of Roven. It is not necessary to di­late any more on this Subject, there being so ma­ny [Page 422] printed Pieces, which demonstrate the con­formity of the Doctrine of Jansenius and [...]al­vin concerning Self- [...]fficacious Grace; to which the Jansenists have never been able to answer.

As to that which the Secretary addes near the end of his Letter, of the compassion he has to see me forsaken of God, I have three things to reply. The first, that since his spirit of jea [...]ting and scurrility seems to have left him, his Letters are very flat, and he grows tedious and contem­ptible to those that read him. The second, that a Novendiall devotion at the Holy Thorne, would be well employ'd, to obtain of God the cure of his blindenesse. The third, that I con­ceive a particular confidence, by seeing my self forsaken of God in the opinion of those, who believe he has forsaken his Church, and goes daily destroying it, as the Jansenists do, by ad­hering to the traditions of the deceased Abbot of St. Cyran.

If the fancy take him to make any reply, let him not send his Writings any more to Osna­br [...]ck: For it is but to make a toil of a pleasure. Amsterdam, Leiden, and Geneva, are much more commodiou [...]; since in all those places he shall not onely have permission to print his Works, but an Approbation to attend them. After all, The Jans [...]nists are Heretiques.

An ANSWER to the Seventeenth and Eigh­teenth Provinciall Let­ters; and to another of an unknown Person to Father Annat: which is inserted into the Se­cond English Edition betwixt the Seaven­teenth and Eighteenth.

Argument.

1. THat the Author of the Provinci­all Letters complains, that he is called Heretique, when at the same breath he vents Heresie. 2. That all that he saith for his vindication from Heresie, maketh [Page 424] him suspected of Heresie. 3. That the Jesuites dependance on their Superiours, (which he objecteth) is their security, as his Independance is the S [...]urce of [...]h [...]s ruine. 4. The Superiours of the Jesuites pro­ceeding, in Printing Books. 5. An An­swer to an Argument wherein it is said, that the Jesuites take the Piety of their Adver­saries for a pretense of calling them Here­tiques. 6. That it is a groundlesse accu­sation (which reflects on the Pope, and Sy­nod of France) to say, the Jesuites procu­red the condemnation of Jansenius, though nothing is, or can be, produced, that ever they did in order to a false Information. 7. Three other Calumnies against the Jesuites refuted. 8. Ten Objections, by which the Jansenists would prove themselves no He­retiques, refuted, and proved to be of no force at all. In the refutation of the Fifth Objection, the Texts of Jansenius are ci­ted, where he plainly teacheth all that is condemned in the Popes Bull as his Do­ctrine. 9. The Jansenists severall Histo­ries, and passages of the Fathers and Coun­cells, shewed to [...]e impertinent, and to argue him to be no good Subject of the Church. 10. His Hypocriticall Piety to Jansenius [Page 425] his memory; and his false asserting the matter to be of no consequence, whether the Propositions be in Jansenius, or no.

SIR,

HAving perused your Eighteenth Letter, which here in England hath (as well as the former) no little Vogue among Protestants, I thought sit to answer it; to let the world see, how senselesle a Piece it is. For in­deed I must [...]ell you, there is not one Reason in it, which [...]avours either of Divinity, or of Phi­losophy, or of common Sense. But howsoever, because it speaks against the Popes Bulls, and rails at the Jesuites, it is welcome to all, but one­ly the poor remnant of Catholiques; who with great Resentment, seeing you to pre [...]nd to the name of Catholique, say of your Writings, Filii Matris meae pugnavêrunt contra me. The Sonnes of my Mother [...]ight against me. Had you writ a Consolatory Missive to us here in England, you had done something wor­thy the name of Catholique, and beseeming a good Subject of the most Christian King: But to call your self a Catholique, and write against the Authority of the S [...]a Aposto [...]que, (for which we here suffer so much, that we are even pointed at in th [...] Streets by the name of Papists,) is a thing that breedeth nothing but scandall and confusion in the House of God. [Page 426] For this reason I count it my duty to let all the world know, that your Letter is neither Catho­lique, nor Rationall; as having neither Faith, nor Sense in it. And to take your Arguments all in their full force, and consu [...]e them totally, I will rip up what you say in your Seventeenth Letter, and your Friend in his to Father An­nat: for they all drive at the same mark. I know Reverend Father Annat hath answered your Seventeenth Letter; and in his Tract against the Complaint of the Jansenists hath [...]n substance confu [...]ed the main points of the other two: so that there would not be need of [...]aying any thing more, did not your Letters do speciall hurt here in England. For all that you advance in favour of Jansenisme, is looked upon here as equally availing for the defence of Protestant, and Puritan, and Anabaptist, and Quaker, and the other innumerable Sects, into which our poor Nation is divided. For this reason I pre­sume, Reverend Father Annat will give me leave to reassume what he hath said against the Seven­teenth Letter, and prosecute it to the end of the Eighteenth.

To begin then; you enter upon your Seven­teenth Letter with a Complaint, that you are called Heretique, and challenge all the world to shew, where you have taught any thing Hereti­call: and yet (which is a strange madnesse of yours) at the same breath that you make this chal­lenge, you declare your self Heretique. I need not then go back to your former Writings, to [...]ell you on what account that Ti [...]le is given you; The whole subject of your Seventeenth and [Page 427] Eighteenth Letters makes the matter clear. The Pope and whole Catholique Church hold the Jansenists Heretiques; you hold the Janse­nists are not Heretiques. The Pope hath de­clared, that the Five Propositions, condemned in Innocent the Tenth's Bull, are Hereticall in Jansenius his sense: you say those Five Proposi­tions are not Hereticall in Jansenius his senser And for this you are deservedly called Here­tiques. We Catholiques in England say with St. Hierome, (Ep [...]st. ad Damasum. de Hypostafis nomine.) Siquis Cathedrae Petri jungitur, me­us est. He that agreeth with the Chair of Pe­ter, is ours; and on the contrary he that agreeth not with the Chair of Peter, is not ours. We ask with St. Amb [...]ose (Orat▪ de obitu fratris) of every new Sect, Whether it agrees with the Catholique Bishops, that is, with the Church of Rome? (Rogavit, Si cum Episcopis Catho­licis, id est, cum Ecclesiâ Romanâ, consentiret.) We conclude with St. Irenaus, Disciple to Saint Polycarp, That it is necessary that every particu­lar Church, that is, all the Faithfull, should agree with the Roman Church, by reason of her Prerogatioes. Lib. 3. cap. 3. Ad Romanam Ecclesiam propter potentiorem Principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire [...]cclesiam, id est, [...]o [...] qui undique sunt [...]ideles. This is our sense; and for this we must judge you an Heretique, who speak a language unknown to Rome, and do contradict that Au [...]hority, which in all ages Fa­thers, and Doctou [...]s, and Councells have submit­ted unto.

I know, Sir, you bring many Arguments to [Page 428] vindicate your self, and to prove, That the Jan­senists are no Heretiques. But I shall, God wil­ling, shew you the nullity of them. But before I come to that, to disintangle the matter, I think fit to refute two Things, which serve you for Bravadoes onely, and matter of Calumny; not for any argument to prove that the Jansenists are no Heretiques. The one of these things is, what you say concerning your self: The other, what you lay to the Jesuites, which is so mixt with the Arguments you bring, that it is necessa­ry to take it apart, that both it, and the Argu­ments, may be clearly answered.

For your self then, Sir, you say (pag. 296. of the second English Edition; which is that I al­wayes follow in this Letter.) That you are alone. And pray, Sir, how came you to be alone? 'Twas because you separated your self from the Catholique Church. You are alone. And so was Arius, Eutyches, Nestorius, and all other Arch-Heretiques, when they first began to oppose the Church. You are alone; and there­fore suppose you cannot be argued of Heresie: you should have discoursed quite contray. You are alone, and therefore to be suspected: for Se­paratists cannot (likely) be sound in Faith. But, Sir, if you be alone, as you say you are, without relation to any, how cometh it, that in the Eigh­teenth Letter, pag. 337. &c. you take upon you to make Proclamations in the publique cause of all the Jansenists? Who intrusted you to speak in their name, and to deliver their sense? How shall we believe what you tell us, That they will submit, when the places are shewed them in Jan­senius; [Page 429] or when this Pope shall have again heard them at Rome? How shall we know, that they are not already satisfied in their conscience? Since as you say, you are alone, and have no relation to them of Port-Royall, that is, to the Janse­nists. No, No, Sir, you are not alone; you speak for the whole Party; you are the mouth of the Caball; you act for all the Jansenists: And if they should desert you, you would not yet be alone; for the Calvinists, the Lutherans, the Anabaptists, the Quakers, and all that renounce Obedience to the Church of Rome, would shake hands with you. You know well enough, your Letters were welcome at Charenton, and are made much of in Germany, in Holland, in England, and all the Nations, which are divided from the Faith of the Catholique Church, Say therefore no more, That you are alone.

The next thing that you say for your self is, That you are hid, and the Jesuites finde them­selves wounded from your invisible hand, pag. 297. A Thief might well comfort himself with this; it is his happinesse to be hidden. Omnis, qui malè agit, odit lucem. Every one that doth evill, would gladly be invisible. But that Truth should seek hiding-holes in a place where it may safely appear, (as in France any Catholique Do­ctrine may) that, Sir, I never heard. Appear therefore; or else every one will conclude against you: for every one knoweth, that he is to be sus­pected in all he saith, who is forced to hide him­self like an Out-law; and is so forsaken of all, that (as you speak of your self) he hath no re­lation to any Community, nor to any person what­soever. [Page 430] Embrace therefore the Truth, and you will not need to hide your self: The Catholique Church is visible; and you need not make your self invisible, unlesse it be to become a mem­ber of the invisible Church, which is not Catho­lique.

