AN ANSWER TO THE Provincial 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 additionals are showed to deserve no Answer; Also an Appendix, showing the same of the Book called, A further Discovery of Jesuitism.  
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 Satirical Libels, which he called Provincial Letters. His main drift was to establish the Heresy of Jansenius; that is, that Heresy, which denieth Christ to be the Redeemer of all men; and among other Enormities teacheth, that God commandeth things that are impossible, not only 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 chief labours, and with this his last Letters end. Yet to cloak this foul design with a pleasing outside, he often makes Profession of sincere Faith, and of great Reverence to the Sea Apostolic; and condemneth verbally the Five Propositions of Jansenius censured by the Church as Heretical. Yet this he doth so as still to excuse Jansenius his Doctrine and the Jansenists from Heresy. He would be thought to drive at nothing, but (the old pretence of Innovatours) a Reform, in correcting abuses and errors crept into Divinity-Schools, especially among the Jesuits, 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 man's cost, sported with his Letters; not marking, that whilst they were invited to make a jest 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 horror at these scandalous Libels; and fearing the sad events, which these profane Railleries' did bode, thought themselves obliged in conscience to suppress 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 publicly burnt by the Hangman, the 9 of February, in the year 1657. On the 13. of July in the same year, the Archbishop of Machelen, Primate of the Low-countrieses, (to secure his Subjects) gave his Approbation to the Answers of the Provincial Letters: and a Month after, to wit, on the 13. of August the Vicar General of Liege did as much. And on the 6. of September than next ensuing, the universal Pastor of the Church, Pope Alexander the Seventh now sitting▪ condemned all the Eighteen Provincial Letters, under the Penalties specified in the Council of Trent, and the Index of Forbidden Books.  
These infamous Letters then, branded with the ignominy of so many Censures, and banished all Catholic Countries, came for their refuge into England. And they found a Translator, who either for his hatred to the Catholic Church, or private spleen to the Jesuits, or for love of Jansenisme, or for desire of gain, (for nothing sells better than a Libel) set them out in an English dress: And that they might the better please those ears, which itch to hear something against the Jesuits, he baptised them by a new name of the Mystery of Jesuitism; it being common to Fugitives that are forced to fly their Country, to change their name.  
And the good Translator 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 mankind. What Alteration? This. The Jesuits hitherto by all men held in esteem for Learning and Virtue, (if we believe this Translatours Poetical Prophecy) will be looked on hereafter as the most abominable and despicable thing in the world. Surely this man taketh the Jesuits for an Army of Philistims, which he is to conquer with the Jawbone of an Ass. But Good Mr. Translator, do you indeed think as you say? The world hath thought the Jesuits men of some worth. The Wisest of our Age have given them commendation; they have had learned Adversaries, both Protestants and Catholics, who opposed them so as not to despise them. Their Industry hath traveled 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 Countries, Cities, and Towns, where Catholic 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 Mankind? let's hear.  
Quid dignum tanto scret hic promissor hiatu.  
The reason is, because a French man, whose Letters this Translator hath done into English, saith so. But who was that French man? A man that by his own confession is no Churchman, no Priest, no Doctor, no Protestant, no Catholic. A man, of whom all the good that's known, is that he can write a Libel well, and challenge others boldly, without ever heeding whether what he saith be true or false, Catholic or Heterodox, sense or nonsense. A man, that's ashamed of nothing but of himself; for in all his daring Propositions he dareth not say who he is; in all his desperate adventures he will not venture to show his face.  
And shall such a man as this work that strange Alteration in Mankind? Shall a Libel be able to sway the judgement of the Wise, and balance all that the Light of Reason can dictate to the contrary? The Catholic Church is full of men of all ranks and conditions, Rich and Poor, Noble and Ignoble, Religious and Secular, Soldiers and Gownsmen, who from their childhood to the several ages they are now in, have been familiarly acquainted with the Society, and had the first Tinctures of Learning and Virtue 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 Libel turned into English speaketh them to be quite contrary, to what the world knoweth them, and seethe 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 Libel, than their own eyes, their own reason, their own long experience. The effect showeth what spirit animated the Translator in this Enthusiasm. 'Tis two years since the Book hath been out, and the world hath seen no alteration wrought by this Work: the Jesuits have not lost one Friend by means of it. Had this Letter-writer endeavoured to keep within compass, and to show us that the Jesuits 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 Jesuits 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 privilege 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 tax the Jesuits Doctrine generally as a monstrous Source of all Irregularities, and their Persons as the most abominable and despicable thing in the world, that is a mere Paradox, which begets a disbelief, giveth itself the lie, and by saying too much saith nothing. Over-reaching praises are laughed at, and too excessive reprehensions are scorned by all wise men.  
The Jesuits 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 Virtue, which darkens its Lustre: Calumny always 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 easy to play the Momus, easy 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 do it, and not fall into more faults, than the Jesuits do. Let them employ as many hundred Masters in teaching Grammar, Poetry, Rhetoric, Arithmetic, Mathematics, Philosophy, Divinity Positive and Speculative. Let them trace the Jesuits scattered over the face of the whole earth, in all the Nations on which the Sun doth shine, for to convert Infidels. Let them Catechise, 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 oftener than 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 Catholic Church censures the Jansenists Books. The Jansenists censure the Jesuits Moral, and the Church censureth the Jansenists Faith. The Jansenists set out Libels against the Jesuits, and the Church thundereth anathemas, in the Pope's 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 lays on the Jansenists, fall on their real Crimes: but the Censures, which the Jansenists give the Jesuits Doctrine, is grounded on false imputation and mere Calumny. This is clearly showed in the Book, which here is answered. All the whole Book of the Provincial Letters, which casts so much dirt on the Jesuits, that the Translator calls it The Mystery of Jesuitism, is a false and groundless Censure, given by an Heretic to Doctrine, which hath the general Approbation of Schools. When I say an Heretic, I would not have our Protestants of England think themselves concerned. I understand the Jansenian Heretic, who dissents as far from the Protestant, as he doth from the Catholic. This then is the aim of these Answers, to show that the Censures, which the Provincial Letters lay on the Jesuits Doctrine, are groundless Censures, and false Calumnies, and mere Impostures: and so the Translator hath his Mystery revealed. It is but a Packet of lying Letters, which he calleth the Mystery of Jesuitism; 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 find it so) it appeareth how unreasonably the Translator vomits up so much gall in the end of his Preface, in making a disgraceful Character of the Jesuits; where he concludeth that the Jesuits 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 Author of the Provincial Letters. For who is the Vermin of Mankind in matter of Faith, but he that denieth, that Christ is the Redeemer of all men; and so openeth a way to desperation, and neglect o● Christian duty? This Montalt doth. Who in matter of Learning can be called Vermin, rather than the Writer of Libels 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 sucked honey. This Montalt doth. Who in civil community can be termed Vermin, but the Detractor? 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 Author of the Provincial Letters deserveth these Titles, his Translator 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 misled, and I wish him hereafter a better employment to practise his pen on, than the translating of condemned Libels.  
Now as to the Reader, to give him some short account of this Work, it containeth several Pieces made by the Jesuits 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 Authors. I will not say much of the Particulars, because I have put to the several 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 additionals. 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.  
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 Impostor, a Cheat, a Liar, who by gross calumnies, and notorious falsities is proved to wrong another man. The Author of the Provincial Letters begun first, and treated the Jesuits as Sycophants, as Corrupters of the Doctrine of the Church, as Abettors of all sorts of Crimes. The Jesuits argue him of falsely calumniating them and their Authors, of Forging and Imposture, of wrongfully taxing good and solid Doctrine, whilst 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 show no favour to either side, but as an equal Judge hear both Parties; and (if he have leisure to view the Authors) I entreat him to do Truth so much right, as to say what he finds. For example, the Doctrine of Probability is by the Author of the Provincial Letters, called an Invention of the Jesuits to palliate crimes, and give scope to Libertines. The Jesuits answer, that the Doctrine of Probability is no Invention of theirs; they cite for that Doctrine a great number of learned Authors, none of them Jesuits, and many of them dead, long before the Jesuits were in the world. That which here I desire the Learned Reader to do is, to examine the Authors which the Jesuits produce for this Doctrine, and as they find 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 prejudicated; but rather credit the Answers here given them by men of known worth (who cite their Authors, and give their reasons) than an idle Pamphleter, who bringeth neither reason nor authority for himself; but with a presumptuous boldness, 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 Catholic Religion, that they confound Rome and Babylon, the Pope and Antichrist, Saints and Idols, Sacraments and Sacrileges, to whom a Jesuit and a Monster are two words that signify the same thing; for those, I say, I commend them to the Man in the Moon to cure their Frenzy. When they have either more wit, or less 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 impartial Readers, either Protestants or Catholic; who when they have read it, will (I hope) find satisfaction: for 'tis a satisfaction to upright minds 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 general Notion of the Transactions in matter of Jansenisme, I have taken some pains to gather together those things, which I hope will satisfy the Reader. And for to make the Relation Authentical, I have not taken any thing on report only, or out of those Authors who have made Invectives against the Jansenists; but out of the Public 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 Catholic Religion. In the Primitive Church there were dives Heretics, Ebionites, Marcionites, Nicolaites, and others, whose Maxims lead men to most foul Crimes: yet the Primitive Church had not then the less fervour and sanctity, nor now the less esteem, for their impieties. As that age, so this and all others are to be judged of, by the piety of the faithful, not by the impiety of those, whom pride hath made Rebels against Christ and his Church. Had the Jansenists been members of the Catholic 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 Catholic Church remains no more responsable for their lives or Doctrine, then for Arius, Nestorius, or any other Heretic. This I thought fit to advertise the Reader of, that he be not scandalised, and measure the Church by those, who are not of the Church, but are her declared Enemies.  
This premised, I come to the History itself. There are then three Persons, who may be looked at, as the main Authors and abbettors 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 Catholic Faith, and subversion also (as Monsieur Marande 
* See his Book entitled, Inconveniens d' Estat procedans du Jansenisme.  proveth it) of the State of France. San-Cyran therefore being apprehended, (for of Seguenot, I intent 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-royal, some six or seven leagues off Paris. This port-royal 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 joining to the Nun's 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-royal, in the Suburbs of St. James at Paris; which sometimes is meant by port-royal 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 criminal in divers points, which concerned the Catholic Faith, and the Doctrine of Christian Duty. The Judges inclining to mildness, would not proceed to rigour against him, but by the King's advice a Paper was presented to him, containing the Catholic Doctrine contrary to his Maxims; 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 witness 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 Catholic Articles; but chose rather to remain Prisoner, then by professing the Catholic Faith, to unsay in public 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 Royal act of Clemency; which was the freeing of prisoners, and recalling exiles from their banishment. He had very great difficulty to resolve on the liberty of San-Cyran; but being solicited by many of the Abbot's Friends, who undertook for him, that he should never meddle with writing, or spreading his venomous Doctrine, at length his Majesty 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 Maxims, 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 Doctor of Sorbon, of whom we shall speak in the third Paragraph.  
All this relation I have out of the Book called the Progress of Jansenisme, dedicated to the Chancellor 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 Authentic Information, (the Original whereof is in Clermont College, and may be seen by any man that will) I have taken that which I thought sufficient, to set down what kind of Doctrine this man vented. I conceive all is not yet known. For San-Cyran above all his other Maxims perpetually inculcated to his Confidents, That they should be sure to keep secret what he taught them; That if they spoke 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 Maxims, 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 faithful to him, nor he to himself, but that many of his Writings and Letters either to him or from him, were kept, and since discovered: all which make a great part of two Books in Quarto; and out of them, as concerning San-Cyrans Doctrine take what followeth.  
First then for himself he teacheth, That he hath his Mission from God; That God giveth him particular Lights, to know the Interior of men; That he learneth not his Maxims in Books, but in God; and that his conduct is in all things according to the interior 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 only in Manners, but also in Doctrine; That God himself destroyeth the Church; That the Bishops and Pastors 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 Spiritual men of these times, understand not the Gospel, nor the ways of Christ; and that he only hath the true light of the Gospel, and perfect Intelligence of the Scriptures; That the Council of Trent was made by the Pope, and by Schoolmen 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 Jesuits 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 interior motions, which God giveth him, though contrary to the exterior Law; and this he maintaineth even in Murder; for the committing whereof this interior instinct is warrant enough. And according to this Doctrine he maintaineth in his Book called the Royal 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 one's self is not mentioned in the Progress of Jansenisme, as the rest are; but he defends it in his Book of the Royal 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 Episcopal Consecration, that is the making of a Bishop, blots out all sins, quoad culpam & poenam, like Baptism: That the Sacrament of Confirmation is more perfect than Baptism, hath more force and more efficacy, and requireth no other dispositions: and therefore that a man in Mortal Sin hath no need of Confession for to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation. That Venial 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 confess the number or Species of Mortal sins, if the Contrition be sufficient. That the Holy Communion hath more force to forgive sins, than the Sacrament of Penance; That the frequenting the Sacraments of Confession and Communion is oftentimes more hurtful, 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 Maxims of San-Cyran; which are Authentically set down in the Information taken of him, and to be seen in the Progress of Jansenisme.  
Now that which gave this unfortunate man credit, and made all that he said to be esteemed good and holy, was his Exterior appearance, which seemed to breathe 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 Hypocrisy. The esteem which the world held in him, bred in him such a height of pride, as made him contemn all that was ordinary. His usual saying was, That the ordinary way was for ordinary people. For himself he dreamt of nothing, and talked of nothing, but the Ancient times, the Fathers, the Primitive fervour of the Church, to which he would reduce the World; whose universal Darkness and Errors he did often bemoan, presuming himself to be the only man able to redress all that was amiss.  
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 from other Masters, if they would follow his Instructions, in the space of six months, he would make them complete 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 gross absurdities, he reaches, That a Priest loseth his Priesthood by committing a mortal 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 mortal sin. Thus his Austerity, which was partly natural, partly affected, got him the opinion of Sanctity; and that bred in him a pride and arrogance fit for an Arch Heretic. All this, and much more concerning this Abbot of St. Cyran, is to be seen in the Information abovementioned.   