The third Thing you say for your self is, That you make a Protestation of your Faith in these words, pag. 296. I have not any dependance save that on the Catholique, Apostolique, Ro­man Church, where I am resolved to live and die in the Communion of the Pope, the Sove­reign Head thereof; out of which I am per­swaded there is no Salvation. Then you ask, what course can be taken with one, that talkes after this rate? You know, Sir, what course can be, and is, taken, with you, for all this; you know, that the Decree made feriâ quintâ, die sexto Septembris, 1657. telleth us, That Pope Alexander the Seventh condemneth this very Letter of yours together with all the rest, not­withstanding this Protestation. These words indeed, if they be reall, might prove you no Pro­testant; but not no Jansenist. For notwith­standing these words you maintain Jansenisme; you spit your venome at his Holinesse, you con­temn his Bulls, and calumniate those, who en­deavour to perswade all to submit to the censures of the Church: I mean the Jesuites, of whom (to come to that) you tell us.

In the first place this, pag. 298. There is a vaste difference between the Jesuites, and them that oppose them. They do really make up one Body, united under one Head; and their Rules [Page 431] allow them not to print any thing without the Approbation of Superiours, who by that means become accountable for their Errours: whereas you are accountable to no body for what you write; nor no body responsible for you. All this you say to tax the Jesuites, and prove your self irreprehensible; and you do not mark, that re­ally you commend the Jesuites in it, and disgrace your self, and discover the Source of your er­rours. Had any man advised you, and reviewed your Papers before they went to the Presse, they would not have been so full of grosse errours. Had you had any dependance on any learned and vertuous man, he would have told you, that you could not impute to the Society the inventing of the Doctrine of Probabilities, and the like, which had been taught some hundred of years, before the Society was in the world. He would have told you, That to cite Auhours falsely, as you do almost perpetually, was a direct means to disgrace your own Writings; that to tax good opinions, was but to discover the blindenesse of your own passion; that to joyn with Jansenists, was but to declare against the Church. In fine, he would have told you all that, which since to your shame you have been told by those who an­swered your Letters, and laid your ignorance open to the world: and by this means he would have saved your labour, saved your credit, and saved your conscience. But your having no de­pendance on any body, made you leap headlong into the precipice, into which your passion lead you blindefold.

On the contrary, the Jesuites by the depen­dance [Page 432] which they have from their Superiours, have stood firm, and their Doctrine, like a rock in the Sea, hath received the boisterous waves of your calumnies and contradictions, without be­ing ever shaken in the least point. I do not say this to averre that all their Writings are irrepre­hensible; I know some Jesuites have writ things which the Pope hath censured, (as that, which you take notice of, of Father Halloix) and they have willingly submitted to his Holiness's cen­sures: Some opinions also have been unanimous­ly impugned by all the rest of their Order, and forbid by their Generall. This is allowed. Yet that which I say is, that their Doctrine as to all your Objctions, hath stood unshaken and irre­prehensible. And as I did in the Preface to the Impostures, so again I defie you (according to the conditions which there are set down) to shew me any one point of the Morall Doctrine of the Society, which is reprehensible. If by the Popes admonition, or of themselves, they discover any errour in any particular Authour of theirs, they presently correct it. So for example, that which you alledge of Father Amicus in your Eigh­teenth Letter, was long since commanded by Fa­ther Generall to be razed out of the Book; though Amicus were not the first, nor the onely Authour, that had taught that opinion. Now that in a great number of Writers it should some­times happen, that an unallowable opinion should escape correction for a time, is a pardon­able errour of hum [...]ne frailty. On the contra­ry it is laudable vertue that maketh them re­nounce any such errour, assoon as it is known. [Page 433] This advantage then Subordination to their Su­periours brings to them, that their errours are soon corrected; nor can they be taxed for what they themselves endeavour to redresse in the frailty of particulars: much lesse are their Su­periours criminall, if perhaps some one or two opinions chance to displease.

For that which you bring concerning the Ob­ligation of the Superiours, is too frivolous to need an Answer. It is senselesse to think, that the Generall of the Society, from whom all au­thority of Printing is derived, can view all the Books written by the whole Order. If we should allow their Generall (that which is never heard of in one man) abilities enough to judge of all the Books, writ by the severall Authours of the Society in all the severall Sciences; at least we cannot think, that he knoweth all the languages, in which they are written: nor can he possibly have time to read them all; no, nor is it practi­cally possible to conveigh them all to him, from the severall places of the world, over which the Jesuites are spread. These are fabulous dreams, fit for you, Sir, to make matter of a Calumny with, but not to be believed by any rationall man. All that he can do is this. He deputes some able men, three or four, to view every Work that is to be printed; and then he regu­lates himself according to their judgement. Now when this is done, as it is among the Jesu­ites very exactly, it seldom happeneth, that their Books need the Popes Censure: if they do, then assoon as the errour is perceived, it is their desire to correct it. All this I have said to satisfie the [Page 434] Reader; who by this will judge, that as it can­not easily happen, that the writings of the Jesu­ites should be scandalous, so it may happen, that the three or four Revisours, whose judgement must carry it for the present, may be overseen: such is the nature of humane frailty. And if any man can sinde a better way, the Jesuites will thank him for it.

But I go on. The second thing concerning the J [...]suites, that I intend to take notice of, I finde in the R [...]ply made to Father Annat, upon occasion of a Piece published by him, called, The fair dealing of the Jansenists, pag. 326. It is, that Father Annat (and the same is under­stood of the rest) produces the Piety and Zeal of their Adversaries as a mark of their Here­sie. I answer, that it is not their true piety, but their false piety, their Hypocriticall Mummery which the Jesuites take as a mark of their Here­sie. That which Christ noted in the Pharisees, That they strained a Gnat, and swallowed a Ca­mell. For example, whilest you will not allow a Penitent to follow his Ghostly Fathers opinion, for fear of the Monster of Probability, you will, and do, allow those poor Souls of Port-Royall, to abstain Fifteen Moneths from Communion, contrary to the express precept of the Church. Whilest you will not allow, that a man may de­fend his goods, or honour, from an unjust Inva­sour, you will allow, with the Abbot of St. Cy­ran, that a man may, and must sometimes, kill himself. Whilest you cry out against Revenge, you teach, that to follow the interior Inspiration (so you call it) a man may, though contrary to [Page 435] the exteriour Law, kill his Neighbour. Whilest you cry out against the Jesuites admitting men unworthily to the Sacraments, you commend it as an act of great Humility to be content to ab­stain from Communion all ones life long till the last hour. 'Tis this impious Doctrine, (that you call Piety) which the Jesuites take for a mark of Heresie. These and the like Maximes of you Jansenists are cited in the Impostures, and in the Answers to your Letters, and justly taken by the Jesuites for marks of people fallen from the way of Truth.

The third thing, which you say concerning the Jesuites, is very often inculcated by you, but most largely in the Eighteenth Letter, pag. 343. &c. (and Letter 17. pag. 312.) That the Jesu­ites have by false Representations deceived the Pope, and got of him a condemnation of Jan­senius. This is no small fault; and wherein though the Jesuites are chi [...]fly accused, yet the Synod of all the Bishops of France, and Three Popes, and their Divines are involved: the Je­suites for being the Deceivers; the rest for being lead blinde so long in a matter which they ought, and might easily have examined. But what pro­bation do you bring, Sir? None at all, but your b [...]re a [...]ertion; and so you need no answer, but a flat deniall. Shew when, where, and how the Jesuites did thus deceive the world. All the world knoweth, that Pope Urban, when he first forbad the Book of Jansenius, (though not then as Hereticall) forbad also the Theses of Lovain, made by the Jesuites in defence of their Doctrine against Jansenius. Did the Jesuites procu [...]e [Page 436] this? All the world knoweth, that Pope Inno­cent the Tenth was moved by the Bishops of France to examine the Five Propositions, which they presented him taken out of Jansenius. Were there any Jesuites in that Synod? All the world knows, that among those that were de­puted to examine at Rome, there was but one Jesuit. For although Cardinall Lugo, a Jesuit of Eminent Learning, was also to have been one, yet at the Jansenists petition he was ex­cluded. So that of Thirteen Examiners there was but one Jesuit; and his Censures, as you report them, the furthest from taxing the Five Propositions, that could be expected. Where then did the Jesuites appear in all this businesse? What did they do? Whom did they work upon? Certainly, Sir, you would not have been silent, if you had any thing to produce against th [...]m. You that have laid so many false Calumnies on the Society, would never have dissembled any true fault, which they had committed in so important a matter.

You tell us two things, which are meer Sur­mises, not Probations. One is, that Jansenius had taxed Molina a Jesuite of fifty errours. What then? Do you imagine Jansenius so great a Divine, that Molina must fly for his censures? I believe, no Jesuit ever thought so; and in ef­fect it hath not proved so, but quite contrary: Jansenius his Book is censured as Hereticall, and Molina standeth in as good repute as ever. But allow, that Jansenius had found five hundred true faults in Molina; doth that prove, that the [...]esuites procured a Bull by false Information: [Page 437] when it cannot be shewed, that they ever did any thing, which might make them suspected of such an intention.

You tell us then for a second Su [...]mise, That the Jesuites hold this Maxime, as one of the most Authentique of all their Theology, viz. That they may without crime calumniate those, by whom they think they are unjustly molested. Letter 18. pag. 343. I will not answer this false reproach with that uncivill language, which your Friend pag. 325. giveth Father Annat the Kings Confessour. Though you deserve it, yet I scorn foul language. But you must give me leave to tell you, that you are extreamly out. Never any Jesuite taught this Maxime as you set it down: so far are they from holding it one of the most Authentique Maximes of their Theology. A Jesuite holdeth it a crime to lie: and truly should I know any of them, that should think they might calumniate others falsely, I should esteem them far otherwise then I do You may therefore file this up with the other false Calnmnies, you laid on the Jesuites; for this Proposition cannot be found any where but in your Letters: no Jesuite ever taught it; no, I dare say no Catholique Doctour ever imagined it.

Of like falsity with this are those unjust asper­sions, which you in several places of your Letters cast on the Jesuites; (which I note in the fourth place) you say pag▪ 351. That the Jesuits raise a disturbance in the Church, whilest it is evident, that they endeavour to allay the disturbance which you raise. All they do is to preach and [Page 438] teach doctrine consonant to the Popes Bulls, to the sense of the Church, to that which Kings and Princes, and all Catholique Bishops and Doctors allow of, and agree in. To be obedient is not to raise disturbance; but to be refractory, as you are, is to raise disturbance. Therefore Pope Alexander justly calleth the Jansenists, perturba­tores quietis publicae, perturbatours of the pub­lique peace, because they raise disturbance in the Church.

Again you say, pag. 303. That the Jesuits daily fasten new Heresies on the Jansenists. First, the Propositions were called Heretical; then their quality was urged, then it was translated to word for word; then it was brought into the heart; then into the hand. To all this I answer, that whereas you attribute to the Jesuites the fastening of Heresie on their Adversaries, you cannot be ignorant, that they never did call you Heretiques, till the Pope had first defined it, and the Bishops and whole Church allowed it. Nor hath there been any change in the Church as to this point. What Pope Inno­cent first defined, that Pope Alexander did again define: and because you had found new evasions, he added a fuller declaration. All the change was on your parts. First you said the Propositions were in Jansenius, but were not Hereticall: then you said they were Hereticall, but not in Jansenius. And when the places were sh [...]wed you, you tell us, they are not in Jansenius in the same sense which they are condemned in: so it is you that change; not the Jesuites, who never desired more or lesse, then [Page 439] that the Bulls should be received. You are the Proteus's that change daily your shape to elude the force of the Popes Constitutions: and so you are for this reason called by Pope Alexan­der in his Bull, Filii iniquitatis, Sonnes of Iniquity.

Finally to end this matter, you say the Jesuites quarrel is at the person of Jansenius, pag. 340. not at his errours. But the contrary is mani­fest: for you cannot say, that ever they did any thing against his person; and you will not deny, but they have alwayes been against his errours.

But now I come to your arguments, by which you would prove, that the Jansenists are not to be called Heretiques. I will set them down by way of Objections, not as they lie in your Let­ters, but according to the connexion of the sub­stance of them: nor will I observe your words, which abound with Tautologies and frivolous excursions. But I will put them in some-form, as much as they will bear; that when they are seen in their full force, the answer may be the better understood. For every argument I cite but one or two places, though you repeat them over and over many times, for to make your Letters the longer. I hope you will no [...] be an­gry, that I keep something of a School-form: if you be, it is no matter; the Reader, I am sure, will be eased by the Order.

1. Objection.

You object then in severall places of your Letters thus. * It is not matter of Faith, that the Five condemned Propositions are in Jan­senius his Book: Therefore they that defend Jan­senius his Book, are not to be called Heretiques. The Antecedent you endeavour to prove by seve­rall Arguments, which make the following ob­jections, which I shall by and by refute. But now I deny the Consequence; and [...]ell you, that your Discourse is Null in this, that though the Antecedent were true, yet the Consequence doth not follow. For to make the Consequence good you must suppose this Proposition true, No man can be called an Heretique, unless it be an Article of Faith, that he be an Heretique: which is extreamly false. For as in other crimes, so in Heresie, a Moral, or Physical evidence is enough to condemn any one of Heresie. For ex­ample, I hear one tell me seriously and often, that he doth not believe the Three Persons of the Trinity; and that though he know the Church believeth a Trinity, yet he doth not, nor will not believe it; without any controversie I may judge this man an Heretique: although it is not mat­ter of Faith, either that he is a man, or that I hear him speak. Again, suppose I do not hear him speak, but hear from irrefragable witnesse of many honest and understanding men, that he hath made this profession deliberately, or that he printeth and teacheth this; without contro­versie [Page 441] I may judge him an Heretique: and yet it is not matter of Faith, that these witnesses tell me true. But it is enough to have either a Phy­sical, or Morall Evidence to judge one an Here­tique. And this (as I said) is common to all crimes, as well as Heresie. The Iudge, when he condemneth a man to death for murther, need­eth not put it in his Creed, that infallibly this man hath committed Murther: nor needeth he have Physicall Certainty, but 'tis enough that he have a Morall Evidence, Secundum allegata & probata, (as the Law saith) according to what is alledged and proved by witnesses; which not­withstanding may all erre. Iust so in cur case, though it were allowed not to be of Faith, that the Five condemned Propositions are in Janse­nius his Book, yet without scruple we may, and in reason ought to condemn the Book as Here­ticall; the Church having condemned it for such. This proceeding is authorized in Scripture, and that fitly to our case. Hereticum [...]ominem, saith St. Paul ad Titum 3. post unam & alteram correptionem devita, sciens quia subversus est. Avoid the Heretique, after having once or twice reprehended him; knowing, that he is subverted. Where the Apostle telleth us, that after a man hath been once or twice admonished of his Here­sie, if he mend not, he is to be avoided as one, with whom the Church holds no Communion: and his refusing to submit after one or two ad­monitions, St. Paul calleth a knowing that he is subverted in matter of Faith.

Now if this were ever clear in any case, it is in this we handle of Jansenius. For to say no­thing [Page 442] of the severall Briefs made by Pope Urban against Jansenius his Book, the Five Propositi­ons were extracted out of his Book by the Synod of France, who professe to have used all dili­gence in examining them. These Bishops pre­sented the Five Propositions to Pope Innocent. He having made the matter be examined with all diligence, (the Jansenists themselves being pre­sent at Rome, and acknowledging them to be in Jansenius, and defending them as his Doctrine) after all condemned them, as appeareth in his Bull. After him Pope Alexander now sitting renewed the condemnation, testifying that the Propositions are in Jansenius, and defining, that they are condemned in his sense, as they lie in his Book. To these two Censures all the Bishops, and the whole Catholique Church have subscri­bed. Here are then two Admonitions and more, by which it is made known, that the Book of Jan­senius containeth Hereticall Doctrine: we there­fore (unlesse we will contradict the rule of St. Paul) must esteem it Hereticall, and know that it is sub [...]erted. We need not examine, whether it be matter of Faith, that the Five Propositions be in Jansenius, or no: it is enough, that it hath been once and twice and so many times declared to us, that we cannot but esteem it sufficiently certain; here being far more, then that which St. Paul requireth. So Sir, you see that your main Argument (which is the summe and substance of all) is so far from proving what you would in­ferte, that though your Antecedent were grant­ed, yet the Consequence were of no force at all.

2. Objection.

It were ridiculous, say you, Letter 18. pag. 338. to pretend, there should be any Heretiques in the Church for matter of Fact. But whether the Five Propositions be in Janseniu [...] or no, is pure matter of Fact. Therefore it is ridiculous to pretend, that Jansenius, or those that maintain his Doctrine, should be Heretiques. This Ar­gument is ve [...]y oft [...]n inculcated in many places, though I cite but one. I answer, That understand­ing, as you do, Propositions written in any Book to be matter of Fact, 'tis a perfect madnesse to assert, that none can be declared Heretiques for matter of Fact. And the Consequences of that Assertion are so evidently absurd and Hereticall, that nothing can be more. For first it would fol­low, that never any Proposition in any Book could be declared Hereticall: for still you would say, it is ridiculous, that any man should be an Heretique for matter of Fact; and still it would be matter of Fact, whether the Proposition were in the Book, or no: and so no Books could be con­demned in the Church. Secondly it would fol­low, that no person whatsoever could be con­demned; and that we must not believe, that ever there was any Heretique in the Church, that can be named; (except those that are men­tioned in Scripture) though St. Paul tells us, 1 Cor. 9. Oportet haereses esse: and so we should never be obliged to avoid any one as an Here­tique, contrary to what I alledged in the first Objection out of the Apostle. For still it will [Page 444] be made matter of Fact, whether Arius for ex­ample (and so of the rest) did hold this or that: For that Arius writ, or said, th [...]s or that, is matter of Fact. Thirdly it would follow, that as no Pro­position in any Book could be defined by the Church to be Hereticall; so on the contrary no Proposition in any Book could be defined Or­thodox, or to be consonant to the word of God, or the true word of God. And so we should by your wise argument come to doubt of every Pro­position, even in the Holy Scripture. For still it will be (according to your ridiculous Max­ime) [...]matter of Fact whether that Proposition be in Scripture. And certainly it is as clear mat­ter of Fact, whether the Scripture saith, God will have all men saved, and come to the know­ledge of the Truth, as it is, whether Jansenius in his Book saith, Christ did not die for all men. And so by this argument we shall never be obli­ged to admit any Proposition as Scripture; which is to say we may deny, by your argument, all Scripture. And further, as to the whole Bi­ble, it is as much matter of Fact, whether this or that Edition of Scripture be true Scripture, as whether the Five Propositions be in Jansenius: yet the Councell of Trent hath declared, that the Vulgat Edition shall be held Authenticall, and he would be an Heretique, that would not allow it.