§ 2. Of Jansenius.  
Cornelius Jansenius, of whom the late Heresy took its name, was by birth a Hollander of Leerdam, but Student of the University of Louvain; 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 perpetual correspondence with him, giving him continual account of his affairs, and making him sole Arbiter of all his Thoughts, all his Studies, and all his Designs. He oftentimes visited San-Cyran, and 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 public 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 Abbot's chamber, when he was seized on.  
Out of the same Letters it also appears, that Jansenius had sucked in all the poison of that Heretic: for he also despiseth School-Divines, as Babblers; is disgusted with St. Thomas no less then St. Cyran; and relisheth nothing but Antiquity. But above all he hates the Jesuits: against whom he laboured almost perpetually, writing Libels against the Society, (that it is not to be wondered, if his Disciples follow the same train) carping at their Doctrine, defending such as apostatised 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 canonised St. Ignatius and St. Xaverius.  
Furthermore it appears by the same Letters, that he had no small inclination to favour Heresy. For of Marcus Antonius de Dominis, one whom all the world knows of an Archbishop of Spalleto 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 Catholic, save only where he touched on the oeconomy of the Church▪ and shows, how much he was afraid, lest the University of Louvain 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 Catholic.  
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 Jesuits, to the School-Divines, and to the Catholic Church. This design was the reproving of those Catholic Tenants, which were maintained by the Society, and in effect by the whole Church, concerning Grace, , Predestition, etc. To compass this design, 'tis manifest, that from the year, wherein he proceeded Doctor 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 choked in the womb, and never come to see light. And secondly to dispose men's minds so by himself and by his Friend San-Cyrans means, that it might find some great Persons of Authority or Interest, who should favour and maintain it. And in effect they got what 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 Louvain, the Archbishop of Machelen, the Bishop of Gaunt, and divers others, stood stiffly 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 Doctor of Louvain, and Bishop of the Catholic 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 Jesuits; so as it was more than 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 fatal a Blow to the Jesuits Doctrine, that one of the Sorbonists called it the Jesuits Tomb. As for the Oratorians, their special 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 they had practised of a long time, to raise up these Oratorians in opposition to the Jesuits, in hopes (as Jansenius expresses in his Letters) that they might in a short time get all the Jesuits Scholars to them; and being but Clergymen at the Bishop's Disposal, they imagined they should carry the universal goodwill of the Clergy, so that the Jesuits 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' Doctrine, in Flaunders under the shelter of the University of Louvain 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 advertised of these practices, put out his Bull; which he did in March 1642. to suppress Jansenius his Book: for then many unmasked themselves, and spoke plain, even against his Holiness 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 de Auxiliis, forbidden by Paul the Fifth to be treated of under pain of Excommunication. Pope Urban therefore sent redoubled Briefs to suppress 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 faithful 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 show, that Innovations in Religion are promoted by those chief, who aim at Innovation in State.  
Things therefore being come to so great a height in France, that now Jansenisme was form into a considerable body, which might in time prove formidable both to the Church and Crown, the Bishops in their general 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 God's 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 rendereth them possible.  
2. In the state of Nature corrupt, men never resist Interior 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 Interior preventing Grace to every Action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were Heretics 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.  
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 Paternal care of the Universal Church, he would determine what ought to be held; it belonging only 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 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 Heretical, 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 Catholic Tenants, 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 Heretical Propositions, and withal 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 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 public, 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 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops residing at Paris Health and Happiness in Christ.  
That which long ago happened to S. Augustin and the other Fathers of the Counsels 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 anathematised by Pope Innocent the First, the Pelagians would yield to the Authority of so great a Prelate, 
a August. Epist. 92, & 95.  and would not dare to trouble the minds of the Faithful by speaking perversely of Divine Grace. And we hoped also, that those men, who profess themselves friends and followers of Cornelius Jansenius Bishop of Ipres, after that his Five Opinions were condemned and anathematised by Innocent the Tenth, would desist from trouble, or moving any thing more: and wherea● Pope Innocent had by his Decree commanded the Winds, 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 express terms) affirm, and even persuade others, two most vain and groundless things. The one is, that those Five Propositions are not Jansenius': The other, that they are not condemned in Jansenius' 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 merely the reading of the Pope's 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 Scandal 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 Cardinals, Archbishops, and Bishops residing in Paris for Ecclesiastical Businesses, being gathered together, judged that this business was to be commended to the care of the most Illustrious and most Reverend the Archbishops of Tours, Ambrun, Rouen, 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 Pope's 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 showed us (again gathered together) what they had found, and we found and seen the same, We Declared, and do hereby Declare, 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 Patriarches, Archbishops and Bishops with the Censures and Penalties of Heretics and their abbettors, expressed in the Canon Law, and by other opportune remedies, juris & facti, invoking (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 may all think the same thing according to Jesus Christ, unanimously with one mouth glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, edify the Church of God, and save ourselves, and those who hear us, and are committed to our charge.  


JU●IUS, Cardinal Mazarini, Precedent 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 Rouen.  
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'.  
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 Grass.  
MICHAEL, Bishop of St. Pons de Tomiers.  
The Abbot of Estree nominated Bishop of Laon.  
The Abbot of Servient, nominated Bishop of Carcassonne.  
Friar JOHN DOMINICK, nominated Bishop of Glandeves.  
BERNARD DE MARMIESSH, Agent General of the Clergy of France, nominated Bishop of Conserans.  
HENRY DE VILLARS, Agent General of the Clergy, and Secretary of the Assembly. Given at Paris, March the 28. 1654.    
Here they notify 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 shown the places to the whole Assembly, who being fully satisfied of the verity, (though they never doubted of the Pope's Desinition) have given it under their hands, that the Propositions are truly Jansenius', and condemned in his sense.  
Yet all this was not enough. The proud spirit which bred the Heresy, 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 SERVANT'S OF GOD, To all Faithful 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 judged it to concern the Duty of our Pastoral Charge to make it our principal endeavour, by virtue 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 Apostolical Constitutions, stand not in need of any new Decision, or Declaration, yet in regard that some Disturbers of the Public 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 Apostolical Authority. For indeed our Predecessor Innocent the Tenth of Happy Memory did, some few years since, set forth a Constitution, Declaration and Decision in Form and Tenor following.  
Innocent, Bishop, Servant of the Servants of God, To all Faithful Christians Health and Apostolical Benediction. Whereas upon occasion of Printing a Book: entitled. Augustinus corneliis Jansenii Iprensis Episcopi, among other opinions of that Author, 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 Tenor of the said Propositions is as followeth.  
1. Some of God's 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 rendereth them possible.  
2. In the state of nature corrupt, men never resist Interior 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 Interior preventing Grace to every Action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were Heretics 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 mind, do make it our principal one, that the Church of God committed to us from above, being cleansed from the errors 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 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 Doctors of the Sacred Faculty of Theology, in the presence of sundry Cardinals of the Holy Roman 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 Doctors largely discoursing on all and every of the said Propositions particularly, in several Congregations held in our Presence.  
And whereas from the beginning of this Discussion we had ordained Prayers, as well Private as Public, to exhort the Faithful to implore the Divine Assistance, we again caused the same to be reiterated with greater fervour; and having Ourselves solicitously 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 rendereth them possible; We declare it to be Temerarious, Impious, Blasphemous, Anathematised, and Heretical, and condemn it for such. The Second, viz. That in the state of Nature corrupt, men never resist Interior Grace, We declare it to be Heretical, 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 Heretical, and condemn it for such. The Fourth, viz. That the Semipelagians admitted the necessity of Interior preventing Grace to every Action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were Heretics 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 only for the salvation of the Predestinate, We declare it Impious, Blasphemous, Contumelious, Derogatory to Divine Goodness, and Heretical; and as such we condemn it. Wherefore we command all Faithful Christians of either Sex, that concerning the said Propositions they neither presume to Believe, Teach, nor Preach otherwise, then is contained in our present Declaration, and Definition, under the Censures and Penalties ordained in the Law against Heretics and their Abettors. We likewise enjoin all Patriarches, Archbishops, Bishops, and other Ordinaries of Places, as also the Inquisitours of Heresy, totally to restrain and repress, 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. Nevertheless we intent not by this Declaration and Decision touching the aforesaid Five Propositions, any ways to approve the rest of the Opinions contained in the said Book of Cornelius Jansenius. Given at Rome, at St. Marry 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 scandal 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 feigned and forged at pleasure, or were not condemned in the sense intended by the Author: 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 predecessor, while we were yet but in the Dignity of Cardinal-ship, assisted at all the Conferences, wherein by Apostolical 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 premises; to the end that all Faithful Christians may be held in the unity of the same Faith. We, I say, by the Duty of our Pastoral Charge, and upon mature Deliberation, do confirm, approve, and renew by these presents the above-recited Constitution, Declaration, and Definition of Pope Innocent our Predecessor: and we further Declare and Define, That those Five Propositions were drawn out of the Book of the same Cornelius Jansenius Bishop of Ipres, entitled 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, entitled 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 Faithful Christians to hold, preach, teach, or expound the said Doctrine, either by word or writing, or to interpret it either in public 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 Heretics instantly to be incurred ipso facto, without further Declaration.  
Wherefore we enjoin all our Venerable Brethren, Patriarches, Primates, Metropolitans, Archbishops, Bishops, Ordinaries of places; Inquisitours of Heresy, and all other Judges Ecclesiastical, to whom it shall belong, to cause this abovesaid Constitution, Declaration, and Definition of Pope Innocent our Predecessor 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. Marry 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 Catholic Princes, Prelates, and People; notwithstanding in France there remained, and do remain still to this day, some who could not, or would not be brought back to the unity of the Catholic Church. The chief of these (as for matter of Action) are the Disciples of San-Cyran, Inhabitants, or Confederates of port-royal, the Seminary of this Heresy; and underhand divers mutinous spirits, glad to embrace any thing that looks like a Faction. Among these one (and as far as I hear the principal one) is Arnauld; of whom I will now treat.   

§ 3. Of Anthony Arnauld.  
This man was a Disciple of San-Cyran, and sometimes Director of those at port-royal. He was made Doctor 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 Father's Minims at Paris. The Heretical and condemned Maxims, 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 Heretical Tenets, several Texts of Arnaulds are produced. His Doctrine then is this.  

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 Catholic Verities, but only Tradition. So the Pope, and Counsels, and Scriptures, and Theological Demonstration, are excluded from being any rule of knowing Catholic 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 exterior Reconciliation; but that it is the Canonical Satisfaction, which gives justifying Grace, and revives the Soul: And that it is therefore only that Confession is necessary, that the Priest may set a proportionable Penance.  
5. That the practice of Penance for all mortal Sins, (whether public and scandalous, or private) is, according to the Fathers and Primimitive Church, to go thus. First you must confess and demand Penance. Secondly the Penance is given. Thirdly the Penance is to be fulfilled, during a proportionable space of days, months, 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 fulfiled his Penance, communicateth unworthily.  
6. That the manner of doing Penance (or frequenting the Sacrament of Penance) now adays, is different from what was practised for the first twelve hundred years; that it is an abuse, and wonderful blindness.  
7. That the practice of Penance which is nowadays, favours the general impenitence of the world. In his second Edition he hath changed this Proposition thus. That the Practice of Penance which is nowadays most common, is favoured by the general 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 only by the Title, as a good and pious Work. But the Jesuits at Paris, who discovered the malice of the above mentioned Maxims, preached and wrote against it; and at length it was condemned. By this the jesuites got the ill will of the Jansenists, and animated port-royal against them. Yet all good Catholics thanked the Jesuits for having stood up for the Church, and hindered the consequences which were like to have followed, and the errors, into which many were running unawares.  
Many things were writ to and fro. The Jansenists defending Arnauld, and the Jesuits with other Catholics impugning him. At length Arnauld (who besides the above mentioned pernicious Maxims, 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 Heresy, in the same manner which the Author of the Provincial Letters afterwards held, to wit, by saying, that the Five Propositions could not be found in Jansenius; that it was matter of Fact, and not any Theological point, wherein the Jansenists and others disagreed; and consequently that they could not be called Heretics. 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 cashiered the Sorbon, and had his Title of Doctor 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 show of modesty, and pretence of learning and piety, now they turned to write furious Satyrs (which they call Provincial Letters) against the Sorbon first, then against the Dominicans; but their main fury they discharged against the Jesuits, whom they would needs imagine to be the Authors of all their disgraces: of which they were so sensible, that they seemed half desperate. For now San-Cyrans wicked Maxims were laid open in the Information made against him; which Monsieur Preville printed. Jansenius was condemned (I mean his Book) as Heretical; and the last Pillar of Jansenisme, Arnauld, was ignominiously turned out of Sorbon.  
This is the sum 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 Jesuits are against the Jansenists Doctrine: nor will he think strange, that the Jansenists, after having broached such Impious Doctrine, after having endeavoured to corrupt the Articles of the Catholic Faith, after having showed so much disrespect to the Popes, Bishops, and whole Catholic Church, should falsify the Jesuits Doctrine, and treat them with those terms of ignominy, of which their Provincial 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 Author's 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 Provincial Letters discovered to be an Heretic. 2. His pitiful shifting off the main Question of Jansenisme, which he was obliged to defend; and in place of defence, turning to Slanders against the Jesuits. 3. The wrong he hath done the Church, in endeavouring to make pass, in the vulgar Tongue, under the Name and Authority of the Jesuits, (and thereby giving them a show of truth amongst the vulgar) many false Opinions, which they never taught, but the quite contrary. 4. That what he saith, is taken (chief) out of a Book condemned long since, and burnt by the Hangman. 5. His citing of Authors is full of gross untruth and ignorance; scarce ever alleging any of them in his true meaning. 6. His unworthy handling of Divinity, by impugning grave Authors, and treating most serious matters only 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 Jesuits to be the first Authors and Inventors of that, which was taught and received many Ages before there were any Jesuits 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 miserable wretch that dwelled 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 heinous Errors, 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 Anathematised at Rome, have been a horror to all that have not renounced their F●ith, but live under the name of Catholic. This hath forced the Jansenists to change their manner of fight: they stand no more upon their Defence, but are become Assailants. They have qui●ted the 〈◊〉 intherto agitated, of the Doctrinal P●in●s of Faith, wherein they were always 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 Heretics.  
The resolution of the Fa●hers of the Society, whom these 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 but they themselves; who had long since learned 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 Scandal 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 jesting words, have not the sad effect, which those Heretical Writers (true poisoners of men's Souls) do pretend. And that they may have no better fortune in their Calumnies, than 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 ways of the Jansenists; who (as I have already hinted) by a sleight, very ordinary with Heretics, have quitted their post in the sight of the whole world, not giving now the least Answer to those Reproaches made against them, concerning the falseness of their Propositions challenged to be Erroneous, Scandalous, and Heretical, which as defendants they ought to have maintained; but reproaching the Jesuits with the wickedness of their Moral, by that means becoming the Assaulters, and obliging the others to the Defensive part, in a matter which concerned not the questions in hand. Thus did the 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 justify himself from those horrible Accusations, with which they set upon his innocency; accusing him for ravishing a woman, and barbarously murdering 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 Heretics as the Calvinists of Charenton; or their Benefices (if they have any) from being vacant, (whether they have charge of Souls, or no) which they have now lost by Heresy: Nor if the Jesuits should be proved to err in Morals, is it therefore forbidden to say, the Jansenists are excommunicated; and that those who know them to be Jansenists, cannot in conscience receive the Sacraments from their hands. Nor does it hinder their Books from deserving the fire and faggot, 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 Heretics, 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 Orator 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, than these three words, Jansenists are Heretics.  
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 Maxims, whilst 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 Authors, the one being the Corrector of the other: whereas our Jansenist gathers all that he can make seem extravagant out of many several 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 blind man's 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 persuade these untruths and wicked Maxims 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 Jesuits are in the universal good opinion of all, except only Heretics, 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, than the Jansenists, whom every body knows to have been condemned as Heretics; and it is no less known that the Jesuits have been the first, who opened their eyes against the Errors 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, 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 Jesuits, is to be Orthodox; even so far, that many will be easily persuaded to receive for a lawful 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 universal 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 scandal, and which deserves punishment; slandering learned and virtuous 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 Jesuits, he has rendered 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 authorise their unlawful erterprises; through this belief, that they can commit no sin, whilst they follow the judgement of so many, so knowing, and so virtuous Persons, as are the Fathers of the Society.  
Thirdly, you must know this scraper and patcher up of Calumnies, alleges almost nothing in his Letters that is new, but makes us read a second time the work of one of his Brethren, written near twelve years since, against the Fathers of the Society of Jesus; to which Work, the Author gave this Title, The Divinity of the Jesuits. 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 Pottage; that he may render the Jesuits 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 find nothing but untruths and calumnies; the Author of it falsifying the greatest part of those places he alleges, and many times lying most boldly and impudently: making Authors say that 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 Authors words, every one will credit him, though the Author of the Moral Divinity has been convicted of falsity in the most of the selfsame Allegations. Do but remember after what manner the Calvinists (who have as little truth in their Quotations, as they have in their Faith) allege the holy Scripture, and Sentences of the holy Fathers; that falsehood is entailed on Heresy; and that the Jansenists have that Character of Error 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 alleging of Authors and their Opinions; or their injustice, in forging crimes where there are none; or their inveterate hate against the Jesuits, whom they set upon by false and unreasonable accusations.  
Fifthly, reflect on the manner of this Author's writing; who in matters of Divinity, of Moral, of Cases of Conscience, and Salvation, uses a taunting foolish stile; I will not only say unworthy of a Divine, or an Ecclesiastical 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 do, Disciple of St. Augustin: Let him find me one place in the writings of that great Doctor, where he takes upon him the part of a Jester, or Buffoon. 'Tis the spirit of Heresy, 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 kind of Blasphemy to treat holy things in Rallicry; thus the Devils often endeavour by their jestings to put by the force of Exorcisms, speaking like Buffoons, to stir up the common people to a lose kind of Laughter, the Enemy of Devotion, and the Ruin 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 facile vent, which was, that many Copies were distributed at the cost and charges of the whole Party, out of the Alms 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 but disdain, both of his Person and his Work: but being also a Jansenist, we must drive him away with a horror, since that every Jansenist is an Heretic.  
In the sixth place, consider the ill reasoning of this malicious Writer, who often attributes to the whole Body of the Jesuits, 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 Maxims, or the Moral of the Jesuits, which were scarce ever said by any one of the Jesuits? If Gerson Chancellor of the University of Paris have had some erroneous opinion upon the difference of Venial and Mortal sin, must we censure that as the Maxim, or the Moral of the Sorbon? Richerius had a particular Opinion, which was not approved, concerning the sovereign Pastor, 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 Author but one grain of sincerity, whilst he accuseth one Jesuit for advancing an opinion, which seems not true to him, why conceals he, that many other Jesuits 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 Jesuits Doctrine? whether that which only 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 only one of them has said? Were it not injustice to impeach the whole College 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 gross foolery to charge the Jesuits 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 Jesuits was established. They call Opinions and Maxims of the Jesuits, those very assertions which have been, and are the opinions of others, and which the greatest part of the jesuites oppose in their Writings, as may be seen in the Answer to the Book called Moral Divinity. But all that is odious must be cast upon the jesuites: they are used by their enemies, (such as are commonly Heretics, 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 jesuite, to lie under the lash of every one's censure, when there is power, and impunity. That which is passed by in some Writers, and which is not so much as a light fault in the Books of others, is in the jesuites a crime, an attempt against public Order, an abomination. The Author of the Letters does not reproach the jesuites with any one Maxim, Decision, or Answer, which is not either falsely alleged 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 Doctors, 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 itself. This I say, to the end you may know, that what they attribute to the jesuites, belongs less to them then to others; and that oftentimes the Doctrine, which this good Fellow would make pass as ridiculous, false, and contrary to good manners, is not such in the opinion of many great Doctors, whose Authority must countervail in Schools. It is these we are bound to credit, more than Heretics, and people that know neither speculative, nor positive Divinity; and far more than an ignorant Buffoon, good for nothing, but to jest and play the Comedian, as is the Author of these Letters; who, as himself vouches, is neither Divine, nor Casuist, nor Clergyman; and cannot deny but that he is a ●ansenist, and by a necessary consequence an Heretic, since all Jansenists are so.  
Whence comes it then, that he sets upon the jesuites, rather than upon other Writers that teach the same? Hence, that it is the custom of Heretics 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 withal from her very Cradle, and shall be, so as long as she makes profession of pure Doctrine, and true Virtue. If this sleeveless Writer had had a zeal for the Truth, or a just horror of false Doctrine, he would have fought against error, where ever he had found it, and would have sided with those who maintained Truth, as the jesuits 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 jesuits, 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 persuade the world, that the Doctrine of the jesuites deserves condemnation, since it is that which carries on the War against Heresy, Error, and Libertinism. Therefore the judicious laughed at his Letters, the honest Party detested them, and the Ignorant were scandalised. On the contrary, the Heretics hugged them, and Libertines adored them, Buffoons owned their stile in them, Port Royal their Characters, and jansenists their mode of cavilling, and vainly answering the just reproaches made to their wicked Doctrine: After all this the jesuites 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 Heretic.   