3. Objection.

Popes and Councells * may [...]rre in matter of [Page 445] Fact, as many stories alledged in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letters prove: Therefore (perhaps) they have [...]rred here; and so it can­not be matter of Faith. I answer, That this may all be said as well of Arius, or Nestorius, or of any Heretique, who is not named in Scri­pture, as of Jansenius his Book: yet the Church hath said Anathema to many Heretiques by name. And look what crime he should commit, that should say, Arius never was an Heretique; the self same should that man incur, that should dare to say, Jansenius his book containeth no Heresie. And certainly the Phrase of the Church hath alwayes been to call those Heretiques, whom the Pope condemneth as such, whether there be matter of Fact or no contained in the condem­nation. So the Quartodecimani are by St. Au­gustin H [...]res. 29. and by the whole Church called Heretiques, because they would not obey the Decrees of the Pope and Church: and yet the observance of Easter on such a day had more of matter of Fact in it, then what Pope Inno­cent, or Pope Alexander declare concerning Jansenius. And all this hath been ever practi­sed in the Church of God upon Christs Authori­ty, who saith, Qui Ecclesiam non audierit, sit tibi sicut Ethnicus & Publicanus. He that heareth not the Church, (whether it be in matter of Fact or no) let him be unto you as an Heathen and Publican, that is, as one quite out of the Church. As for the stories you alledge, I shall answer you, when I have done with your Objections, Now I observe, that these three main Objecti­ons so often inculcated, whereby you would [Page 446] prove, that it is but matter of Fact, and so not of Faith, but a matter wherein Popes and Coun­cells may erre, do not prove any thing at all. For notwithstanding the possibility of errour in matter of Fact, which many Catholique Do­ctours allow, yet it is not to be presumed, that here is any errour, but quite contrary it is to be supposed certain that there is none, unlesse we will be teme [...]arious and refractory to the Church; we having two Popes, and a Synod of France's Assertion redoubled, that all diligence was used; and knowing also, that the matter was very easily cleared, the Question being one­ly, whether the Book, which they had in their [...]ands, had the Propositions or no: final­ly the whole world being certified, that all parties were agreed, that the Propositions were in Jansenius, before ever the condemnation was thought of, as you may see in severall places of this Book; namely in the Sixteenth Letter, and Father Annats Answer to the Jansenists Com­plaint. Now then I proceed to a fourth Objecti­on, by which you would prove, not onely that the Popes and Councells may erre, as hitherto, but that in effect they have erred.

4. Objection.

Many Learned men have read Jansenius all over, and cannot finde the Five Propositions; therefore they are not there: and so the Synod of France, and the Popes, who condemned those Propositions as Jansenius's erred. I an­swer first, that this is a Negative Argument, [Page 447] and so in effect proves nothing against the Posi­tive Assertion of the Synod of France, which found them there; and the Definition of the Pope, who defineth that they are there. But to answer again, I ask who were those sixty Persons that read Jansenius, and could not finde those Propositions? Perhaps Doctour St. Beauve was one, whom pag. 300. you call the Kings Pro­fessour in Sorbon; but you do not tell us, that he was turn'd out of his place for Iansenisme: which I have from a good hand. Or were you one, Sir? If you were, and the rest like you, I do not wonder that you could not finde the Propositions in Jansenius, though they be there. You that could finde, in so many Authours of the Jesuites as you have falsely cited, that which is not there, might have the trick of not finding in Jansenius that which is there. It is a great deal easier to read an Author, and not to find that which is there, then to finde there that which is not there; as you, Sir, are evidently convinced to have done. The Fourteenth Imposture, and the small piece of Lessius inserted in the end of this Book, maketh this evident. You can finde, or say you finde, in Lessius that which he hath not: and why may you not more easily not finde, or say you cannot finde, in Jansenius that which is clearly there. You therefore, when you tell us that above sixty * Persons have read Jansenius, and cannot finde the Propositions there; ought to let us know, who those s [...]xty were; and if they please to appear, they shall be shewed the places.

5. Objection.

The places cannot be cited; * therefore they be not there: and so still the Church erreth. But pray, Sir, who is it that you challenge to cite the places? Would you tell his Holinesse that you will not believe him, till he citeth the places, that is, will not believe him till you see it. That is not the duty of a Childe to his Father; nor would any Servant be so [...]aucy with his Master. Or would you say this to the Synod of so many grave and learned Bishops, as in France collected the Propositions out of Janseni [...]s; and for the greater satisfaction of all the world have given it under their hands, that the Propositions are truly in Jansenius to their knowledge, as you may see in their Subscriptions put in the be­ginning of this Book in the History of Janse­nisime. Is it to these you would say they can­not cite the places? That were to be very dis­respectfull, and to suspect them strangely ei­ther of grosse ignorance, or of extream ma­lice. But you tell us, (Letter 18. pag. 330.) 'Tis the Jesuites you mean; 'tis they cannot cite the places, and yet they call you Heretiques. And what then, Sir? Suppose no Jesuite in the world could cite the places, must the Church therefore be out? or must the Iesuites not give the Propositions the same name, which the Popes and universall Church gives them, that is, to call them Hereticall, and condemned in Jan­senius his sense, and as they lie in Jansenius? [Page 449] What if the Iesuites should answer, that since the Popes and Synod of France thought not sit to cite the places, they judge it a dutifull Defe­rence not to cite them neither? Or what if no Iesuite hath ever looked in Jansenius? What is that to us Catholiques, who dutifully and obediently believe the Church, that telleth us they are in Jansenius? We believe in the Ca­tholique Church, as our Creed teacheth us; and the Iesuites believe in the same Church: and whether they have read Jansenius or no, we and they must say, the Five condemned Propositions are in Jansenius. T [...]uly, Sir, I cannot hold laughing, when I read page 342. that you define the Iesuits to cite the places of Jansenius, as you have cited their corrupt Maximes; which is to say, that you desire them to cite wrong places: for you know, Sir, you never cite right.

But, Sir, that the world may see how impudent you are, and how resolved to deny Truth, where­soever you finde it, I desire all to take notice, that long before your Seventeenth or Eighteenth Letter, (where you urge this Argument so in­solently) the places were cited, and publiquely allowed to be truly cited, and that even by your own selves, as is evidently convinced in Father Annats Answer to the Iansenists Complaint, where you have the Iansenists own confession, and the So [...]bonists citing the places; and besides Father Annat hath also cited the places: All that can be r [...]plied is, that the a page is not cited; whichis a meer childish reply, when the Book and Chap [...]r is cited. After all this, if you [Page 450] will needs make a clamour, you do but shew that Hereticall Spirit, which you would so fain hide: for never any Catholique used such extraordina­ry obstinacy, as this is, which mak [...]th you resol­ved rather to deny that you have eyes to see, that which all the world, that will look in the B [...]ok, doth see, then to submit to the Authority of the Church: which considered, you dese [...]ve not at all to be shewed the places. Yet because here in our Countrey your asseverations may do hurt, not to Catholiques, (for they know whom they are to believe; they know the respect they owe to the Chu [...]ch) but to Protestants, who may take your bold Assertions for Truths, and so think, upon your credit, that the Pope, the Sy­nod of France, and the Catholique Church ar [...] all in an errour; to take away this occasion of scandall I will set down the places, and the page too, as you desire, where the Propositions are fully taught in Jansenius. Though I intend no [...] this for to adde any Authority to the Popes Bulls, or to the Synod of France's assertion; for what can it adde to light a candle at noon-day? Nor would I have any man think, that if I have not cited the places to his gust, therefore they are not in Jansenius. No, any man may dispute against my opinion [...]; none against the Church. Yet I am perswaded the places are so clear, that no man having once read them, can make any doubt, but that the Propositions are truly taken out of Jansenius, and condemned in his sense; which is that that Pope Alexander saith, Ex libro Cornelii Jansenii excerptas, ac in sensu ab [...]odem [...]nten [...]o damna [...]as fuisse definimus & declara­mus. [Page 451] We define and declare that (the Five Pro­positions) are gathered out of the Book of Cor­nelius Iansenius; and that they are condemned in the sens [...] int [...]nded by him.

And because both the Bull, and the Book of Jansenius, are written in Latin, and can­not be examined but by those that understand Latine, I shall content my selfe to cite them in their owne language. Those, who under­stand not Latine, may be satisfied with the citations in English already set down in Father Annats Discourse, before the Answer to the Sixteenth Letter. In citing the page and column of Jansenius his Book, I use the Impression of Paris, of the year 1641.

Prima Propositio condemnata.

Aliqua Dei Praecepta hominibus justis, volentibus & conantibus secundum praesentes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: Deest quoque illis gra­tia, quâ fiunt possibilia.

Jansenius Tom. 3. lib. de Gratia Christi Sal­vatoris, cap. 13. pag 135. columna prima prope initium, post soluta argumenta in con­trarium, sic a [...]t.

Ex [...]âc indubi [...] â doctri [...] â quaedam non parvi momenti ad hanc rem spectantia inferuntur & clarescunt. Primum quidem, esse quaedam ho­mini p [...]aecepta, secundum sta [...]um & vires in qui­bus constitutus est, impossibilia.

Secundum, non adesse semper gratiam quâ [Page 452] possimus, hoc est, qua eadem praecepta implere sufficiamus.

Tertium, hanc impotentiam reperiri non so­lùm in ex [...]oecatis, & obduratis, & infidelibus, (de quibus nunquam Augustinus vel Ecclesia, sed solùm Scholastici nonnulli ex humanis ratio­nibus, dubitârunt) sed etiam in fidelibus & justis, qui & fidem Christi & charitatem Justitiae susceperunt.

Quartum, hanc impossibilitatem fidelibus acci­dere, non tantum quando nolunt praecepta face­re, sed etiam quando volunt.

Haec Jansenius loco citato. Postquam autem multis Augustini sententiis (licet perperàm inte [...]ectis) doctrinam suam fus [...] stabilisset, tum demum pag. 138. colum. 2. lit. C. sic concludit.

Haec igitur omnia plenissimè demonstrant, ni­hil esse in Sancti Augustini Doctrina (ita scili­cet semper Augustini tribuit, quod ipse sentit) certius & fundatius, quam esse praecepta quae­dam, quae hominibus, non tantum infidelibus, excaecatis, & obduratis, sed fidelibus quoque & justis, volentibus, conantibus secundum praesen­tes quas habent vires, sunt impossibilia: Deesse quoque gratiam, quâ fiunt possibilia. Ho [...] enim [...]x Sancti Petri exemplo aliisque multis manife­stum est.