The second Answer. Wherein the Author 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 allegeth. The first is, that the Doctrine, against which he inveigheth, is not ancienter than 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 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 show 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 show, that the Doctrine which he objecteth to the whole Order, is not only 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 rational man will dispute it. I reflect on them, because they are those, by which the Author of this Answer evidently convinceth the Impostor, though he do not where set down these conditions: And I do defy all the Jansenists, and all their Cabal, to make these four Conditions good in any one of all the great number of Cases, which these Letters object. It is easy to object great crimes to the greatest innocency; it is easy 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 I'll 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 Machine of the Objections, made in the Provincial Letters, is mainly built upon the Doctrine of Probable Opinions; which (though the Church hath always allowed) this Letter-writer, and his Translator 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 order, as the Objections (all which are Impostures) do lie 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 Moral Divinity, which is falsely imputed to the Jesuits: and as Father Caussin says, 'Tis the Head of that Book, (a weak, yet malignant Head) which hath an influence into the whole Body.  
Every one knows, that in Moral Theology, as in other Sciences which are taught in the Schools, there are two sorts of Maxims. The one, in which all Casuists generally agree, because either Holy Scriptures, or consent of Fathers and Doctors have made them certain and evident. The other only probable, and such as may fall under dispute, and in which opinions of Authors are divided.  
For what concerns the first sort of Maxims, no man can deny them without temerity; and commonly there are none that disagree with the jesuites in them, but Heretics. As to the second, 'tis lawful for any one to pick and choose out of those several 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 jesuit hath 
a Suarez Disp. 12. de Bonitat. & Malit. Sect. 6.  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 general vote of the Doctors, 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 Brainsick Man. He is astonished, that in questions of Morals our Authors 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 have foreseen his Malady. 
a Quod sint contrariae opiniones inter Doctores sanctitate & scientiâ maximos in materiá morali, aliquando etiam necessariâ ad salutem, patet per exempla. Nam Beatus Thomas in quarto tenet, quod post la●sum in mortale, non oportet aliquem statim consiteri sub praecepto, habitâ copiâ Confessoris, nisi in paucissimis casibus, qui ibi ponuntur. Dist 17. Et cum co tenet Richardus, sed Hugo de Sancto Victore, & Beatus Bonaventura sunt in hoc contrariae opinionis: sanctitas autem, & magnitudo scientiae ipsorum nota est omni Ecclesiae. Neutra tamen illorum opinio reprobatur; et si Beati Thomae opinio communius teneatur: quae tamen minûs tuta videtur. Raimundus Decretista in Summâ tenet, quod participare cum excommunicutis majori, in loquelâ, cibo, & hujusmodi, in casu non concesso, sit mortale universaliter. Sed Beatus Thomas, Johannes Andreas, & Archidiaconus tenent contrarium, & illud contrarium communiter tenetur. Et sic exempla innumera possent poni. D. Antonin. part 1. Tit. 3. cap. 10. de Conscientiâ, §. 10. fol. 63. p. 1. col. 2.  'Tis evident, says 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. 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 Sum, doth maintain, that, generally speaking, 'tis a mortal 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, johannes 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 Criticism, 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 says, 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 Catholic Doctors; of maintaining their own opinions, and of contradicting one the other in such points, as she hath not yet decided: reserving to herself the power of censuring those Propositions, which she judges dangerous. In fine, he will be astonished at his own phantasticalness, 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 jansenists the Doctrine of Heresies. That's the Source of Irregularities, of which I am constrained to mind you. You are convinced to have left the infallible rule of Faith, and instead of repenting of your error, you would fain blame the Society for holding diversity of Opinions in Moral Doctrine. Thus did Wicleffe, finding his errors and cheats discovered, set upon the Doctors of the Canon Law, 
a Decretales cpistolae sunt Apocryphae, & seducunt à Christi side; & Clerici sunt stulti, qui student eas. Haec Propositio suit damnata in Concilio Constantinensi. Sess. 8. Propos. 38.  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 Thunderbolts of the Church, set upon the Holy 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 Vnde sactum est, ut quemadmodum in Theoricls, limits rerum verè divinarum transeundo, non semel in chimaericas abstractiones inciderunt, ita in practicis Morales, regulas agendorum simplices relinquendo, quas simplex, & genuina ratio, & Antiqui patres praescripserunt; tam laxas effecêre conscientias, sub praetextu accommodandi sese infirmitatibus hominum, ut nibil opus sit, nisi secleratiores sieri homines, ut nova aliqua, & licentiosa regula fabricetur. Jansen, Tom. 2. L. Proaem. cap. 8  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 adays required as necessary, to frame a new rule, yet more licentious, of moral life, than that men become more wicked than 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 Scholastic and Moral Divinity, to the end, that by rendering 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 professed enemy of demonstrations, even in Diviniry; maintaining with most insolent boldness, that a 
c Conclusionem è propositionibus elicitam, quarum una sidei est, altera evidenter nota, graves Theologi Haereticam censent: Haeresi vero proximam universi profitentur, & qui eam pertinaciter asserit, since dubio Haereti●us haberi consuevit.  conclusion which is drawn from two Propositions, one of which is of Faith, and the other evidently known, is esteemed heretical by very great Divines; but that all generally confess, it borders upon Heresy; and without all doubt, he who maintains it, most commonly is reputed an Heretic. And in another place, 
d Quae propositionibus ex verbo Dei recta consecutione fluentibus opponuntur, non protinus Haeretica sunt, nec Haeresim innuunt; etfis Dei verbo contraria sint, pertinaciámve demonstrent.  All that which is repugnant to Propositions, which by good consequence are inferred from the word of God, is not always heretical, nor suspected to be so, although it be contrary to the word of God, and be maintained 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 Heretics? You have both said it and published it; you have taught, that 'tis Semipelagianism to say, Jesus Christ died generally for all men. And to that infamous Proposition you have added four others, which have been blasted with anathemas. 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 Heretical Opinions. This is the Source of our contests, and the true cause of your animosity against Jesuits. Acknowledge your error; disavow that false and pernicious doctrine; receive wi●h respect, that which was lately determined in the Assembly of Bishops concerning the Elegy of the Abbot of St. Cyran, and the Heresy 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, whilst you cannot defend yourself; but we must ferret you out, whilst you continue still obstinate in maintaining the Doctrine of Heretical 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 lawful to follow the less Probable Opinion, though it be the less secure. Let 5. Engl. edit. p. 95.  