Secunda Propositio condemnata.

Interiori Gratiae, in statu naturae lapsae, nunquam resistitur.

Jansenius Tom. 1. libr. 5. de Haeresi Pelagi­anâ [Page 453] cap. 17. pag. 120. col. 2. lit. E. de Gra­tiâ Christi post Adae lapsum da [...]â, quam vo­cat initio capitis 17. Christianum Adjuto­rium, & saepe simpliciter Adjutorium vocat, sic loquitur.

Non est ergo Adjutorium ullum, quòd solùm possibilitatem (id est potentiam) volendi atque agendi adjuvat, ut eo pro solo nutu hominis con­currente voluntatem obediendi sibi sumat homo vel tribuat, sed quod ipsam voluntatem a [...]que actionem invictissimè dat & facit.

Tom. 3. lib. 2. de Gratiâ Christi Salvatoris, cap. 4. pag. 41. columnâ 2. lit. A.

Adjutorium vero infirmae captivaeque volunta­tis vult esse tale, (scilicet Augustinus vult, cui Jansenius suam sententiam semper tribuit) quo si [...]t ut vesit; hoc est, esse hujusmodi, ut simul ac da [...]ur, ipsum velle voluntati detur; & si non de­tur, nunquam velit: quia fine illo nunc propter infirmitatem velle non possunt.

Et eodem Tom. ac libr. cap. 24. pag. 82 col. 2. lit. E.

Gratiam Dei Augustinus ita Vict [...]icem statuit, ut non raro dicat, hominem operanti Deo per Gratiam non posse resistere: sed è contrario Deum, non quicquid voluntatem fa­cturam praevidet, sive absolu [...]è, sive conditio­natè, sed quicquid omnino voluerit, in voluntate operari.

Et capite 25. reflectens ad ea, quae proximè ci­tato capite 24. dixerat, sic incipit.

Haec itaque est vera ratio & radix, cur nulla omnino medicinalis Christi gratia effectu suo ca­reat, sed omnis [...]fficiat, ut voluntas velit & aliquid [Page 454] operetur. Quod quamvis gratiae istius congruae Auctoribus (intelligit Theologos Scholasticos, praecipuè Societatis Jesu) permi [...]um videatur, veritas tamen est in Scripturis Sacris & Augustini scriptis explorata.

Et paulo post pag. 83. colum. 1. lit. A sic habet.

Apud Augustinum gratia & opus bonum ita reciprocantur, ut quemadmodum ex grat â datâ mox effectum operis consecu [...]um inferre solet, ita vice versa ex defectu operis gratiam non esse datam.

Porro Titulus istius capitis 25. est talis.

Decimò ejus (gratiae scil.) efficacissima natura declaratur ex eo, quod nulla prorsus [...]ff [...]ctu ca­ret, sed eum in omnibus, quibus datur, infallibi­liter operatur.

Qui ergo dicit de interiori gratiâ post lapsum data, gratiam ipsam voluntatem & actionem invictissimè dare & facere; Gratiam ipsum velle voluntati dare; Hominem operanti Deo per gratiam non posse resist [...]re; nullam omni­nò medicinalem Christi gratiam effectu suo carere, sed omnem efficere, ut voluntas velit & operetur; ita ut ex defectu operis possit in­ferri defectus gratiae; quae nunquam effectu caret, sed in omnibus, quibus datur infallibi­litèr operatur: Qui [...]aec, (inquam) dicit, nonne manifestè docet totum, quod hac proposi­tione asseritur, viz. Interiori Gratiae in sta­tu naturae lapsae nunquam resistitur? Ex his ergo locis convincitur, hanc secundam Propo­sitionem verissimè dici in Bullâ Alexandri Septimi ex Cornelii Jansenii libro excerptam esse, & in ejus sensu damnatam. Innumeri [Page 455] tamen loci alii sunt, quibus id ipsum docetur: quibus citandis supersedeo.

Tertia Propositio condemnata.

Ad merendum & demerendum in statu naturae lapsae non requiritur in ho­mine libertas à necessitate; sed suf­ficit libertas à Coactione.

Jansenius Tomo tertio toto libro sexto, qui est de Libero Arbitrto, ferè nihil aliud agit, quam ut probet, nullam aliam necessitatem repugnare libertati ad merendum & deme­rendum in statu naturae lapsae, praeter ne­cessitatem coactionis: speciatim tamen haec habet. Capite Sexto distinguit ex Augu­stini doctrinâ duplicem necessitatem. Ʋnam vocat in ipso Titulo necessitatem coactionis; alteram necessitatem simplicem, seu volunta­riam. Voluntaria autem necessitas est illa, juxta Jansenium, cum quâ voluntas opera­tur licet necessariò. Coacta illa, quae etiam repugnantibus, invitis, & nolentibus nobis sit; ut mors, nutritio per cibos sumptos, & similia. De his verò pag. 268. col. 2. lit. D. sic ait.

Doctrina igitur Augustini est, necessitatem illam primam (scil. coactionis) capitali [...]èr re­pugnare voluntati; non autem illam necessita­tem, quae simul est voluntaria; qua scil. necesse est aliquid fieri, non repugnance sed immutabi­liter volente voluntate. Mira videbitur Schola­sticis ista doctrina; & tam [...]n in Augustini prin­cipiis est indubitata.

[Page 456] Et eodem capite pag. 269. col. 1. lit. D.

Ha [...] autem submota necessitate (cogente vo­luntatem) nullam aliam timet libertati volunta­tis; quantumvis dicatur esse necessarium ut veli­mus: ubi de necessitate determinationis ad unum cum imprimis loqui ex multis manifestissimè liquet.

Et pag. 270. colum. 1. lit. B.

Nunc veto in Augustini sensu adstruendo p [...]rgamus. Nam eadem illa doctrina, Quod so­la necessitas coactionis adimat libertatem, non necessitas illa simplex & voluntaria, ex aliis ejus locis non difficilè demonstrari potest.

Et pag. 309. capite 38. quod est ultimum libri Sexti, col. 1. lit. C. de Antiquorum sensu sic loquitur.

Nihil omninò de necessitate Actus voluntarii curavêrun [...]; sed non obstante immutabili necessi­tate, omnem omninò rationalem voluntatem (hoc est voluntatis motum) & liberam, & electi­vam sui objecti posuê [...]unt, sola exclusa violentiae coactionisque necessitate.

Et prope finem paginae 309.

Unanimitèr const [...]n [...]ssiméque docent, volun­tatem hoc ipso, quo rationalis est, esse liberam.—Nullam Immutabilitatis, Inevitabilitatis, vel quocunque voces nomine, sed solam coactio­nis necessitatem ei repugnare.

Et libro octavo de Gratiâ Christi Salvatoris, pag. 371. cap. 9. colum. 2. lit. D.

Juxta principia [...]orum (Patrum) nulla Gra­tiae essicacia, nulla necessitas actibus voluntatis liberis formidanda est, sed sola vis coactionis, & necessitas violentiae.

Quarta Propositio condemnata.

Semipelagiani admittebant Gratiae in­terioris necessitatem ad singulos Actus, etiam ad initium Fidei: Et in hoc erant Haeretici, quod vellent eam Gratiam talem esse, cui pos­set humana voluntas resistere & ob­temperare.

Du [...]s partes habet haec Propositio. In prima asseritur Jansenium docere, Semipelagianos, seu Massilienses, admisisse Gratiae interioris necessitatem ad singulos actus, ctiam ad ini­tium Fid [...]i.—Hanc partem docet Jansenius Tom. 1. libr. 8. cap. 1. pag. 188. columna 1. lit. D. ubi de Scmipelagianis sic habet.

Solâ Christi Gratiâ & Baptismo sentiunt h [...] ­minem à perditione pos [...]e liberari.

Et § sequente.

Fatentur hanc Dei Gratiam, n [...]n solum pro­pter peccati remissionem, quae in Baptismo datur, esse necessariam, sed imprimis ut ad incipiendum & perficiendum quodcunque opus bonum homi­nis lapsi insirmitas adjuvetur.

Et Capite 3. ejusdem libri pag. 189. col. 2. lit. C.

Cum igitur duplices Gratiae sint, hoc est, du­plicia divinae largitatis auxilia, remota & proxi­ma, quibus homo ad propositi divini scopum, sa­lutem ae [...]ernam, provehatur, neutra [...]psi cuiquam ex judicio divino sub [...]rahi volunt, [...]ed omnibus esse promiscue praeparata. Remota voco, quae [Page 458] g [...]at [...]â quâ [...]am propinquiore & actuali indigent, ut ad sa [...]ut [...]m homini prosint, ut [...]ncarnatio, in [...]nce Redemptio, Baptismus, & hujusmodi. Proxima, ipsas Gratias internas, quas dicimus actuales, quae in ipsum voluntatis modum in­sluunt.

Secunda pars Propositionis condemnatae est, In hoe erant Haere [...]ci, quod vellent eam Gra­tiam talem esse, cu [...] posset human [...] volun­tas resistere, vel obtemperare. Hanc autem doce [...] in fine capitis citati; ubi haec verba habet.

Ex quibus manifestum est, omnibus omnino S [...]m [...]p [...]lagianis duo ista communia fuisse dogma­ta, & v [...]lu [...]i Cardines erroris: Quod Deus gene­ral [...] quodam proposito, quantum in se est, vellet omnes omnino homines salvos fieri; & conse­quen [...] è [...] in omnes omninò gratiam suam indi [...]e­renti quâdam bonitate profunderet, quâ possent, si ve [...]lent, ad salutem salutisque remedia omni­b [...]s proposita pervenire.

Et capite sexto pag. 195. col. 2. lit. C.