Answer.  
I ask this wretched Casuist, whether he believe, there are none but Jesuits 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 Jesuits 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 
b 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 Asserendum est, satis esse tutam & probabilem opinionem sequi; & probabiliorem posse optimè relinqui. Vallius Doctor Parisiensis, tract. 12 de human. Actibus, art. 13. Sect. Et sic nonnulli.  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 banished out of all the Schools of Divinity.  
If we must allege the Authority of Fathers, dots St. Antonine encourage Libertinism, 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 choose 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 ways which lead us to the same Town, although one of them be more safe than the other; even so is it in our journey to the Celestial City, one taketh this way, another that, 
d Sed ad hoc respondetur, eligere viam tutiorem confilii est, non praecepti: alias oportet multos ingredi Religionem, in qua tutiùs vivitur, quàm in saeculo. Non ergo oportet de necessitate eligere tutiorem, quando etiam alia via eligi potest tuta. Sicut enim diversae viae conducunt ad unam Civitatem, licet una tutior alia sit; sic ad Civitatem caelestem alius sic, alius sic vadit, & tutè; licet aliquis tutiori modo. St. Antonin. 1. part. Tit. cap. 10. §. 10. fol. 62. p. 2. col 1.  and both safely, although another may take a safer than either? Note that this Authority concludes a pari, or a simili, from the less security in states of life, to the less 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 Inter duram & benignam circa praecepta sententiam, benigna est potius, caeteris paribus, interpretatio facienda● Quod etiam asserit Gulielmus. Hujus ratio est, quia praecepta Dei & Ecclesiae non sunt ad tollendam omnem spiritualem dulcedinem: qualis certè tollitur, quando nimis scrupulosè & timidè praecepta interpretantur. St. Antonin. ibid., fol. 62. pag. 2. col. 2. in fine.  That between two opinions concerning the Precepts, of which one is more severe, the other more mild, we must make, and consequently any may follow (all things else being equal) that interpretation, which is less severe; because neither the Commandments of God, nor his Church, are made to take away all spiritual 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 selfconceited than you appear to be, you would have spared this objection, to have saved your own honour. When that saying 'scaped from you, in your Moral Divinity falsely imposed on the Society, 
e 1. Proposit. de la Theol. Mor.  That the Jesuits permit any thing to Christians, and that they believe all things to be probable, you should at least have excepted your own Maxims; and then we should have been less astonished 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 spiritual Empite, which in your opinion they have got by these probabilities, 
f Let. 5.  reaching forth their hand by an obliging and complying conduct to the whole world, Let. 5. would have been become universal, 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-royal, 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 find 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 yourselves 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. You that have scarce any thing written, which is not condemned as scandalous, Heretical, and pernicious to the salvation of souls; do you believe it the most safe way to defer Communion till the end of a man's life? to submit secret sins to public 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 only one good and learned Doctor, according to Sanchez, renders an opinion probable; which granted, one only Doctor may turn men's 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, says he, that your Doctors 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 find a more ridiculous discourse then this is? If it be not lawful to examine things by reason, which way would he have a Doctor examine such things as are not evident in themselves, nor certain by any principle of Faith, nor determined by any Ecclesiastical or Civil Law, but are yet only 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 mind 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 only probable, evident and undoubted?  
But at least I would satisfy my Conscience, say you: your Conscience is secure enough, if so be you follow the advice of some knowing and virtuous Doctor. You reply again, if it be so, one only Doctor may turn men's 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 virtuous, 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 virtuous, he will have a 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 nevertheless 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 says in the fifth Book of his Counsels 
a Respondeo, quod si confessarius est vir eruditus egregiè, & pius insignitèr, quales solent esse Magistri, Doctores, & Confessarii illustrissimae Societatis Jesus, procul dubio, & absque ullo scrupulo potest, imo & debet credere; adeo quidem ut meâ sententâ non credendo, & non se cjus authoritate tranquillando, peccaret. Navarrus lib. 5. consil. de penitent. & remiss. consil. 2. pag. 232. edit. Colon: Anno 1616.  If the Confessor be a man of any great capacity, learning, and noted piety, such as ordinarily are the Masters, the Doctors, and the Confessors 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' magnus citatur à Sancto Antonino tit. 3. part. 1. c. 10. §. 10. p. 63. his verbis. Quilibet homo cum salute potest sequi in Consi●●is quamcunque opinionem voluerit, dummodo alicujus Doctoris magni opinionem sequatur.  Albertus Magnus should say, Every one without hazarding the loss of his soul, may follow, in taking counsel, what opinion he pleases, provided that it be taught by some eminent Doctor.  
Was it not enough that St. Antonine should teach with Ulricus in his Sum, that if a man consult able Divines in any doubtful case, for which he can find no Authority, to assure him whether it be so or no, he does not sin in following that counsel they give him, although it be not conformable to truth; always 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 Doctors of Sorbon should have been of this Opinion? that 
c Non tamen semper habendus est oculus ad multitudinem dicentium, fed sapientiam cum numero considerabis; quia sicut duos vel tres debiliores valet unus fortis; sic unus oculatus materiam diligenter inquirens tres alios inferiores valet. Major in 4. q. 2. in Proleg. & in respon. ad 5. object. Non nego quin unus possit opinionem multorum castigare.  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 Dicimus doctorem classicum, magnae authoritatis & fama, posse opinionem aliquam novam, firmissimis rationibus roboratam introducere, eamque ita introductam & confirmatam, tutò aliquem sequi posse. Vallius tract. 19 q. 4. a. 15. p. 116, 117.  Du Val had affirmed, One Doctor that is eminent, and 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 virtue) declare himself against them in favour of Catholics, saying (as I have already cited) a Confessor esteemed for his Piety and Doctrine, such as are ordinarily the Confessors of the Society, may satisfy 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 mind you, that 
e Cajetan. in summa. Verb● Opinio. Idem sen●it Sayrus, libr. 1. Clavis regiae, c. 5. ubi citat Cajetanum.  Cajetan treating this matter observes very wisely, that in matters of Faith it is not lawful for any man to follow his own particular opinion, without submitting it to that superior 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 itself doubtful, for fear lest we make Faith subject to error.  
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 virtuous, may render an opinion probable, reflect a little on the Authors of your own Sect, and tell me, whether a particular Doctor can with a safe conscience fetter himself obstinately to his own opinion, after it is condemned for Heretical by the Bishops and Pope. Tell me, whether that man be mindful of Humility and Sincerity, who asks us, to show 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 Maxims of that Author, learn of 
* St. Thom. Quodlib. 3. Art. 10.  St. Thomas, that the simplicity of such, as follow the rash and dangerous opinions of their Masters, will no ways 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 finde a lawful excuse, in the facility with which they embraced his errors; and yet nevertheless that too credulous simplicity was the cause of their destruction and utter ruin.  
Undeceive those silly Women, who have suffered themselves to be entrapped by the Witchcrafts of those deceitful words, under which you have giv●n them the Poison of a corrupted Doctrine. Tell them, that hereafter they never give their Director power over God's Grace, and over even God himself; and tell them, that they writ no more to you, as the 
g This Letter is one of those were made use of in the process against the Abbot of St. Cyran, as well as that which follows, which was written by Monsieur le Maistre, Nephew to Monsieur Arnauld. The Original is kept in Clermont College, and has been already published in a Book, entitled, The progress of Jansenisme discovered, the Copies of which were almost all bought up by the Jansenists as soon as ever it peeped out, to keep the knowledge of it from being public.  Abbess of port-royal writ to the Abbot of St. Cyran; I make an end, Father, by a cessation from all demands, and from all desires, losing 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 rendered 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 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 instead of sacrificing your Pen, your Honour, and your Soul in defence of a declared Heretic, follow the common opinions, which have been approved by Catholic 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 Confessor 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 mortal: citing to confirm 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 forty Authors, alleged by Sancius, who is no Jesuit, but a very learned Master of Moral Divinity. He, after having proved by so great a number of Divines, That a Confessor aught to follow the opinion of the Penitent, after having heard the secret of his sins, adds, that he is astonished, why Sanchez the Jesuit assures us, that very many of these Authors agree only in this point, That 'tis lawful for the Confessor to fellow the opinion of the Penitent, although it be contrary to his own; and that he citys but few, who teach, that he is obliged to it; since that all those he does allege, excepting Rodriguez, and Sa a Jesuit, maintain both the one and the other: and though they do not express it in formal ●erms, yet the reasons, by which they show h● may do it, prove also that he ought: 
a Quo●ies Confessarius potest licitè beneficium Absolution is impendere, ad illud exigendum habet jus justitiae Poenitens; & expressè ad id obligari arbitror sub Mortali, side Mortalibus fit facta Confessio. Nam onus grave esset poenite●tem obligare ad sua detegenda crimina alii Confessario absque necessitate. Docet Sancius, lib. 1. c. 9 num. 29. Quamvis solum venialitèr delinquere Confessarium non proprium existiment Vasquez, Salas, Sayrus, Montesinus; at constringi Confessarium Absolvere poenitentem, contra propriam Sententiam, five sit proprius Parochus, sive alienus, certum reor, Sancius Disp. Select. disp. 33. n. 34. p. 286, & 287.  〈…〉, As often as it is lawful for a Confessor to give Absolution, the P●nitent has in justice a right to demand it. And for my own part, I think, he is obliged under pain of Mortal Sin, if the Penitent have confessed any sins which are Mortal; since that it cannot be but a very great burden to him, to be obliged to declare again the same Sins to another Confessor without any necessity. Sancius teaches this in his first Book, chap. 9 num. 29. although Vasquez, and Salas, (Jesuits) and Sayrus, and Montesinus assure u●, he sins but venially, if he be only delegated. But I am certainly persuaded, that every Confessor, 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 judgement? Ought he to expose himself thus for a laughingstock (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 aught. The yoke of Confession is no insupportable yoke, and the government, which Jesus Christ has given Confessors, is no Tyrannical government. It is a government of Love, established in Mercy; and which subsists in Sweetness.  
But to say, as you do, is to annihilate it wholly. 
b 
Clarissimum est, Episcopum peccatorem resurgere non posse per media statui propria; cum hoc ipso, quo peccator est, statum amittat ex primario jure, nec ampli●s in co sit. Vindiciae p. 296.  
Qu●libet vinculi Castitatis in fractione perimitur Sacerdotium. pag. 319. edit. Anno 1646.   That one only Mortal Sin destroys the office of Bishop and Priest. 
c This is one of the secret Maxims of the Abbot of St. Cyran, that the words of Absolution are not operative, but declarative only of their effect. Letter of my Lord the Bishop of Langres to my Lord S. Malo, concerning the Maxims of the Abbot of St. Cyran.  That the Sentence of the Priest is only 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 Frequent Communion. p. 628  favoureth the general impenitence of the world. The fruit of these wicked Maxims can be no other, but a distaste of the Sacraments; such as those women find, who abandon themselves to your direction: and such as Mother Agnes of St. Paul, Abbess of port-royal hath expressed in one of her Letters in these terms. 
e 
This Letter maketh one piece of the Process against the Abbot of St. Cyran.  
See the Progress of Jansenisme. p. 81.   I think my heart is hardened, having no feeling of Contrition, nor Humiliation, to see myself deprived of the Sacraments: and I could pass my life thus without being troubled at it. We are at present in the time of the Confessions of our young Scholars. 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 young ones, and for some Si●●ers. There are some, who have not been at Confession these fifteen months. This would amaze a Confessor, who demandeth only words, and not dispositions.    

The fifth Imposture. French. 8.  
THat the Jesuits take away the rigour of Fasting by unlawful Dispensations; 
a The Minister du Moulin casteth a world of reproaches upon the Church about Fasting, pag. 343. which Modesty will not suffer me to publish.  because Filiucius proposeth this Question. One, who hath overwearied 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 overwearied himself on purpose, to be thereby dispensed from Fasting? Shall he yet be obliged to fast? Although he have made such a formal 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 ask 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. Antonin. part 2, tit. 6. cap. 2. fol. 6.  St. Antonine, on whose back this reproach will first fall: following 
c Sylvester verbo Jejunium.  Sylvester, Master of the Sacred Palace; whose Sum has been both renewed and enlarged by the command of two great Popes; following Cajetan and Medina, 
d Cajetan in 1, 2. q. 77. A. 7. ad tertium. Medina in Summ●. declare. 3. pracepti, fol. 39  illustrious Interpreters of St. Thomas, with 
e Sancius Disp. Select. disp. 54. num. 2. p. 535. verbis iisdem quibus Filiucius.  Sancius, and many other famous 
f Angelus. Tabiena, in verbo missa, fol. 45. Navar. c. 21. n. 334. 45, etc. 12, n. 39 42. 55.  Authors, who are no Jesuits; yet have thought the Spiritual Physicians of our Souls ought not to be ignorant of the nature of these crimes: no more than the Physicians of our bodies, of the most shameful 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 Roman 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 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 overwearied himself, on purpose to be dispensed from fasting, is he yet obliged to fast? Though he should have had such a formal 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 lawful 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 formal design, the occasions of sinning. Where is the shame and conscience of this Calumniatour? Compare a little this reproach with the Author's true answer, and see how strangely he corrupts his words.  

g Objicitur, an qui malo fine laboraret, ut ad aliquem occidendum, vel ad insequendam amicam, vel quid simile, teneretur ad jejunium? Respondeo, talem quidem peccaturum ex malo sine; at secut â defatigatione excusaretur à jejunio. Medina Inst. c. 14. sect. 10. Nisi sierct in fraudem secundam aliquos: sed melius alii, culpam quidem esse in apponendâ causá fractionis jejunii; at eâ positâ, excusari à jejunio. Filiucius' tract. 27. p. 2. depraecept. jejunii, c. 6. n. 123.  One objects, (says he) a man that should 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 overwearied, he should be dispensed from fasting; unless (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 find any thing to say against this decision, sustained by the Authorities of St▪ 
h Propter culpam quamvis sit infirmus, durante infirmitate, non tenetur jejunare. St. Antonin. 2. part. tom. 6. c. 2. sol. 6. n. I.  Antonin, of 
i Jejunium infirmos non obligat, five sint infirmi ex suâ culpâ, sive non. Medina in I, 2. q. 77. A. 4.  Medina, of 
k Licet infirmo ex sua culpa, durante infirmitate, non jejunarc. Sylvester. verbo Jejunium.  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 fined in sighting a Duel? Who can be so impudent, as to dare to accuse a Confessor, 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, 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 Scribbler of Letters; and some profane 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 picked out to reform the Moral. Is it not a shame you should with so much injustice reproach the Jesuits the mitigating of Fasts, that are yourselves rather bound to correct, what with so much scandal you have taught; That amongst all the exterior 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 facile 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 move of Grace and the Spirit of Penance, that they would think themselves happy, in being able to witness to God their regret and sorrow for having offended him, by deferring their Communion to the very end of their days. In the same Preface. pag. 35, 36▪  
This is your Moral of the new Mode. 'Tis thus you re-establish the Discipline of the Church. Oh, that it were but lawful 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 jestings; it is fit to be more grave in such serious Disputes.    

The sixth Imposture. French 9  
THat the Jesuits 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 itself, (primo & per se) when we are carried to it, either for the spiritual or temporal good of ourselves, or our Neighbours: and that Father Bauny the Jesuit 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, or Imposture: Let us therefore force truth out of his hands, that we may show, how he labours to corrupt its innocency, and fully its purity.  
'Tis a Question in the Moral, whether Judith were not a little rash, then when she exposed herself, 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 find they have done?  
St. Ambrose, libr. 3. Offic. cap. 12. justifies 
a Honesta●em secuta est Judith, & dum eam 〈◊〉 est, wilitatem invenit.  Judith, because she considered an honest good (says 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 se, ut Adultero placeret, ornavit; quae tamen, quia hoc Religione, non Amore faciebat, n●m●●am Adulteram judicavit. Bene sac●●ssit exemplum.  Judith dressed herself, that she might take the eyes of an Adulterer; and yet never durst any think her an Adultress: because 'twas not Love, but Religion, incited her to do it; and therefore the example which she left us, succeeded very happily.  
If the Authority of this holy Doctor does not satisfy 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 Hermit, who went into a Stew under a disguised dress, that he might get away his Niece, 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 spiritual good of their Neighbour, as Saint Ambrose did: yea, and for some considerable temporal good, as Judith. But you ask, if this were lawful 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 weakness, 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 Catholic may marry an Heretic Woman, if it be ●●r reasons of great moment, as the Tranquillity of a great Kingdom, or the Advancement of Religion; although it were not without danger, by reason of his own weakness, that he may be perverted: 
c Dum tamen contra●at cum firmo proposito non labendi, sidensque de divina misericordia & gratia fore, ut ●ripiatur ab co periculo fine crimine: Siquidem urgente Dei causa, illud subire periculum non recusat. Basil. Pont. Append. de Matrimon. Cath. cum Hae●eticâ. cap. 9 p 894. secund. edit.  always provided, that in marrying 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 Heresy.  
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 continual 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 Authors 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 formal 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 Detractor?  
Secondly, to render the Jesuits 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, & pierce, because he approves the opinion of that Author, which is a mere 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 only this, that for the good, either of Church or State, a man may, without sinning, marry an Heretic, 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 Treaty 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 all dispute is a most learned and judicious Casuist: of his malice, if knowing it, he desire yet to make him pass, in the opinion of common 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 only his own deceit and lies to disguise the others opinion.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
Without all doubt, being, as you are, declared Heretics, and masked Calvinists, you are not only 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 Jesuits 
a The same reproach is cast upon Catholics by Du Moulin, in his Book of the Anatomy of the Mass; That our Adversaries reject the Fathers, and speak of them with contempt. It is the subject of the 22. Chapter of that Book, pag. 99  undervalue the Holy Fathers; that at their appearance St. Augustin, St. chrysostom, 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 Jesuits, 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 fly for it, and were extremely 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 Jesuits has made them vanish?  
Is it Father Fronton, who published St. chrysostom 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 Ecclesiastical History of Nicephorus Calliste? to say nothing of the Greek and Latin 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 Counsels of France.  
Is it Father Petaviu●▪ who has set out St. Epiphaniu●, Synesius, and five Volumes of Theological Doctrines, which a●●ade up only of the thoughts and words of ●he Fathers?  
Is it Father Turrianu●▪ who has given us the works of more than eight Fathers, or ancient Ecclesiastical Authors?  
Is it Father S●ho●●●●, who hath set out the Commentaries 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 〈…〉 boldness of this Calumniatou●; who ●ot perceiving, that reproaching the Jesu●●es with an imaginary undervaluing 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 shows 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, says 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 Author of the Libel of the Moral Divinity invented it, and that most notorious falsely. For these words are not to be found, either in the Ecclesiastical Hicrarchy of Father Cellot, nor in the Preface of Reginaldus, which he alleges. The intent of Reginaldus, whose thoughts Father Cellot does only refer to, is to instruct the Reader, of the cause, which carries him to make use of those Modern Authors, who have taught the Moral; and to that effect comparing them to the Ancients, who have treated this matter, he says, 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 joined to their Doctrine an exact knowledge of Customs, 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● spoke of the Ancient Fathers, of whom there is no mention in that place; and on this gins his process against the Jesuits. But having lost his Suit before the Parliament of Bourdeaux, where this Libel was torn in pieces, 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 Doctors, which their 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 Moral Divinity a long time before the Jesuits 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, Counsels, and both the Laws, Canon and Civil. But as those illustrious Authors, whose very names terrify him, had no need of Jesuits 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 shows in his writings.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
Whence are your heads grown so weak, that you cannot endure the name of Casuists? Your infirmity is very dangerous, when the noise of three or four syllables less agreeable with your ears, is so able to stupisie your brains. 'Twas a lack of judgement to make that ridiculous enumeration of Catholic 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 Heretics 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, Ʋsher, Bucer, Taylor, Keiser, Groper, Tamber, Whitaker, Herman, Tilleman, Calagan, Hus, Thorp, Wright, Horst, Schuch, Craved, White, 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 Heretics, 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 Jesuits reconcile (by the interpretation of some term) the contrarieties which are between their opinions, and the Decisions of Popes, Counsels, and of Holy Scripture. For instance, Pope Gregory the 14. hath declared, that Murderers (so saith our English Translator, 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 incur the penalty of that Bull. This to you seems contradictory: but it is reconciled by interpreting the word Murderer. (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 errors, 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 than they do, how to interpret Bulls, and to give a new sense to Counsels and Fathers, such as is unknown to any but Heretics. All that I will say is only this, The Moral of the Jesuits stands in no need of such interpretations. If the Jesuits undertake to explicate the Doctrine of the Fathers, and the Decisions of Popes and Counsels, they will beware, not to take their interpretations, as Jansenius doth the sense of S. Augustin, out of the Commentaries of Calvin and Luther. They will conform themselves to Authentic, or Doctrinal Interpretations, such as are received in Schools, and taught by the greatest Divines.  
It's no hard matter to show this, by the very example our Calumniatour brings concerning the word Asassin in the Bull of Gregory 14. For Escobar says nothing concerning that Bull, but wh●t he hath from very learned Authors. This accuser had never spok● as he does, had he had but a little more understanding and sincerity, than he shows 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 Decision impugns 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 Decision is contrary to the B●ll, in as mu●h as i● takes away the privilege of Sanctuary, from those who treacherously murder 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 murder 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 Pope's Bull, and that Escobar makes two distinct questions in the place he notes. 
a 
Proditoric aliquem ●ccidens, ferro, seu venono, carétne Ecclesiae immunitate? Caret. p 660.  
Num Asassini rei gaudent, Ecclesiae privilegie? non gaudent, ex constitut. Gregor. 14. ibidem.   In the first of which he asks, If he that murders a man treacherously be deprived 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 privilege of Sanctuary? and answers, No: which shows us the great abilities of the Jansenist, who believe, that under the terms of Law, one comprehends, by the word Asass●●, all those who murder others treacherously. Let's help him a little out of these errors, and blow away the mist which stifles his wits. What do the Canonists call murdering a man treacherously? Escobar says, To murder a man treacherously, is to murder him when he has no reason to suspect it. Therefore he that kills his enemy, is not said to kill him treacherously, though he set upon him unawares by Ambuscade, or come behind him.  
What is an Asassin, according to the terms of Law? Such a one, says 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 only to do his friend a courtesy.  
These two Interpretations will not please the Jansenist. He laughs at the first in his seventh Letter, pag. 140. Engl. edit. and finds 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 only 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 Treaty, De Immunitate Ecclesiarum, with which he gins the first Tome of his Works. He will find 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 rashness.  
As to the word Asassin, that interpretation, which Escobar gives it, is so common amongst Divines, that I am astonished, how he can make any doubt, and cast so frivolous a reproach on 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 wickedness, 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 Murders. And the least versed in the Law cannot be ignorant, that the Canonists take the word Asassin analogically, to signify 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 Sum tells us, That the word Asassin is equivocal. For first, 'tis the proper name of certain Infidels who were easily persuaded to kill Christians: and Pope Innocent the Fourth in the Counsel of Lions excommunicated, not tho●● Murth●●●rs, (for they were Infidels) but th●se who made use of them to kill Christians. 
c Est etiam romen vitii▪ pro quanto apud quosdam Juristas, s●u vulgaritèr, dicuntur Asassini, qui pro pecuni● occidunt hominem a● ali● ujus instantiam. Cajetan in Summ●●, v●rbo Asassi●●.  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 eternal death.  
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 comprised in the Bull. Secondly, Asassin is the name of those Robbers, that murder on the Highway; 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 Tertio nomen Asassini accipitur tro illis, qui pecunia, aut alio pretto accepto vel promisso conducti, occidunt bomines incautos, & nihil tale ab eye praecogitantes. It's Probus, Ancaranns, etc. TWO &c enim est vulgaris intelligentia, & interpretatio vecis bujus Asassini, Vulgi autem interpretitio maxime attendenda est, ut patet exdictis de Legibus. Bonacina, Tom. 2. Disp. 3. Cirea primum prae●●ptum decalogi, q 7. punct. 6, ●. 4. ●un. ●.  Aucaranus, Imola, Surarez, Menochius, Julius Clarus, Ambrosinus, Decianus, Mascardus, Covarruvias, 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 Et num. seq. Hine patet primo illum non dici Asassinum, qui fine pretio, aut fine praevia pretii promissione, atiquem intersivit, ut alteri rem gratam faciat. Mascardus, Antonius, Gabriel, & alii, quos citat & sequitur M●n●chius, Peregrinus, Farinacius & Alexander Ambrosinus.  That he who kills a man without receiving any hire, merely to do some other a courtesy, is not called an Asassin, according to Mascardus, Antonius, Gabriel, Menochius who alleges many others, Farinacius and Ambresinus.  
After therefore that our Jansenist hath informed himself by the witness of so many learned men, better than he did by the Memorandums of Heretics, 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 citys 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 natural and divine Laws the Royal 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 gross Maxims, 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 one's Neighbour, then by killing one's self. pag. 23. That the want of a propriety over our own life is no hindrance to a man for killing himself. pag. 29. That under the Emperor's 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 obligation of killing one's self being both one of 〈◊〉 most important, and hardest to execute, 〈…〉, ●●●essary it should find with men some perfect reason, which by long discourse may a 〈…〉 swee●en the bitterness 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 Moral. 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 Moral 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 Jesuits favour ambition in rich men, and destroy 
a Du Moulin doth likewise reproach the Church, saying, that she ruineth Charity; but after another manner. p. 344. By indulgences a man is freed from giving Alms, and saying Prayers which are enjoined him; which is a very great ease. Armill. verbo Indulgentia. Durand. Dist. 20. q. 4.  all pity 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 find any, among those that are worldly minded, that have aught 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 obligation, 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 man's necessity.  
For to proceed clearer, he distinguisheth betwixt the secular man, who enjoyeth goods of the world, and the Church man, who possesseth Ecclesiastical Benefices. For the Churchman he affirmeth positively, 
b Quod ex superfluo tenentur Beneficiarii alere pauperes illud etiam juris divini est. Alias posset Summus Pontifex dispensare, ut quis ex superfluo consanguineos ditaret: quod non est credibile. And a little after, In Clerico enim Benificiario, quia pater est, lex Charitatis obligat de superfluo, in quo excedit obligationem Saec●larium. Vasquez de Elcemosyna, cap. 4. num. 11.  that he cannot in conscience make use of his Ecclesiastical Revenues, to enhance his own condition, or to enrich his Kindred, He obligeth Churchmen to employ all their overplus in relieving the poor; and he presseth this so home, that he teacheth, 
c Ecclesiastici verò, praecipuè Episcopi, tenentur pauperes inquirere, quia sunt pauperum parents; & esse debet illorum cura erga pauperes. ibidem. num. 14.  they are bound to seek out the poor, and be inquisitive after their wants, because they are Fathers of the poor.  
For Laymen, 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 eternal 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 overplus is the portion of the poor. Vasquez 
d (Sed contra est: quod si est necessarium, quod al●quis mco superfluo egeat, ut ego tenear erogare illud, ergo non tantûm superfluum est ratio dandi Elcemosynam, sed etiam alterius necessitas. Ratio ergo illius obligationis illin● nascitur, quod Charitas postulet, ut mihi superfluum, quod est alteri necessarium, illi erogem, ne alius indigeat. c. 1. d, 3. n. 21.  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 their riches to raise themselves by lawful 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 worldly 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 
Ordo ergo Charitatis talis esse debet, etc. vitam enim proximi cum detrimento vitae meae non teneor tueri; cum detrimento caeterorum teneor: & sic de reliquis; alias quomodo Charitas Dei manet in nobis? cap. 1. dub. 3. num. 25.  
Secundo, si alicui imminet periculum famae amittendae, tenetur quis cum detrimento sui status, & rei familiaris superfluae naturae fimilem necessitatem propellere, ut ordinata sit Charitas.  
Terti●, si alicui imminet periculum cadendi à statu suo, tenetur quis ex superfluo status illi subvenire. Ibidem num. 26.   precept of Charity, which obligeth the rich to give Alms, not only out of their Superfluities, but also out of that which is (in the sense I have now showed) necessary to them.  
Is not this Doctrine just contrary to that, which is imputed to Vasquez? Is it possible to find a more notorious Imposture? I beseech the 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 myself, he will be no less edified at the prudent conduct of this Father, then astonished at the malice of this Slanderer.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
I am bound to return good for evil, and truth for falsehood: 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 Sacrilege: 
f Res Pauperum non pauperibus dare pars S●crilegii est. Bernard.  because they use that which is given to God against the Church of God: and that all persons of quality, who maintain this Heretical 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 Jesuits favour Simony, because Valentia, Tom. 3. pag. 2042. says, That if a man give a temporal good for a spiritual, and money as the price of a Benefice, 'tis an apparent Simony: But if it be given as a Motive, to persuade the will of the Incumbent to resign 'tis not Simony; notwithstanding that he which resigns the Benefice, look upon and expect the money only as his principal end. And Tanner a Jesuit says 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 rashness of Tanner in thus contradicting St. Thomas, and the forgetfulness of Valentia in palliating Simony? But this is only a trick of the Jansenist, who follows du Moulin in his Traditions, pag. ●12. where this Heretic reproaches Card. To●●● for teaching, That the Pope may lawfully take money for Indulgences, Absolutions, and Dispensations, because he receives it, not as formally selling them, but as a maintenance of his Greatness, and the Dignity of his Charge. Let us let alone the Calvinist, and a little discover the cheat of his Scholar.  
You must know that all Divines hold two 〈◊〉 of Simony; the one by Divine, the other 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 adds, 
b Quod tamen non ●b, ●at, quo minus in casibus à jure expressis incurratur Simonia sive ea, quam juris positivi superius diximus, sive secundum praesumptionem externi fori. Tanner Disp. 5. de Religione, q. 8. dub. 3. pag. 1519. num. 65.  that it is either Simony against Positive Law, or presumed to be so in the cases expressed in the Law.  
Again insisting in the same case, in the following number, he says, That notwithstanding he who resigns the Benefice should look upon, and expect the money as his principal end, preferring a Temporal before a Spiritual good, it were not Simony, (supposing still, that he doth not take the money as a price of his Benefice) because that kind of preferring may be found in all sorts of sin; for we never sin, but we prefer in effect some Temporal before our Spiritual good. Yet presently he adds, num. 67. 
c Esto quidem tali commutatione grave peccatum committatur, ac simul in casibus jure expressis Simonia, saltem juris positivi incurratur, ut dictum est. Num 65.  That this Act would be a Mortal Sin, and a Simony against Positive Law, as he had before explained it, num. 65.  
Is not this man most extremely wicked, in thus concealing the last part, which justifies Tanner, and publishing the first, which would persuade the people (ignorant of School-distinctions) into a belief, that he opens a gate to all Simonies? What an infamy is it to this Slanderer, and to all port-royal, 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 Catholic Faith, and Calumnies against a Religious Order. Such Scribblers are the Pensionaries of Satan, the Father of Lies, and the first Detractor against God himself.    

The eleventh Imposture. French 26.  
THat Filiucius advanceth this excellent Maxim, 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 pity his ignorance; for he doth not know, that the terms he useth, cum jam desuetudine abierunt, are terms of the Law. 
a Quae leges in veteribus libris positae jam per desuetudinem abierunt, nullo modo vobis easdem ponere permittimus. L. Deo Authore, c. de veteri jure enucleando.  If there be any Laws to be found in Ancient Writers, says the Law itself, which through non observance are abolished, we do not permit you by any means to re-establish them. And in another place, 
b Rectissimè illud receptum esto, ut leges, non solum suffragio Legislatoris, sed etiam tacito consensu omnium per desuetudinem abrogentur. L. de quibus. D. de legibus.  'Tis a well grounded policy, that Laws should lose their force, not only by the consent of the Legislatour, but also by  disapproving of the people in not observing them. Our Jansenist knoweth not this. He doth not know, that the Canons agree with the Civil Laws, and that the Pope, declaring the Law shall not yield to Custom, excepts that Custom which is reasonable, and the which time hath confirmed by a lawful prescription, nisi sit rationabilis, & legitimè praescripta. Cap. ultim. consensus.  
He does not know, what St. Thomas 1, 2. 
c Consuetudo & habet vim legis & legem abolet, & est legum interpretatrix, q. 97. art. 3. in corp.  tells us, That neither Divine, nor Natural Laws are subject to be changed by men, because they are grounded on a superior and unchangeable reason. But as for such as have no other rule, but the will and reason of men, Custom stands as a Law, abolishes Law, and in fine, is the Interpreter of Law.  
He does not know what Cajetan, 
d Cajetanus in 1, 2. q. 97. a. 3. ubi addit. Nor oportet namque posteros sollicitos esse, an lieitè, vel illicitè introducta fit consuetudo, quam sine dubio inveniunt licitè observari relictâ lege scriptâ. Vide & Sylvestrum verb. Consuetudo. Gerson 3. part. tract. de vitâ spirituali, lect. 4. Corol. 13. Sotum. 1. de Justit. q. ●. a. 2.  explaining the meaning of St. Thomas, tells us, Although Custom gins by an infringing the Law, reiterated by many unlawful and criminal Actions, yet nevertheless having once taken a thorough course, and being perfectly form, it abrogates the Law.  
He does not know that which Bartolus says, 
e Bartol. in L. de quibus ff. de leg. q. 1. n. 6.  Law may contradict a Custom, which is but now sprung up; but when 'tis once form by a lawful prescription, there is no more contradicting it, because the Law hath no more force.  
He does not know what St. Antonine 
f D. Autonin. 1. part. tit. 16. cap. unico in fine. Rogationes quoad jejunium, & quoad feriandum ponuntur in praecepto. De Consecrat. dist. 3. Rogationes. Et tamen ab omnibus dicitur praeceptum illud esse abrogatum per contrariam consuetudinem.  tells us, both of Ecclesiastical and Canon Law, that they lose their force, when the Church, moved by any just cause, changes them, or permits a nonobservance. For instance, It was formerly commanded to fast on Rogation days; yet nevertheless through all the world a contrary Custom has prevailed over that precept, took away the obligation of fasting, and enjoined only abstinence in the Major part of Christianity.  
But that which is most egregiously absurd is, that this learned Civilian, to find out some ground in Filiucius, on which he might raise his ridiculous accusation, takes these words, desuetudine abiêrunt, from a particular proposition, 
g Filiuc. Tom. 2. tract. 25 à num. 32. ad num. 33.  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, 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 gloss 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 general 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 Maxim, 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 rigour of the Precept, and yields somewhat to Custom.  
But I cannot imagine what way you can justify this, 
h Vindiciae, pag. 286.  That the Ancient Law drew men on to Sin, Death, and Damnation by itself, per se quantum in se erat; 
i In the Information given by Monsieur de Lauberdemont; the Original of which is in Clermont College.  That the just aught precisely to follow the movings of inward Grace, which is to them as a Law, without looking to any exterior Law, though these inward movings should contradict the exterior Law. Certainly the Abbot of St. Cyran had a great deal of reason to say, 
k See the same Information in a Book, entitled, The Progress of Jansenisme. pag. 14.  That he never learned these Maxims out of Books; but also we are not bound to believe he had them from God, who is Truth itself; or that he guided himself wholly by the lights, inspirations, and interior sentiments, which he received from God. 'Tis not likely that God should have told him, 
l See the same Information.  That Sacramental Absolution supposes remission of Sins, That 'tis only a declarative judgement; That the present Church can no ways 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 channel of a River, which had been quick and healthful water. Is not it because you will maintain th●se excellent Maxims, 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 Jesuits encourage Servants in domestic frauds and cheats, because Father Bauny hath established this great Maxim, to oblige those who are not content with their Wages. It is in his Summary, p. 213. & 214. of the sixth Edition. May Servants, who are not content with their wages, advance them of themselves by filching 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 Libel called Moral 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 leaveth 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 counsel of Monsieur de Montrouge; yet nevertheless there was not any one followed it, as as is evident by the Schedule of the Criminal Chamber, where their advice and judgement on the Suit is to be seen.  
Now that I may take away the scandal this Calumniatour has cast, and justify Father Bauny, whom he labours to defame by such odious and unjust deceits, I am constrained in this place to show the conformity of his Doctrine with that, 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, unlawful, pernicious, and contrary to all Laws, Natural, Divine, and Humane, such as is able to confound all families, and authorise all domestic 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-conceitedness imagining their Services not sufficiently rewarded, may easily deceive a Confessor, if he trust to their imagination. And therefore Cardinal 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 Quare rarò credendum est in h●c parte famulis obt●udentibus defectum justi stipendii. Cur enim alium dominum non quaerunt? vel non quaesicrunt cum majore stipendio, si invenire facilè poterant? Si autem non poterant, non ergo fuit injustum pretium, quo majus communitèr non potuit inveniri. Card. de Lugo de justit. & jure. disp. 16. sect. 4. § 2. num. 80.  That men should be very backward in giving ear to such kind of complaints. For they may (says he) find other Masters, who will give them more wages: therefore why do they not seek out such? and wherefore do they not make it their business to find them? If they cannot easily get such a Master their wages are not unjust, because ordinarily they cannot find greater.  
So also 'tis not to be denied, but that there are ill Masters, who misuse the labour and sweat of their poor servants, whether it be by not paying the wages they promised, or by taking advantage of their extreme 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 extreme prejudice, through the hardness of some unmerciful Master, and can have no redress, 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 always 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 than what is truly due unto him. 
b Si famulus non est persona potens gratuitò donare suas operas, vel ignorat earum justum pretium, vel novit illud, sed pressus necessitate donat illas vet partem illarum, non est justa conventio, sed injusta. Per citata in D. c. novit. Et consequenter, attento quod in foro exteriori difficile posset assequi honestè, & cum pace, servatá justá amicitiâ, integrum debitum, posset clàm subripere id quod deesset ad faciendum conventionem justam. Navar. lib. 3. Consil. de locato & conducto, Consil. 1. n. 5.  Navarre is of this opinion in the third Book of his Counsels, where he treats this whole matter. Corduba 
c Corduba in Summâ q. 111. & lib. 1. qq. q 35.  confirms it. 
d Colligo quid fit sentiendum de famulis, qu● gratiá compensationis, in bonis dominornm, quae ipsi tractant, manus extendunt: Sanè si debitum salarium est liquidum ob pactum expressum vel tacitum, vel consuetudinem patriae, & talis generis servitiorum, etc. planum est, se posse compensare, servatis conditionibus suprà positis. Non enim ij pejoris conditionis esse debent, quam caeteri creditores: imo tantum illis magis licitum esse debebit, quanto magis sine scand●lo se compensare possunt, cum bona Domini tractant. Petrus à Navariâ. libr. 3. de Restitut. c. 1. num. 409.  Peter de Navarr proves it in his third Book of Restitution, as a consequence drawn from this Maxim, That a Creditor, who cannot get his debt, nor receive satisfaction for the damage done him, sins not, if he take to himself, by an occult compensation, some of the goods of his Debtor, 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 Si autem in judicio non poterat rehabere suum, vel propter defectum probationis, vel propter tyrannidem vel potentiam ipsius, tunc etiam nec accipiendo peccavit, nisi aliis scandalum inde pararetur, secundum Thomam. 2. 2. Ita D. Antonin. 2. part. Tit. 1. c. 15. de furto, § 1.  St. Antonine had prescribed before him in the second part of his Sum; where he affirms, that a man cannot without sin take another man's goods by a secret compensation, when the Law is open: yet if a man cannot 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 scandal, according to St. Thomas in his 2. 2.  
'Tis this way the Fathers justify 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 At ille peregrinus crat, & advena. Ideir●o violentum & fortiorem indigenam in jus vocare non poterat. Rupert. libr. 7. in Genes. cap. 39  as Rupertus says, He was a stranger, and therefore could not bring to justice a powerful man of the same country, and greater than 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 Father's 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 Instincti sunt Hebraei non ad fraudem, sedad mercedis compensationem, quàm alias à deminatoribus exiger● non poterant. Tertul. lib. 4. cont. Martion. c. 24.  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 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 Heretic Faustus, who accused the God of the Old Testament of injustice, in giving them this command, says, 
h 
Homines peregrinos labore gratuito injusté vehementer afflixêrunt. Digni ergo erant & Hebraei, quibus talia juberentur; & Aegyptii, qui talia paterentur. St. Aug. lib. 22. contr. Faustum. cap. 71.  
Vide Iraencum, libr. 4. contr. Haereses. cap. 40.   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 Maxim, to oblige servants not contented with their wages; nor could the Jansenist have said it, but through either some gross ignorance, or some affected malice, since that Father has only received it from the mouths of Saints, and Masters of the Ancient Divinity. Bauny notwithstanding, to suppress yet more the liberty of Servants, adds in the same place these three clauses, which will make the treachery of his Accuser, (who has left them all out) appear more clear than the sun at noon.  
We must (says he) 
i F. Bauny. pag. 215, in his S●mmary of Sins, the sixth Edition.  except three cases. The first is, when such Servants were taken out of mere pity, 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 soliciting and entreaty, rather than 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 increase 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 surprised to see them cheat the public 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 Jesuits, and supported by the Authority of the Fathers) as a Maxim that is unlawful, pernicious, and contrary to all Laws, Natural, Divine, and Humane, capable to confound all Families, and to authorise all domestic Frauds.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
Will you never leave off cheating the world? Do you not see falsehood 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 fancy so much, that you had rather lose your reputation, than a little laughter, I pray go to the Chastelet, and inform yourselves better of the Judge's advice.    