In h [...] e [...]go propriè Massiliensium error situs est, q [...]ò [...] aliquid p [...]maevae libertatis reliquum pu­tant; quo, [...]icut Adam, si voluisse [...], poterat per­sevetantèr operari bonum; it a lapsus homo sal­tem credere posset, si v [...]llet: Neuter tamen [...]ine inte [...]io [...] is g [...]atiae adjutorio, cujus usus, vel ab­usus, relictus e [...]et in utriusque a [...]bitrio & po­test [...]e.

Rursum Tom. 3. lib. 3. de Gratia Christi Sal­vatoris, cap. 1. pag. 103. col. 2. lit. E. post­quam ex aliis capitibus rejecerat omnem gra­tiam sufficientem, se [...] omnem il [...]am, cum [Page 459] qua posset homo operari, si vellet, tum eandem ex hoc etiam capite his verbis re­jicit.

Quia est Adjutorium, quod Massilienses ad credendum necessarium es [...]e, a [...]que ita sufficere statuebant, ut cum co credere posset homo, si v [...]l­let. Qui tamen tanquam Haeretici proscripti sunt, non aliam ob causam, nisi quia tale auxili­um homini sufficere putarent.

Qu [...]nta Propositio condemnata.

Semipelagianum est dicere, Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse, aut Sanguinem su­um fudisse.

Quod Semipelagianis tribuat [...]ans [...]ius [...] assertionem, Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, seu Christus est omnium Redemptor, patet ex Libro Tertio de Gratia Christi Salvatoris, Capite 20. Quod sic in [...]i­pit.

Sed aliud Argumentum pro G [...]a [...]â sufficienti omnium proferri solet, quod Christus est Re­demptor omnium, juxta illud 1. ad Tim. [...]. Qui dedit semetipsum redemptionem pro omni­bus.—Et paulò post—Respondetur, & hoc Argumentum ad nause am usque à Pelagiani [...], p [...]aeser [...]mque Massiliensibus, incu [...]catum sui [...]; ut mirum sit recentiores tanto studio trita Haere­ticorum ar [...]a colligere, & obsoleta recudere.

Et paulò post rursùm de i [...]sdem Mas [...]liensibus, lit. D. Haec habet.

[Page 460] Tanquam firm [...]ssimam Basim errori suo collo­caverunt illa Scripturae loca, quibu [...] Deus dicitur omnes velle Salvos sieri, atque esse Redemptor omnium.

Jam vero suam sententiam Jansenius eodem capite, pag. 164. col. 1. lit. A. sic exprimit.

Nec enim juxta doctrinam Antiquorum, pro omnibus omnino Christus passus, aut mortuus est; aut pro omnibus omnin [...] tam generali [...]èr sanguinem suum fudit: Cum hoc potius, tan­quam errorem à fide Catholicâ abhorrentem, [...]oceant esse re [...]pu [...]ndum. Omnibu [...] vero illis, pro quibus sanguinem suum fudit, & quatenus pro [...]s fudit, e [...]iam Sufficiens Auxilium donat, quo non solum possint, sed reipsa veli [...]t & faciant id qu [...]d [...]b ii [...] volendum & faciendum esse decre­vi [...]. Nam per illa occultissimè justa, & justissi­mè occu [...]ta con [...]i [...] sua, quibusdam [...]min [...]b [...]s dare prae [...]estinavit Fidem, Charitatem, & in [...]â Perseverantiam usque in finem: (q [...]os absolu [...]è p [...]aedestinatos, e [...]ctos, & Salvandos dicimus) aliis Charitat [...]m fine Perseverantiâ; aliis Fidem fine Charitate. Pro primi generis hominibus, tanquam veris ovibus suis, vero populo suo, tan­qu [...]m absolutè salvando, semetipsum dedit ac tradidit; pro istorum peccatis omnibus omninò delendis, & aeternâ oblivion [...] sepeliendis Propi­tiatio est; pro istis in aeternum vivisicandis mor­tuus es [...]; pro istis ab omni malo liberandis ro­gav [...]t Patrem suum, non pro cae [...]eris, qui à Fide & Charitate desicientes in iniquitate moriuntur: Pro his enim in tantum mor [...]uus est, in tantum rogavit Patrem, in quantum temporalibus qui­bu [...]dam gratiae [...]ffectibus exornandi sunt.

[Page 461] Et ut alia innumera loca omittam, in fine hu­jus Capitis 20. quod & ultimum est, & co [...]elusio libri. pag. 165. col. 2. lit. E. sic loquitur.

Nullo modo principiis ejus (Augustini) con­sentaneum est, ut Christus Dominus, vel pro in­fidelium in infidelitate morientium, vel pro justo­rum non perseverantium ae [...]errâ salute mor [...]uus esse, sanguinem fudisse, semetipsum redempti [...] ­nem dedisle, Patrem orasse se [...]iatur. S [...]ivit enim, quò quisque ab aeterno praedestinatus e [...]at. Scivit ho [...] decre [...]um, neque ullius pretii oblatione mutandum esse; nec se [...]psum velle muta [...]e. Ex quo factum est, ut juxta Sanctissimum Docto­rem, non magis Patrem pro aeternâ liberatio­ne ipsorum, quam pro Diaboli deprecatus fue­rit.

And now, Sir, I hope you will not say, that the places cannot be cited; since there is nothing said in any of the Five condemned Propositions, which is not in the Quotations I have here brought. And besides these there are innume­rable other places, wherein Jansenius ab [...]seth the Au [...]ho [...]ity of St. Augustin, and under his name delivereth the same Heresies. For you kn [...]w, Sir, that 'tis Jansenius his Mode, to make St. Augustin say, what he would have thought: wherein he hath been very inj [...]rious to that Learned Doctour and [...]i [...]ht of the Church; whom after so many [...]g [...] he hath perverted, to make him become a D [...]ender of Heresie. Bu [...] I go on to your other Objections.

The sixth Objection.

a Jansenius in these Five Propositions teacheth nothing, but what the Tomists and Do­minicans teach; But the Tomists are not Here­tiques; Therefore the Propositions in Jansenius are not Hereticall. I answer, This is one of those means, by which you endeavour to evade the force of the Popes Definitions; which Pope Alexander in his Bull points at, when he tel [...]eth us, that [...]rtaine perturbatours of the publique Tranqui [...]lity endeavour by subtle interpretations to clude the sorce of Pope Innocents Constitu­tion. For here you would either bring the Do­minicans Doctrin [...] under the same censure of Heresie, by telling us, they teach the same with Jansenius; or else [...] your selves under their shadow, by telling us, the Dominicans are good Catholiques: and therefore you, who teach no­thing but what they teach, are also good Catho­siques. But I suppose, the Dominicans will no [...] be much troubled at you and Jansenius for this. For since Jansenius saith, (though falsly) that St. Augustin t [...]acheth these Propositions, 'tis not to be wondred, that he abuseth the Dominicans as much, as he doth so great a Doctour of the Church; and the oth [...]r S [...]ints and Fathers, of whom he either telleth us, that they were in an err [...]r, or else that th [...]y taught his opinions. Nor was Jansenius the first that used this way of dis­ [...]u [...]e. The C [...]vinist [...] carried the Lanthorn b [...]fore him; who attribute to S [...]. Augustin all [Page 463] their Errours in this matter; and cite the Do­minicans for their opinions, as may be seen par­ticularly in Prideaux his D [...]cem Lectiones; in which he useth the same Arguments, which Jan­senius afterward used, so fully, that I believe there is scarce an Argument, which Jansenius hath in all his Tomes to prove any of the Five Proposi­tions, or to confute the contrary Arguments, which may not be found in Prid [...]aux. In parti­cular he groundeth his opinion upon St. Augu­stin, and proveth it by the Tomists, and namely by Alvarez, as may be seen in his Second and Fourth Lections, and in all the fi [...]st six generally: where he often (as Jansenius also doth) attri­butes to the Jesuits Semipelagianisme, and would make the Dominicans defenders of rigid Cal­vinisme.

To the Argument then I answer, that the Ma­jor is false. The Tomists Doctrine is very diffe­rent from Jansenius his Doctrine, as it is from Calvins. I could easily prove this: But the To­mists, as they have vertue enough to k [...]ep them­selves within the Church, so they have learning enough to defend their own Doctrine. In the mean time it is enough to say, that never any Tomist advanced the Five Propositions of Janse­nius, or any of them, in his sense; and that Jan­senius himself impugneth the Tomists. And as to the Argument of this Objection, it is a great deal better to put it thus. The Tomists Doctrine is Catholique, as all allow: But the Five Pro­positions are not Catholique, as the Church be­lieveth: Therefore the Tomists do not teach the same with Jansenius his five Propositions.

[Page 464] This discourse you snarle at; yet it is a great deal better then yours. For your discourse erreth in the first Principle of all Discourse; which is to argue à notioribus ad minus nota, from the things that are more known, to those that are lesse known. Whereas you do quite contrary; and out of the lesse known and lesse certain you would overthrow the more known and more cer­tain, You would overthrow the plain sense of the Bull by the Dominicans opinion. Now that the Dominicans opinion is as you say, is a thing lesse known and lesse certain, then the Defini­tion of the Bull; for two Reasons. First, be­cause the Tomists or Dominicans (who can give the best account of their own Doctrine) abso­lutely deny, that they hold as you say, that is, with Jansenius; and tell us, that you and the Calvinists falsly impose on them that which they never taught. Secondly, because that if really the Dominicans (which is not so) should teach the Five Propositions, as Jansenius doth, it is certain and known to all Catholiques, that more credit is to be given to the Definitions of the Pope, then to any Sentiments of any particular School, either Jesuits, or Dominicans, or Sco­tists, as every one of them will, and do allow: And so, if it were granted, that the Dominicans held the Five Propositions, yet that were a lesse certainty, then what the Popes Definition gives. So that, to repeat the Syllogisme once more, we may and must, justly and reasonably, i [...]vert your Syllogisme, and say, The Doctrine of the Do­minicans, or Tomists, is Catholiq [...]: But the Propositions of Jansenius are no [...] Catho­lique: [Page 465] Therefore the Dominicans do not teach the Propositions of Jansenius.