The thirteenth Imposture. French 24.  THat the Jesuits have found out a means to justify Murders, 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 one's self, as the end of those Actions, some lawful object: And that 'tis only to turn a man's intention from the desire of vengeance, (which is Criminal) to a desire of defending one's own honour, which according to the Fathers is lawful: Not but that as much as they can, they would detourn men from unlawful Actions; but when they cannot hinder a wicked Action, at least they would purify 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 Mass, 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, Murders, 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 only directing h●r intention, from the Act which is ill, to the gain she makes of it, since, as he says, she has no other intent but to get a livelihood? And when page 312. he makes Catholic Doctors 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 greatness, Does not he show 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 Murderer, who through Zeal to our Mother Holy Church should kill an excommunicated person; that to save a man's honour it is lawful to kill another; that a Cavalier ought rather to kill, then either to run away, or be cudgeled, 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 reproachful Imposture against the Divines, upon whom must fall all the scoffs and lies, which Du Moulin can furnish them with: for they have no other arms, than what this Minister puts in their hands.  
It will not be amiss to overthrow these weak Arguments, now we have discovered the Origin.  
'Tis a general received Maxim in the Moral, That the Intention renders the Action good, and the End directs the Intention. 
a Bonum opus intentio facit; intentionem finis dirigit. St. Aug. in Psalm.  St. Augustin has delivered this in his Commentaries on the Psalms, and all Divines have approved of it. From whence it comes, that in their Moral Decisions, when the question is, whether an Action be good or bad, they teach, that the intention is a very considerable circumstance, 
b Nihil prohibet unius actus duos esse effectus: quorum alter sit solum in intention, alius vero sit praeter intentionem. Morales autem actus recipiunt speciem secundum id quod intenditur. D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 64 A. 7. in corp.  capable to corrupt even the best works, when it tends to an unlawful object; and to justify those, which in themselves being not essentially bad, may be in 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 Vim vi repellere omnia jura, leg●sque permitunt▪ non ad vindictam sumendam, sed ●d 〈…〉 propulsandam. C. Significa●●●  Innocent the Third, All Laws, both Divine and Humane, permit resisting force with force; not with intention to revenge, but to defend one's self, the Jansenists will laugh at the sacred Canons, and say, they teach by that how to justify revenge, and correct the vice of the Action by the purity of the end, in directing the intention.  
If the Casuists teach with 
d 〈…〉 Tringe●s fur domum, sive suffodien● 〈…〉 & acc●pto vulnere mort●●● 〈◊〉 ●●●rc●ssor non er●t r●us sanguinis. Exod. 2●.  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● guilty of the blood he spilt. The Jansenists laugh at that Law; and being wiser than Moses, who received it from Heaven, maintain, that 'tis to open the gate to murder, to preserve a house by directing 〈◊〉 inten●●on.  
If the Casuist● say with Saint Thomas, 
e 
Precepta patientiae in his quae contra nos siunt, sunt in praeparatione animi habenda, sicut Aug. exponit illud praeceptum Domini. Si quis percusserit te in unâ Maxil●â, praebe ei & aliam, ut Scil. Homo fit paratus hoc facere, si opus fuerit. Non tamen semper tenetur facere actu. & infra.  
Tenemur enim habere animum paratum ad contumelias tolerandas, si expediens fuerit: quandoque tamen oportet contumeliam illatam repellamus. D. Thom. 2. 2. q. 72. A. 3.   That 'tis lawful to repel an injury, whether it be to keep down the insolency of wicked people, or to preserve one's 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 always oblige us to suffer the injurious assaults, which may be put on us, but merely 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 satisfy 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 only the Moral of the Casuists, but even that of Holy Scripture, is exposed to the impudence of Libertines: neither has the Jansenist said any thing in this point against the Jesuits, which an Atheist might not have objected to the Prophets and Apostles.  
Moses' 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 withal, and to justify usury, by directing the intention.  
Judith de●ks out herself to surprise 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 sanctify 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 Maxims of Conscience with those of State, by directing the intention.  
Samuel by the wonderful judgement of God, appeared to Saul after his death; (according to the opinion of very many Fathers) a Libertine following the Moral 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 entreat the Reader to take notice, that the reproaches, 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 Maxim, (That the Intention maketh the work good or bad) as a man may also abuse the best Maxims in Morality. But the Jansenist was obliged to prove, that the Authors, 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 show their errors; 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 Falseness. I have already discovered many of them, which are as evident and clear as the light: and there are yet some behind, no less evident than these.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
Pause a little, and bethink yourselves; 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 Heretics for your errors? and amongst Libertines for your sc●ffing at Sacred things? If envy be the motive, which persuades you to write against us, give us some mark of your Abilities: Reason, Dispute, Prove your opinions, Impugn our Doctrine, like learned men, with some powerful 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 blindness, and give you nothing but disdain for your labours.  
Do you not see, how easy it were for me to let all those profane 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 spoke so rashly of 
a Letter 21. de Jansen. à St. Cyran.  the Power Tramoutain; (he meaneth of the Pope) of the ignorance of the Court of Rome in matters of Faith; and of the Address the same Court had in the handling the affairs of Machiavelli? May I not ask, whether his intention were good, when he 
b Letter 35. de Jansen. à St. Cyran.  accused the Sovereign Pastor, for having placed St. Ignatius and St. Xaverius in the number of those Saints, which the Church worshippeth in her public Ceremonies? And whether the intents of the Abbot of St. Cyran were just, when he told the Abbot of Prieres, 
c See the Deposition of the Abbot of Prieres against the Abbot of St. Cyran in the Information of his Process kept in Clermont College.  One might pardon the faults of the Jesuits, but the Body of them ought to be ruined, as domageable to the Church; That it is God himself, which destroys the Church; That the time of its building up is already past; That Bishops, Ecclesiastiques, and Religious now adays (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 ruin 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 justify these villainous Propositions.    

The fourteenth Imposture. French 4.  
The Reader will be pleased to take notice, that whereas in the French Author 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 grossly this learned Father is abused by the Impostor: it is no more, than what the French Author intended, and in effect performed; although it happened, that by labouring to be short, he became somewhat obscure, The Imposture than runneth thus.  
THe Jesuits 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 lawful, 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. shows, that one may kill another for a simple gesture, or expression of contempt. There are, saith he, several ways to derogate from, and take away a man's 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 of this Maxim prove not prejudicial to the State; for than it is not to be permitted; tunc enim non est permittendus. etc.  

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 only for a Box o'th' Ear, but also for reproachful 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 prejudicial to the State, than it is not to be permitted.  
Now to this Jansenists utter ignominy, let us see his Impostures. For the first than 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 fly away, many Doctors 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, 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 Authors, eleven were not of the Society, some were before the Society, and all are generally esteemed in the Schools.  
After Lessius hath thus cited these Authors, 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 excess. For if St. Augustin for these causes doth hardly allow one to kill another, for defence of his own life, how much less would he allow it in this case for defence of ones honour? Secondly, for the danger of fight and Murder; and he who should kill in such a case, would be punished in exterior Judicature.  
Now tell me what a gross Imposture is this, to make Lessius Author 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 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 striking, or pursuing him, for fear of excess, 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 author of so unworthy an Imposture, to be a man of no credit, but a mere 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 gangrened, and being advised to cut it off to save his life, sent for four able Surgeons 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 spoke thus to the Patient, 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 less 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 allegeth. 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 Translator 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 useth them, in the following number, for another business. 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 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 bastinadoed or buffeted: and this he teacheth, after Sotus, Navarr, Sylvester, Ludovicus Lopez, Gomez, and Clarus, whereof none are Jesuits. Now that for which I complain of the Jansenist here, is first, That he would have it thought the Jesuits 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 cudgelled and kicked in the Ken●el, for fear that if he should keep off some insolent ribald, he might at length be forced to draw his Sword, and perhaps whilst 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 yourself from his cudgel, you are not bound to stand still, and let yourself be cudgeled, and perhaps killed too; but you may lawfully defend yourself 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 boxed or cudgelled, cannot otherwise be avoided. This Doctrine I will give the Translator leave to call Sterling, but not in derision. And if he be a Gentleman, I assure myself, 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 reproachful 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 one's honour m●● di●ers ways be set upon, in which ●● seems granted, that one may defen● himself (He doth not say with what 〈◊〉) Firs●, if you endeavour to strike one with a Stick, or to give 〈◊〉 Box o'th' Ear, of which I have already 〈…〉 ●●●ondly, if you be contumelious to one, 〈…〉 or signs, Here is also right for a defence. For Peter de Navarr. saith, libr. 2. c. 3. num. 376. That it is lawful, 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 Authors, though it seemeth, that it may be gathered out of them. Then he goeth on, and according to his custom 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 repress verbal 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 contumelious 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 allege; then he disproveth those reasons, and decideth against Atheists. How gross 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 Maxim (he would have it understood of Revenge in the cases alleged) prove not prejudicial to the State; for than it is no● to be permitted, tunc enim non est permittendus etc. 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 perverted Lessius his words, and applied 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 one's honour, is, if one should go about to defame you with your Prince, 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 give occasion to many secret Murders, to the great annoyment of the Commonwealth. For in the right of defence it is always to be considered, that the use of it tend not to the ruin of the Commonwealth; for than 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, etc. 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 Maxim prove not prejudicial to the State; for than it is not to be permitted: but he saith, in the right of defence it is always to be considered, that the use of that right rend not to the ruin of the Commonwealth; which is a very good Maxim. For no private man can have right to defend himself by the public ruin; and if that which seemeth my right, destroy the public, than I have no right. For example, I have right to defend my house from being plucked 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 Maxim be, to pervert the words, and apply them to a wrong matter, contrary to the Author's 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 reproachful language; no, nor he alloweth not so much as to strike, or wound him, that hath given you a bang with a stick, or a Box o'th' Ear: all this is falsely laid to his charge, and most falsely 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 misled either by the Authority of those that wish ill to the Society, or by the protestations of sincerity made so solemnly in the Provincial 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 mind, 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 extremely careful, not only not to falsify, (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.  
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 only 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 allegeth. Fourthly, That the Maxim, Heed must be taken, that the practice of this Maxim prove not prejudicial to the State; for than 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 tenor 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 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 show, 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 jansenists Chimerical consequences from speculative to practical, nor from other author's opinions. This that I have done to clear Lessius, I might also do to vindicate the other authors, whom the jansenist 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 jansenists protestation of sincerity, and citations of authors 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 Soldier 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 merely to defend himself. Letter 7.  

Answer.  
A Jansenist will always 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 Cowardice? 'Tis an Imposture. 
a Sententia communis est, ordinariè non licere provocato ad Duellum id acceptare, quia nemo prudentûm tibi vitio vertet, quòd legem Dei observes, hominisque occidendi periculum, absque justâ necessitatis causâ non ad●as: imprudentium autem & vanorum hominum judicia in re gravi attendenda non sunt. Layman, libr. 3. part 3. cap. 3. num. 3.  The common opinion, says he, is, that ordinarily it is not lawful to accept of it, because no wise 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 Soldier in the Army, o● a Cavalier at the Court, find 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 says only, that Navarr is of that opinion. Does he approve that opinion in Navarr? Imp●sture. He only says, (that which Mensieur Du Val, a Doctor of the So●bon, Tract, de Charitat. has said since, for the esteem which he makes of Navarr) he dare not condemn it. 
b Si in casu rarissimo co loco res sita sit, ut miles in bello, vir equestris in Aulâ Regiâ, officio, dignitate, ducis aut principis savore ob ignaviae suspicionem excidere debeat, nisi identidem provocanti se fistat, non audeo damnare eum, qui merae defensionis gratia paruerit, juxta Navarri doctrinam. cap. 15. n. 3, 4. Hae● Layman, lib. 3. pa●t. 3. c. 3. n. 3.  If it happen, says 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 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 Translator? Layman says, 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 Layman's, and not Navarrs opinion, whose name this Impostor hath suppressed. Layman says, I dare not condemn him, and the Jansenist makes him say, I do not see how one can condemn him Layman shows 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, says, This case is most rare, and it scarce ever happens. The Jansenist (who never lies, as he says himself) cuts off these words, to persuade, that he speaks of ordinary Duels; and to crown this Imposture with a deceit, as great as his falseness, he translates these words qui merae defensionis gratia paruerit juxta doctrinam Navarri, he who accepts the Duel to defend himself, on purpose smothering not only the name of Navarre, (which would have showed 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 mere defence, which the light of Nature teaches a man.  
You see now the Jansenists manner of reforming the Moral; you see the holy Doctrine of Port-Royal, which holds it lawful to lie, when it is to establish the Truth; to accuse falsely, 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 Maxims to its ancient vigour.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
Does not the hand of this Writer, who pretends such horror of spilling blood, fear to renew those Heresies, which most inhumanely have drawn it out of all the veins in France? Does it not fear the borrowing of the Moral of Heretics, which has been so fatal to this Kingdom? Is it not at all afraid of being reproached with the Politic of Holden, approved by two Jansenists, though wisely suppressed by one of the greatest persons of our age?    

The sixteenth Imposture. French 13.  
THat Father Molina the Jesuit assureth us, 'Tis lawful to kill a man for six or seven ducats, though he, who hath taken them, fly 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 only 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 alleged by this Calumniatour? If the thing 
a Quando res non sit magni valoris, ut si esset solum valoris 3, aut 4, aut 5. Ducatorum, consentit Sotus, ar. 8. citato, consentiunt & alii, non licere fugientem intersicere. Quando verò esset magni valoris, exiguáque esset spes illam post●à recuperandi, affirmat Sotus, Fas in ●o eventu esse illum occidere. Neque id auderem condemnare; modo priu● voco admoneretur, nisi rem relinquat, esse intersiciendum. Semper tamen est consulendum, ne proximus in eo eventu interficiatur. Molina, Tom. ●. tract. 3. dis. 16. n. 6.  (saith he) be of no great value, for example, if it be worth only three, four, or five ducats, Souts is of opinion, (and other Authors agree with him in it) that it is not lawful 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 lawful to kill him: And I dare not condemn that opinion; provided, that one forewarn him that runs away, that unless he leave that which he took, they will kill him. Yet always 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 ducats 'tis lawful to kill a man, although he that took them fly for it. You will ask me, if it be possible that he should have translated it in that manner? Believe only your own eyes. Read the very place I have cited. What? Is it lawful to cheat the world in this fashion, and to jest with so much freedom with the honour of Religious persons? The jansenists 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 formal intention they falsify to abuse the credulity of the Simple. But I proceed to allege 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 less; unius aurei, vel minoris adhuc valoris. Letter 7. pag. 151. Engl. Edit.  

Answer.  
This faithless Translator leaves nothing perfect in the Text, which he citys; for he has cut off the essential terms; the suppression of which changes the case, that Molina proposes, and has corrupted the whole thoughts of that Author.  
That I may discover this Imposture 
a Vim vi repellere omnia jura, legésque permitunt, non ad vindictam sumendam, sed ad propulsandam injuriam. C. Significasti.  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 ourselves, but with that of defending ourselves. 'Tis by this the Scripture 
b Deut. 22.  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 Robber in the day time. 
c Vide Cujacium ad lib. 3. ff. de Justit & Jure, Et L. Scientiam §. pen. ff. ad Legem Aquiliam.  In fine, 'tis by this the Canons tell us, one is not to be judged criminal, 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 Percussio non imputatur, si in continenti vim repellat. C. Sivero. & Stephan. c. quia te.   
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 less, notwithstanding the resistance of the possessor, or Guardian, I durst not condemn 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 mind 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 killed, is the Assaulter, and an unjust Assaulter; and that he who kills him, cannot any other way resist the violence which he offers, nor the danger, which threatens his person in defending his goods. Those are the conditions of a just and innocent Defence, which all Casuists have established, and which fully justifies the Doctrine of this Author. To give a familiar example, a Rabbit is but an inconsiderable thing compared to the life of a man. And yet if an insolent fellow, coming into a Warren to steal a Rabbit, 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 than to commit manslaughter to save his own life? If that be so, there is no need of Keepers, neither in Forests, 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 Atque id est planè quod intenditur, cap. 3. de Homicidio, dum dicitur, Si fine odii meditatione, Te Tuáque liberando, ejusmodi Diaboli membra interfecis●i, etc. quando enim quis ita defendit sua, regulariter simul defendit suam propriam personam, quam peri●ulo exponit. num. 4.  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 alleges, If without any intention or motion of hatred, in defending your person and goods, you kill those members of the Devil, etc. 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 show he speaks not here of all kind of Cases, but only 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 find no place to pour out his Impostures? He has maliciously suppressed 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 less.  
Judge by this of the sincerity of this Calumniatour; and do not expect more faithfulness in any reproach he shall hereafter cast on the Jesuits, than 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 Pastor newly printed, glorieth in defending this Cheater, filling his Additions with Calumnies, which he has taken out of the Letters of this wicked Secretary. For he could no● find a more faithful 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 Jesuits assure us; It is not lawful to kill a man for opprobrious words only, it is not because the Law of God forbids it; they go not upon that ground, they find it lawful in point of conscience, and in considering only the Truth itself: why then do they forbidden it? 'tis because a Country 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 practic: For a man aught, in the manner of his defence, to consider the prejudice may happen to the State. Now it is evident, that by kill people after this rate, there would be too many Murders committed. Lessius says as much in the place before cited. Heed must be taken, That the Practice of this Maxim proves not prejudicial to the State; for than it is not to be permitted. Tunc enim non est permittendus. Filiucius adds 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 kill 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 universal, concerns all Authors that are Jesuits, who maintain that with a safe Conscience a man cannot kill a Calumniatour. For this jansenist imputes to them, 
a Letter 7. p. 148.  That according to their opinion, It is lawful to kill for opprobrious words only; 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 Politic, and not a Religious Prohibition.  
To this it is sufficient to confute him (without bringing many Authors, who would give him the he) if I but tell him, that Vasquez and Suarez are Jesuits, and that both of them teach it unlawful to kill a Calumniatour. Let him hear how they speak, and if he have any Grace left, doubtless he will blush for having so rashly aspersed them. 
b Non licet illum occidere, quem s●io certo depositurum falsum apud Judicem, quia ille non potest dici Invasor. Licet enim contra jus faciat, non tamen contra ordinem juris. De ratione autem Aggressoris est, ut contra jus & ordirem j●ris injuriam inferat: & ita in hoc ●as● qui o●cideret hunc, peccaret contra Charitatem, & contra Justitiam, teneretúrque ad restitutionem, Vasquez Tract. de restitut. c. 2. § 1. d 7 n. 24.  It is not lawful, 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 Calumnia non propulsatur vi, sed manifestatione veritatis. Quod si haec possibilis non est, nequaquam licet transgredi ad media inordinata, quae veré non sunt media; sed patienter ferenda est mors, non secûs ac si innocens probaretur nocens per falsos testes. Suarez de Charitat. disp. 13. de Bello, § ult. num. 5. Non potest reus sic falso accusatus occidere suum accusatorem; ergo nec licet idem tentare per D●●llum. Suarez. ibidem n. 6.  resisted by force, but by manifesting the truth. If it be impossible to be proved, it is yet no ways lawful 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 witness.  
I ask now the Reader, whether after this he can patiently endure to hear it imputed to the Jesuits, That they hold it lawful, to kill for opprobrious words only; and that if they do forbid it, the prohibition is only political, and not conscientious.  
The second Imposture concerns Father Reginaldus, whose Text he hath clipped, and insists only 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 Author says, 
d Sententia negans in praxi sequenda est; quia in jure defensionis semper considerandum est, ne us●● illius vergat in perniciem Reipublicae. Ne dubium est quin sequendo affirmantem praebeatur occasio multis caedibus occultis cum magn● Reipublicae perturbatione. Accedit, quod si infamia jam sit illata, ca non extinguitur per mortem infamantis: sin inferenda, plerunque non constat, possitne alia ratione impediri, quam occisione infamaturi. Sic non est liberum co genere defensionis uti. Reginald. loc. citat.  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 ruin of the State. Now why does he change the word right, if it be not, because it would have 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 itself, yet nevertheless it is unlawful and criminal, even by God's Law, because of the murders and disorders, which it would cause in the State.  
In which I cannot but wonder at the blindness of our Calumniator, who knows well enough, that according to Reginaldus, this manner of defending one's self, tends to the ruin of the State; nevertheless he affirms, That he does not forbid it, because it is contrary to the Law of God; as if it were lawful by the Laws of God to confound the State; as if God, who prohibits the violating of a particular man's right, did not prohibit the ruin of the common right; as if it were a more criminal action to permit murder, because in permitting it, one exposes only one man's life, then because one exposes a million of men's lives at once; and in fine, as if there were any stronger reason to prove this violent way of defending one's self to be against the Law of God, then because it would introduce murders and disorders in States.  
The third Imposture sets upon Lessius, and makes him say simply, We ought to have a care, the using this Maxim prove not prejudicial to the State. Will this ch●at, who is grown grey in his malice, never deal honestly? Why does he not sincerely cite the words of this Author? Why does he not say, That Lessius condemns the using of this Maxim, because of the inconveniences may arrive? Does he not know, that the circumstances and dangerous consequences of an Action are sufficient to render it criminal 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 mortal, than those which Lessius brings to reject the practice of this, that is, the infinity of unjust murders, which it would cause in the State?  
This opinion (says he) ought not to be permitted in the practic, for the inconveniences which may follow. Men would easily persuade 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 murders would be committed in a State. Will you acknowledge the true Doctrine of this Father, which you have suppressed? and are you not sufficiently convinced of that falseness by these so manifest proofs?  
The fourth Imposture concerns Filiucius, who is reprehended by this Writer, for maintaining that Doctrine of the Jesuits, which forbids killing, not for opprobrious words only, but even for the most heinous Calumnies, and most unjust Accusations. He alleges for a reason, That one may be punished by the hand of Justice, for kill people upon that account. I would gladly know, what offence that Father had committed, if he should have made use of that reason. Does the Jansenist believe, Judges never punish Murderers, but on Politic accounts, and not upon Maxims of Conscience and Religion? ●s not the Law of God thought on at the Bar? Have not the ●udges of life and death the Commandments of God before their eyes? Is the Religion of their Court so suspicious, that he judges the jesuites to be criminal, for having grounded their opinion on the legal 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 citys, Filiucius indeed speaks of the penalties, which the judge's order against Murders, but says nothing of Murders, 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 jansenist attributes to him. I put them in the margin, that all the world may see, how God confounds Calumniatours, and how he suffers them, whilst they attack the reputation of others, so to blind themselves, that they become a reproach and laughingstock to the whole world.  
We must hold, says 
c Practicè contrarium est sequendum: tum quia si fama sublata est, non recuperatur per mortem detractoris. Si non est sublata, ferè semper aliis modis impediri potest: tum quia aperiretur via caedibus, & major a mala sequerentur in Republicâ, ut fatetur Lessius 1. 11. 82. Filiucius, Tract. 29. c. 3. n. 52.  Filiucius, the contrary opinion in the Practic; 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 ways to preserve it. And besides all this, 'twould open a gap to Murders, 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 judges; or what reason you find to dislike the jesuites 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 suffered your disorders. What ever it be, you must take away the scandal, which you have given to the public, in saying falsely, That the jesuites find it lawful in conscience to kill a man for opprobrious words only, and that they forbidden it merely for politic respects, and to have the judges on their side. Whereas I do assure all Catholics, there is not any one Divine, whether jesuit or other, that will suffer one to kill another for simple Calumnies. 'Tis true, some famous Authors who are no jesuites, have thought it lawful 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 Mayor, of Peter de Navarr, of Monsieur Du Val, that ornament of the Sorbon, and of Cardinal Richelieu, as you may perceive by Father Caussins' Answer to the Moral 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 Authors that are amongst the Jesuits, as Suarez, Vasquez, Lessius, Reginaldus, Filiucius, etc. 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 own to their persons.  
For your part, who unjustly condemn this proceeding, and who would render them criminal, 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 forbidden 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 College of Clermont.    

The two and twentieth Imposture. French 3.  
THat the Jesuits encourage Banquerupts, because Lessius affirmeth, A man that turns Bankrupt 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 learned this reproach in the Traditions of his Master, page 334. 
a Du Moulin casteth the same reproach on the Church, pag. 334. A man, saith he, that had taken by force, or fraudulently, another's goods, is not obliged to restitution, if be cannot do it but by prejudicing his honour. Navarr Consil. lib. 3. de Statu Monach. Consil. 3.  only 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 public disclaim hath renounced all title to honour. I will here show you Lessius his Doctrine, most excellent and worthy to be considered, especially in this corrupted age.  
This Father in his second Book de Justit. & Jure, cap. 16. disp. 1. first teaches, That a man reduced to extreme necessity, and not being able to pay his Creditors without losing both his own and his children's lives, is not obliged to pay; always presupposing, that he cannot by any other lawful means support them. Secondly, That he that is brought low in his estate, if he be in any great necessity, and near an extremity, is not obliged to pay his debts, till better fortune come. 
b Si ad eas angustias tuâ culpâ sis redactus, v. g. ludis, comessationibus, superfluis sumptibus, tunc non mer eris dilationem, neque debitorum ex contractu, neque ex delicto. Tibi enim imputare debes, quod jam fine status amissione non possis satisfacere. Lessius, lib. 2. cap. 16. d. 1. n. 28.  In the third place, That he who hath ruined his fortune by  expenses, by play, and by debauchery, ought not to excuse himself from satisfying his Creditors 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 Quod est notandum pro quibusdam Nobilibus, qui debita fine fine contrahunt, ut supra conditionem sui status expendant. Lessius, ibidem. num. 28.  (says that Father) because there are many Gallants, who desiring to appear above their condition, contract  debts without number. Fourthly, That those who have enriched themselves by unjust means, and 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 withal, 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 loss of their fortune, and the Splendour of their Families; and more especially when their thefts are publicly known: 
d Quod est valdè notandum pro multis hoc tempore, qui magnis fraudibus repentè divites & magni evadunt. Non enim possunt differre restitutionem usque ad mortem: Sed tenentur statim restituere, etiam cum demissione status malè acquisiti. Lessius l. 2. de Justit. c. 16. Dub. 1. n. 29.  which is greatly (says 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 Deathbeds; they are bound in conscience to satisfy 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 heinous crimes. Pray do but compare this Father's 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 of Catholic Authors with more foul play then this? In fine tell me, is it possible to read these words stuffed 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 Creditors, to whom they of right belong, and whom by this means you reduce to Beggary? pag. 168.   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
What a strange kind of Charity is this of the Jansenists, that they can practise in secret, what they so much condemn in public; applying the restitutions, which they cause to be made, not to the Creditors, whom they bring thereby into poverty, but to the reproach of Religion, and scandal of true Believers! Know 'tis false, that Lessius and the Jesuits teach unjustly to deceive Creditors; but 'tis too well known to be the practice of the Jansenists; and that they could not subsist as they do, nor make such prodigal expenses, if they were not helped by those accursed practices.    