The Seventh Objection.

Father Annat saith, That Jansenius is justly condemned, because he holdeth Calvins way concerning Efficacious Grace: But he doth not hold Calvins way, as is proved by many Sen­tences, wherein he condemneth Calvin: There­fore Jansenius is not justly condemned. This is another of your subtle evasions, to elude the Bull. To this I answer, That I am of Father Annats opinion, that there is no difference be­tween Jansenius and Calvin, as I conceive it may easily be proved. But whether Father An­nat and I judge right or no, it importeth not. For though it were proved, That Jansenius and Calvin held the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace in a very different manner, yet it doth not fol­low, that the Pope hath not justly condemned Jansenius. All that followeth is, That Father Annat and I are out in our opinion; which will not prejudice the Church at all. The Defini­tions of the Bull are clear, and cannot be evert­ed by my opinion, or Father Annats, or any bodies; they containing a greater certainty▪ then any private mans, or any particular Schools Opinion, as I said to the Sixth Objection. And Calvin is condemned on another account, and was so, long before Jansenius was.

Now as to your defence, wherein you heap up Sentences of Jansenius against Calvin, I must tell you first, That you, that quar­rell [Page 466] so much at others for not citing the Page of Jansenius, ought to have cited the page; especially you being guilty of perpetuall forgery and falsification in your Citations. Secondly allowing (which is not granted) that the places are very truly cited, what followeth? Onely this, that Jansenius teacheth Contradictions. For in the places I have cited, he clearly teacheth all that is in the Five Propositions; and in the places that you [...]ite he teacheth the contrary: so the conclusion must be, that he teacheth both against the Church and against himself, and con­tradicteth both the principles of Faith, and his own Doctrine to boo [...]. Which I have no diffi­culty to grant. And this Answer satisfieth also those things, which you bring to clear your self from Jansenisme; by shewing, that you have said many things contrary to the Five condemned Propositions: For though that be true, yet it is also true, that you maintain Jansenius, and say, the Five Propositions are not Hereticall in his sense, which is enough to make you deserve the name of Jansenist.

The Eighth Objection.

The Commissary of the Holy Office, one of the chiefest Examiners, * saith, the Five Proposi­tions could not be censured in the sense of any Author: Therefore they are not condemned in the sense of Jansenius.

I answer first, that this Objection (were all true that is assumed) is extreamly frivolous. For [Page 467] what? Two Popes say in their Bulls, that the Propositions are taken out of Jansenius, and condemned in his sense; and one of the Thir­teen Examiners (as you make him to speak) thought, before the Bull was out, that the Five Propositions could not be censured in Jansenius his sense, or in the sense of any other Authour, because he conceived them to be presented to the Examiners not as the Propositions of any Au­thour. Who are we to believe? The two Popes that have effectively censured the Propositions in Jansenius? Or one Examiner, who if ever he thought as you relate, hath now doubtlesse changed his Opinion? Every Childe will tell you, that one Examiners opinion cannot prevail against the Popes Definition, in what matter soever, much lesse in this. Secondly I answer, that this citation (for you are alwayes unfortu­nate in your citations) is taken out of a condemn­ed Apocryphall Paper, which hath no credit, and ought not to be cited. This I say upon the best Authority on earth, that is, his Holiness's Decree of the Sixth of September 1657. where he saith, Because there are spread abroad some Papers printed in the year 1657. with this Title. Tre­decim Theologo [...]um ad examinandas Quinque Propositiones ab Innocentio X. selectorum suf­fragia, seu (ut apellant) vota, summo Ponti [...]ici scripto tradi [...]a, his Holinesse doth by this present Decree forbid them, and doth declare and decree that no credit is to be given to them, as being Apocryphall, and that they ought not to be cited by any man. So you see how little credit your relation has; and you may gu [...]sse, how little [Page 468] wit he hath, that turned your Letters into Latin, who would have the Reader, upon his bare authority, to believe, that those papers are Au­thenticall, though the Pope decre [...] the contrary.

The Ninth Objection.

There are three principles of * Knowledge, Faith, Reason, and Sense; each have their seve­rall objects, of which they are to be Judges; and each object is to be reduced to its own principle as true judge; matters supernaturall to Faith; matters of Discourse to Reason; and matters of Fact to Sense. But whether the Propositions [...]e in Jansenius is matter of Fact: Therefore the Senses are to be judges of it. I answer, That if you will call this matter of Fact, and will have the eyes Judges whether the Propositions be in Jansenius, read the places which I have quoted, and there you will finde the Propositi­ons. But as to your whole discourse of this Ninth Objection, I must tell you, 'tis a very ridiculous and erroneous discourse. What, Sir; must your understanding censure all the objects of Reason, so that you must not submit to any au­thority, either Humane or Divine? Absurd! Must your Senses be judges of all the objects, which contain matter of Fact; so that neither Reason, nor Revelation, nor the Word of God, can contradict it? Foolish. My eyes report, that a stick put half in th [...] water is br [...]k [...]n, or bent at the Super [...]icies of the water: may not Reason correct this errour of my senses? Faith [Page 469] teacheth many things, that Reason cannot reach unto, though the object be not supernaturall; must not Reason yield to Faith, because the mat­ter is an object within the extent of Reason? For example to have a soul is a thing (to use your own words, pag. 347. li [...]. 6, 7.) naturall and intelligible, of all which things you say rea­son is to be judge. Now suppose some one could not judge by any reason that occurreth to him, that he hath a soul; must that man never believe that men have souls? Again to judge of the presence of a Body is an object of Sense: I say there's fire, because I either see it, or feel it. I say there's a man that speaks, because I hear him. I say this is bread, because I taste it. And yet, Sir, how far our Senses are out sometimes, is evident in the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar; where all Catholiques believe, (as you professe you do also) that there is no Bread after the Consecration, though the Sight, the Taste, the Feeling, carry us to judge that there is Bread, as well after as before Consecration.

Truly, Sir, when I reflect upon your bringing this Argument, to prove that which you often say, (as Let. 17. pag. 298, and Let. 18. pag. 351. and in many other places) That there are no He­retiques in the Church, and that the Church is without Heresie, I cannot but take great com­passion of your blindenesse. I see you take for an argumenent that there is no Heresie, that very thing, which is the originall Source and Cause of all Heresie. You would have every ones reason judge of all the objects of reason; and sense of all the objects of sense: and so you sweep away [Page 470] all submission, all respect to authority, all capti­vating the understanding in obedience to Faith: and by this very means you put an answer into every Heretiques mouth to maintain his perver­sity with. If the Antitrinitarians deny the Blessed Trinity, they tell you, 'tis against rea­son. If the Anabaptist refuse to baptize his Childe, he telleth you, 'tis against reason. If the Quaker refuse a civill respect (as to put off his hat) to any body, he telleth you, 'tis against reason. If the Protestant refuse to believe the reall Presence, he telleth you, 'tis against reason, and his sense dictates to him the contrary. Now if you urge Scripture against these men, they will answer with your own words, in which you abuse the authority of St. Thomas and St. Au­gustin, pag. 347. in fine, When the Scripture presents us with some passage, whereof the lite­rall sence is contrary to what the senses and rea­son judge of it with certainty, we must not en­deavour to weaken the testimony of these (that is of our senses and reason) to submit them to that apparent sence of Scripture: but we must interpret Scripture, and finde out some other sence thereof. And if you urge the Authority of the Church, they will all finde some matter of Fact to elude the Popes Bulls, and the De­crees of Councells, and it will be impossible to finde any Decree of Councell, or Pope, which ha [...]h not as much of matter of Fact, as the con­demnation of Jansenius hath; since the very Decrees of Councells and Popes may be called in question [...] [...]his account, that it is matter of Fact, whether the Decree be truly the Decree of [Page 471] the Councell, or Popes, or no. Thus do you put a weapon into every mad mans hand; and if any man will fancy himself to have certain reason to say, as James Naylour did, that [...]he hath the Spirit of Christ, or is a second Christ, you will maintain, that such a man is not to sub­mit his certain reason to any body. And so in­stead of making it good, That there are no H [...] ­retiques in the Church, you maintain the ground of all Heresie, and take away the Source of all Unity in Faith; which is submission to the Church.

The Tenth Objection.

Those of Port-Royall, that is the Jansenists, condemn the Propositions, which the Pope con­demneth; they maintain nothing against him, or the Church. Therefore they are not Here­tiques.

This is the main subject of the little Letter, which is put between the Seventeenth and Eigh­teenth, and in a manner all the reason of it; for all is a deducing of this in the example of the Arians, Nestorians, Eu [...]yc [...]ians, Monothe­li [...]es, Lutherans, Calvinists, &c. who were therefore condemned, b [...]cause they held Proposi­tions which the Church condemned, and con­fessed they held them; which the Jansenists de­ny. But I answer, That the Jansenists do not condemn the Propositions, which the Pope con­demns, nor maintain what he maintains. Pope Alexander in his Bull saith, We define and de­clare, that the Five Propositions are taken out [Page 472] of Jansenius his Book, and condemned in the sense intended by Jansenius; and we do again condemn them as such; and we condemn the Book of Jansenius. The Jansenists, or those of Port-Royall, say, the Five Propositions are not in Jansenius, nor condemned in Jansenius his Sense; that the Book of Jansenius is not con­demned, and coutaineth not Heresie. What can be more opposite to the Popes Definition?

Now what you reply, That this is not matter of Faith, to know whether the Propositions be Jansenius's, or no, I have already answered you in the Second and Third Objection. Again for what you say, pag. 321. That if any one that hath eyes to read, hath not met with the Pro­positions in Jansenius, he may safely say I have not read them there, and shall not for that be called an Heretique. I answer, That he may say so with­out Heresie; for perhaps he understood not, or ma [...]ke not what he read, or read not all Janseni­us: and meerly to say, I have not found the Propositions in Jansenius, is not to be an Here­tique. But to say they are not there, * (as you do) and to maintain, That the Doctrine of the Book is good and wholesome Doctrine, and not condemned, that is to be a Jansenist, and to de­fend Hereticall Propositions. The sequell will shew the Truth of what I say, and declare the aim of these turbulent spirits. They do not say, we have read the Book, and cannot finde the Propositions there, for to make the world be­lieve that they are Dunces, or cannot understand La [...]ne; for it were not for their purpose to be [Page 473] thought simple fools: But they say so, That the world upon their credit may judge that the Five Propositions are not there; or (which is equivalent) that the Doctrine which is there, is good Doctrine, and not condemnend. And so by saying this, they do really approve the Do­ctrine and Authority of the Book, and condemn the Church for falsely censuring a good Book. Nor is this to guesse at their intentions, as the Authour of the Provinciall Letters saith (Let. 17. pag. 301.) For it is evident, that no man would tell us, as he doth, That above Sixty Per­sons, all Doctours, have read the Book, and can­not finde the Five Propositions there, for any other reason then to make the world think that they are not there, and that there is nothing con­demned in his Book.

Now as he could not be esteemed a Christian as to his belief, who having the repute of a Doctour should say, I have read over all the Al­coran, and finde nothing in it against reason, and which may not well be believed: so he cannot be esteemed a Catholique, who after the Authority of the Popes Bull, the Synod of France, and the whole Church, should say, I have read over all Jansenius his Book, and finde no Hereticall Pro­positions there. Certainly it were no rash judge­ment, to thinke that man no Romane Catho­lique, who should say, I have read all Luthers Works, and all Calvins too and finde not any thing there, which is not Orthodox; since the Romane Church hath condemned those Books. And so also it cannot be deemed a rash judge­ment to think him no Catholique, who saith as [Page 474] much of Jansenius. For the Doctrine of the five Propositions is as plainly laid down in Janseni­us, as anything contrary to the Catholique Faith is in Luther or Calvin, or any Heretique.

And this, Sir, as it confuteth your reason, so I hope 'twill take away the wonder, you express so largely in the beginning of your Letter, at seeing those of Port-Royal called Heretiques; who, as you say, admit the Propositions condemned in the Bull. For if they allow the Bull, and con­demn the five Propositions condemned in the Bull, they also maintain Jansenius, and defend the five Propositions in his Book; which they will have to be all good and Catholique. And in so doing they shew themselves to be manifest Heretiques, by really maintaining that which they verbally deny; or if you will have it in o­ther terms, by granting the five Propositions to be Heretical in the Bull, and defending them to be Catholique in Jansenius, though they be the same in both places, as is evident to all that can read, by confronting the places: and to all that cannot read, by the publique Authority of the Church. Whereas on the contrary no man de­nyeth the Propositions to be in Jansenius, that deserveth any credit. For that the Author of the Provincial Letters telleth us, there are above sixty Doctours, who have read Jansenius and finde them not there, signifieth nothing: that Authour being a man that dareth not shew his face; a man convinced of notorious Impostures and falsifications; a man that advanceth so many things against reason, that he seemeth to have lost his wits, or drowned them in passion. And [Page 475] yet this very man, who brings this to excuse him­self from Heresie, dareth not name one of those Sixty Persons; which maketh all men justly suspect, either that there are no such persons to be found, or else that they are not responsible men, since they dare not own, what he assureth, that they say. So that me-thinks this Argument of Sixty Persons which he bringeth, is just as if a man convinced before a Judge, by a number of sufficient legal Witnesses, of stealing a Horse, should answer for himself, that above sixty per­sons, whereof he will produce never a one, could swear, that they never knew him to be a Thief, though they have known him all his life time: which would never save that man from the Gal­lowes.

And so, Sir, all the Arguments, by which you in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letter, and your Friend in the Little Letter, which lyeth be­tween these two, endeavour to prove, that the Jansenists ought not to be called Heretiques, are fully confuted: and it is made clear, that never a reason you alledge, excuseth the Jansenists, not onely from Schisme, (which your friend pag. 321. alloweth that they deserve) but from the ti­tle of Heretique: since they maintain in Janse­nius those Propositions, which the Pope and the unversall Church tell us, are Hereticall in Jan­senius.

Now as I promised, I will say a word or two to your Stories; whereby you would prove, that Popes and Councels may erre in matter of Fact. The first thing then that I say to all your Stories and passages of Fathers and Divines, by which [Page 476] you would prove, that Popes and Councels may erre, is, that they need no Answers at all. This is evident, because they are all brought to prove that which is not in question betwixt you and your Adversaries. It is granted to you, that a Catholique may hold, that a Pope or Councel may erre in matter of Fact; for example, that a Pope may upon a false Information esteem a man unjust, Simoniacall, or Hereticall, who is not so. It was therefore to no purpose for you to prove this with many Stories and Allegations; for it made nothing to your businesse. But, Sir, that which you were to have proved was, that they (the Popes and Synod) have erred in this matter of condemning Jansenius. But this is so impossible to do, that you never go about it, save onely by saying, that the Jesuits procured the Bull: which how fond a toy it is, I shewed in the beginning of this Letter, where I answered what you say against the Jesuits. This is the first thing I had to say concerning your Stories.

The second thing is, that your alledging these stories, as you do, maketh me much suspect that which you would so sain hide; that is, that you are an Heretique. What dutifull subject would rip up the faults, or disgraces, of his Sovereigns predecessours, when he were not forced upon it? or what Catholique would make it his businesse, to divulge the errours committed by Bishops and Popes, when it made nothing to the aim of his discourse? Constantine is commended for saying, that if he saw a Priest commit Fornication, he would cover him with his own robes, to hide that crime from all the world. But you tell us pag. [Page 477] 308. That you think fit to accustome us to the contrarieties, which happen in the Church in matter of Fact, and give us instances of one Fa­ther of the Church against another, of a Pope against a Pope, and of a Councel against a Coun­cel. What Catholique, I pray, ever thought this [...]it? or what good can this produce? what could the sequel be, (were you a man of any credit in your stori [...]s) but that the people by this means should be lead by the hand, as it were, to con­temne the Authority of Fathers, of Councels, of Popes, and of the whole Church? When I read your first Letters, I imagined you had some spleen against the Jesuits; but now I see your malice is against the Church. You load the Je­suits with calumnies, that it may be thought, that men of such wicked practices, as you describe them, might easily be believed to have wronged Janseniu [...] by false accusations. And you set out many Histories of the Errours of Popes and Councels, that it might as easily be believed, that the Pope and Synod of France have [...]rr [...]d, in condemning Jansenius upon the Jesuits false in­formation. And so you leave nothing certain in the Church, nothing to be obeyed; for what is certain? what is to be submitted unto, if not the Decrees of Popes and Councels? But I desire the Reader to take notice, that as you have done in the Jesuits Books, so in the Histories of the Popes and Councels which you mention, you have falsified and misapplied many things, and given for certain, that which the best Authors have de­livered as very dubious and suspected; as may be [Page 478] seen in Baronius, Bellarmin, and others; where is set down a clear answer to every one of these sto­ries. But you did not think sit to set down the Answers; it was enough for you to bring the Objections, so to undermine, as much as you could, the Authority of the Church, by making the world think, Fathers were against Fathers, Popes, against Popes, Councells against Coun­cells: which never was in any matter, which brings any consequence to destroy the union of Faith, and submission to the Church, which is that you would overthrow. It would be too long a businesse to refute every particular story. I con­tent my self then to tell the Reader, That 'tis you that tell these stories, that is, one, who for his perpetuall Imposture deserves no credit all. And that Baronius, and Bellarmin, and many Learned Controvertists beside, have solved all the difficulties which occurre in these pas­sages; all which have been objected by ma­ny Adversaries of the Catholique Church with more vigour, then this Pedant objects them with.

The last thing then which you say, and with which I conclude, is, That you tell us in the end of your Eighteenth Letter, That Jesuits wrong the memory of a Bishop, that died in the Com­munion of the Catholique Church, and make a great noise about a matter of no concern. Your Pi [...]y to Jansenius his memory is but meer Hy­pocrisie. You would have him judged a Saint, though it were with censuring Pope Innocent, and Pope Urban, and Pope Alexander, and the [Page 479] whole Synod of France, who are not excusable, if Jansenius his Book be Catholique. But you care not, that all the Popes and Bishops of the Church [...]e thought never so wicked, so Jansenius passe but for a Saint: You care not how impi­ous you be against all both living and dead, so you be but pious towards Jansenius, because of your affection to his Herr [...]ie.

And how can you call this a matter of small importance, for which you make so great a noise, and which evidently is such, that the whole Church is concerned in it? If what you say be true, the whole Church is in an errour, for falsely condemning Jansenius. If your Ar­guments be good, there must be no power in the Church to condem [...] any Heretique; for never any was, or can be, more clearly and le­gally condemned, then Jansenius his Book. If you might have your will, the Church should lose all Authority in de [...]ining matters of Faith, because you will in all cases, as well as this of Jansenius, [...]inde matter of Fact, wheresoever any words written or spoken do intervene; which shall serve you to cast a mist before the eyes of ignorant people to delude them, and winde them into an errour against Faith. The question is not betwixt the Jesuits of France, and an idle Libeller, whom they might easily contemne, but it is betwixt the Church of Christ and Here­ [...]ie. If the Jesuites appear in this quarrell, they do their duty, and oblige all Catholiques, whose common cause they defend, in a mat­ter, [Page 480] where (though you slight it) the Authori­ty of the Church is at stake, and would be over-thrown, if the Jansenists of Port Royall could prevail. But he that secured his Church from the Gates of Hel