The twenty third Imposture, French 5.  
THat the Jesuits favour corruption of Judges, 
a The same Slander Du Moulin layeth on the Church. A false witness that hath taken mon●y to bear false witness, is not obliged to restore. Tolet, lib. 5. c. 59 num. 6.  because their principal Authors, as Molina, Reginaldus, Filiucius, Escobar, and Lessius, do all unanimously by a fantastical Decision teach, That a Judge is obliged to return what ever he hath received for doing justice, unless 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 fantastical, 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 says, Tom. 1. Tract. 2. Disp. 88 Fol. 366. and 368. That a Judge sins by receiving a present, for three reasons. First▪ because 'tis forbidden by the Laws. Secondly, because they break their oath. And thirdly, because they give scandal, and by that suffer themselves more easily to be corrupted.  
Of false dealing, in saving according to these Authors, A Judge is not bound to restore a present made him as a liberality; and yet Filiucius tells us, 
b Quia ut plurimum s●unt cum peccato, id●ò, jure optimo, lege positiv● prohibita sunt ●jusmodi munera: & est potestas in princi●e obligandi ad restitutionem, etiam in foro conscientiae. Filiuc. Tract. 31. num. 211.  Tract. 31. num. 211. If they receive more than 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; whilst Reginaldus in the very place which he citys, lib. 10. num. 185. says the qui●e contrary. For although he speaks not in particular of a Judge, (which shows the sincerity of this Calumniator) but only in general of th●●●, who 〈◊〉 money for any wicked Action; yet 〈…〉 he firmly lays down one general Maxim, which discredits this Imposture: for he teaches, 
c Si in aliquo casu particulari detur lex, quae inhabilem faciat delinquentem, tunc facienda est restitutio. Reginaldus, libr. 10. num. 185.  That if the Laws in any particular case render him, who offends in receiving these kind of presents, uncapable of procuring the dominion or possession, he is bound to restitution.  
Of false dealing, in confounding maliciously the Civil and Positive Law with the Law of Nature; by which equivocation he would make us believe, a Judge according to these Authors is not obliged to restore that, which he took for giving an unjust sentence: and yet notwithstanding Filiucius and Molina speak only of the Law of Nature; affirming, That if there were no Positive Law forbidding them to receive gifts, (Secluse league Positiuá id prohibente) as Filiucius tells us, Tract. 31. num. 218. The Law of Nature would not bind them to Restitution.  
Of false dealing, in not distinguishing the persons, to whom one ought to make Restitution; to persuade us by this cheat, that these Authors 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; smothering what they add, that the Law may confiscate it; and that the Confessor in right aught 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 Natural and Positive Law, to repair the wrong, and prejudice which he suffers, who is unjustly oppressed.  
Now if he offend thus unworthily against sincerity, certainly he will not offend less against judgement. Is it not absurd, That a man, who pretends to reform the Moral, thinking to set upon the Jesuits, should headily run, and shake the Civil Laws, and call that a fantastical Decision, which they set forth as an inviolable Maxim, viz. 
d Ubi dantis & accipientis turpitudo versatur, non posse repeti dieimus; veluti si pe●unia detur, ut malè judicetur. L. 3. s. de conduct. obturpem causam.  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 See Bartol. L. 3. de poe●. Judic.  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, aught 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 jansenists have laboured to corrupt with money very able Religious Doctors of the Sorbon, to teach their errors publicly in the Schools. Those Religious had a horror of committing so black a wickedness: But suppose they had taken the bag offered them in hand, and had given it to the poor, were they obliged to make Restitution? And if the jansenist Doctors, who have received those infamous Salaries, touched at heart from God, should come to Confession, whether were it better, that the Confessor 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 jesuites instruct 
a Du Moulin casts the same reproach upon the Church, pag. 335. A Woman that has received money by way of Salary for her wantonness, is not bound to restore the money; because this Action is not contrary to justice; no, though she had taken more than her just hire. Thom. 2. 2 q. 32. Navarr. Tolet etc. But they forget to tell us what is her just hire; and pag. 402. The rules, saith he, what questions Ghostly Fathers are to ask of women, are too unclean and abominable to be set down here. See the Roman Penitential. The ninteenth Book of the Decrees of Burchard. Benedict.  Adulterers, Murderers, Soothsayers, and Sorcerers, how they may become learned and expert in their Art, because their Authors teach, That 'tis lawful to keep what ever is gotten by such crimes, and that 'tis astonishment to see the works of Religious stuffed with such horrible, such unjust, and such extravagant Decisions. Letter 8.  

Answer.  
This disguised Huguenot, who never read the Ancient Fathers, but with Calvin's eyes, does not read the Modern Casuists, but with those of the Minister Du Moulin.  
Let us take off this Masque of counterfeit Devotion, which he shows so much in that reproach, stuffed full of extravagancies and injustices. For if he pretend to be so surprised in finding those horrible, unjust, extravagannt Decisions in the writings of Religious, how will he be to find them in the writings of the Saints themselves?  
How will he be astonished to read this in St. Thomas, 
b Cum quis dat mere●rici propter fornicationem, mulier potest sibi retinere quod ei da●um est: sed si superfluè ad sraudem vel dolum extorsisset, tenetur ●id●m restituere.  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 than she ought, or else have an intention to cheat him she is bound to restore it to him?  
How will he be astonished to read again in his 
c Quod mulier meretricium exerceat, turpitèr ag●● & contra legem Dei: Sed in co quod accipit, non injustè agit, nec contra lc●em.  2. 2. q. 32. Art. 7. If a woman prostitute herself, she commits an enormous act against the Law of God: But if she receives money, in that she offends neither against Justice, nor against the Law of God?  
How will he be surprised to find them in St. Antonine, (who takes the pains to particularise all these heinous crimes) 2 part, Tit. 2. Cap. 5. 
d De illicitis isto tertio modo secundum Thomam & Raymundum potest dari Eleemosyna; potest etiam retineri, nisi superfluum per fraudem & dolum mulier extorfisset. Ad hoc pertinent lucra facta ex Histrionatu illicito, ex Duello, ex Torneamento, ex Deliciis factis, ex arte Mathematicâ, seu Divinatoriâ.  and who in all these cases of Magic, Duels, Murders, Impurities, etc. advises Confessors 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 surprised to have these opinions authorized by the Sentences of judges, and by the oracles of Law, who clearly decide it, That a Whore sins in prostituting herself, but yet does not sin in taking what is given her. L. 4. § Sed & quod Meretrix?  
How will he be astonished to finde it in all Divines, 
e Petrus à Navarra, l. 9 de restitut. c. 2. Navarrus, cap. 17. n. 30. & 35. Cajetan in 2. 2. q. 32. A. 7. & q 62. Art 5. Angelus, verb. concussio. 2. & 5. & verb. restitutio. Sylvestr verb. restitutio.  who took themselves obliged to instruct Confessors, 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 Jesuits, as a new and astonishing crime, the teaching of that, which is read in the works of so many excellent men; whose Holiness, and whose Prudence is bowed to by the whole world? And are these Decisions innocent in all other Authors, and unjust only in the Jesuits? Are they legitimate, when pronounced by Kings and Emperors? 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 Jesuits learned them out of these Doctors?  
Let him know, these Decisions, which he attributes to the Jesuits, do originally belong to the Holy Doctors of the Church: but the injustice and extravagancy, which he finds, belongs to himself: and that he could not have learned that rashness, but of some jeering wicked Parson, to say, that by such Decisions St. Thomas, and St. Antonine teach Murderers 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 only can teach such revilers, as yourself, 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 you are bound to repair the scandal you have given the faithful, and the honour you strive to force from the Jesuits, by these Impostures so full of injustice.    

The twenty fifth Imposture. French 7.  
THat the Jesuits 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 leisure 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 finds fault with the Father Escobar, for having assigned certain expedients, by which this contract may be permitted; Letter 8. and in that is either extremely ignorant, 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 needful 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 Octava difficultas est, utrum labe usurae careat contractus, quo venditur res, credita pecunia, pretio rigoroso; & po●●eà eadem statim redimitur, numerata pecunia, medio vel insimo pretio?  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 Respondeo, per se loquendo carere labe usur●. Ita Navarrus. cap. 23. num 91. Petrus Navarrus, l. 3. c. 2. n. 170. Rebel. l. 9 q 7. n. 7. Salonius 2. 2 q 78. A. 2. contr. 7. Armilla verb. Usura, n. 19 Sylvester verb. Usura. 2. quaesit. 2. Et ratio est, quia in utraque venditione res venditur justo: ergo utraque venditio licita est, & non usuraria. Haec Bonacina. Tractat. de Contract. Disp. 3. q. 2. p. 3. n. 20. p. 725.  I answer (says he) that considering the nature of the Contract, it is exempt from the spot of Usury; and it is the opinion of Navarr. 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 lawful, 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 allege the Doctrine of those Authors, who seem to him worthy of reprehension. But in earnest his Impostures and Lying are unsupportable. For if he do seriously believe the Doctrine of the Jesuits to be wholly corrupt, what should scare him from telling it in the proper terms? why should he mangle that which he relates? Does he think all eyes bewitched, like those of the Jansenists? and that they see nothing, but what he has a mind to show them, and never perceive what he hides by Leger-demain from them?  
Pray, do but see in what manner he eclipse off some of Lessius his words, and confounds those of Escobar. Escobar, says he, sets down certain expedients to render it lawful, even though he, who sells and buys again, looks on his profit as his principal design: provided only, that when he sells, he exceed not the highest prices of Stuffs in that kind; and that when he buys again, he fall not below the lowest, and that there be no agreement before hand, either in express terms, or otherwise. But Lessius de Justit. l. 9 c. 21. d. 16. says, That though there were such an agreement, a man is never obliged to make restitution of the prosit: unless 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, Juggler; 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 Molina Tom. 2. d. 310. requirit ulterius, quod merces non vendantur ex intemione in●imo pretio reemendi. Porro Salas id non obstare asserit, Escobar in the place quoted by the Calummatour.  That this coutract is not lawful, unless the Merchant that sells the wares, be without any intention to buy them again at a cheap●rate: but Salas indeed says 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 alleged, or rather corrupted, 
d Adverte tamen, hunc modum contrahend● s●pe non car●re culpa in Mercatore, qui ex composito it a vendit, ut pretio infimo redimat. Name prom● peceare potest contra charitatem, ●t si cogat miserum hominem cmere me●ces, quibus non ●get, cum posset illi facile & absque suo incommodo mutuum dare. Secundò peceare potest praebendo malum exemplum. Nam contractus ille habet speciem mali & suspicionem usurae. Tertiò seipsum & alios infama●do. Non tamen tenetur ad restitutionem, ut inquit Navarrus: quod intellige, non teneri exjustitiâ; sed sieri potest, ut teneatur ex charitate, ut si alter ●it pauper, & grave sit illi tale detrimentum; cum ipse sit causa talis incommodi gravis, tevetur illud ●movere ex charitate, cum commodè potest.  When a Merchant sells wares, on 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 scandal 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 public in famy. All this with one by't 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 only follows the judgement of Navarre, whose name you have smothered; and does it only, that he may make the duty of this obligation to ●ise from the precept of Charity, no ways inferior to that of Justice, in case that he, who buys, be in poverty, and that he, who ●ells, canrestore it with out inconveniencing himself.  
Is this your manner of abusing the patience of wise men? Is it only to say three or four words of Italian or Spanish, (the Contract Mohatra, Barata, Stocco) to prove all the Moral of the Jesuits Heathenish? Letter 5. Or can you believe, a wise man will be satisfied with your insipid jestings, which can only drum in weak heads, and cheat the heedless?   

An Advertisement to the Jansenists.  
This Calumniating Jansenist may tell us, when he pleases, the other Methods, he says, we have to teach worldly people, how to enrich themselves without usury. But I assure him beforehand, 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 Director, who long since found the Art of stealing Cabinets, and of making himself rich in a moment, by the full sum of nine hundred thousand livers. This Method is far more commodious than 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 unlawful 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 Daughter's consent, although the Father have cause enough to complain, it does not follow, that the said Daughter, or he, to whom she prostituted herself, 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 only killing, or dismembering herself. Letter 9  

Answer.  
Father Caussin, in his answer to the Moral Divinity, refuting this Imposture, reproaches the Author of that Libel for his forgetfulness, in taking the Commandment, which regards Chastity, for the seventh, although the Catholics 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 Roman Traditions, pag. 328. he would have seen his faithful Scholar 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 the seventh Commandment, Thou shalt not commit Adultery, pag. 329. where this Lay-Casuist of port-royal found a mould for this Calumny. For amongst a great many Railleries', with which Duke Moulin fills up that Chapter, he says, 'Tis a Tradition of the Church, That a Daughter, who shall commit Whoredom, after twenty five years, cannot for that be disinherited nor dispossessed of her portion; and on that he citys those Orthodox Doctors, to laugh and jeer at their opinion. The Jansenist, who adores any thing that does but come from Geneva, endearing the Calvinists, adds the reason of this Maxim, Because the Daughter, says he, is in possession of her Virginity, as much as she is of her body; and when she prostitutes herself, although her father have subject to complain, yet she does him no wrong, neither does she violate justice as to him, and thereupon he quotes the jesuits. The words which Du Moulin alleges, are of Navarr, lib. 4. Consil. de cond. appos. Consil. 2. Those words, which the Jansenist b●ings, are of Bannes 
a 
Caeterùm existimo, quod mulier est domina s●● corporis, etc. Bannes loc. citat.  
Nam si virgo contra patris volunta●●m nupserit, valet matrimonium, nec ten●tur quicquam ipsa restituere patri, nec vir illius. ergo etiam qui admisit stuprum cum illâ volente, non peccat con●ra Jus●●tiam, sed contra Cast●●atem. Bannes' ●●●dem.   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 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 Heretics, who by an horrible wickedness accuse these Divines for teaching, That a young Maid, who prostitutes herself, does not absolutely sin, because she is in possession of her body; whereas they only say, That she does not sin against Justice, though she sins against Chastity, which is one part of Temperance.  
Do but only 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 than the sun at noon. After that Bannes had said, A Daughter, who prostitutes herself, 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 personal good, belonging to herself, and not to her father, who has only the care, not the possession. Bannes, I say, after he had advanced that Doctrine, adds, That when he said, She does no wrong to her Father, he speaks only of what concerns 
b Praedicta conclusio intelligenda est quantum ad laesionem integritatis, & damna temporalia consecuta. At vero quantum ad honorem ablatum ab ipso patre dicimus, quod stuprator ten●tur restituere illum honorem Patri, quantum fucrit possibile, in codem genere, ad arbitrium. viri ●oni. Bannes' ibidem.  the violating her virginity, and the temporal prejudice which happens to him: but as to the infamy, which falls on the Father, he teaches, That he, who committed that villainy, 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, than 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 Sum, does exactly follow Bannes. For after he had said, If the sin of the Daughter be unknown, than he, to whom she abandoned ●er self, is exempted from restoring upon that account; he asks this question following, If there lie 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 complain; 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 stolen her away without the consent of her Parents, although she herself did consent, he affirms, That both the one and the other are obliged to declare that circumstance to their Confessors, because (says 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 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 herself to be carried away, concludes Rosella, etc. Sylvester, q. 6. concl. 2. of which she is as much obliged to accuse herself, 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 only that he distinguishes between the right of the one, and the possession of the other; because the honour of the Daughter is a Jewel in the keeping of the Father, but not in his possession; the custody belonging to him, and the possession 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 only 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. concls. 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.  
You see now, what reason this Calumniatour has to say, the Jesuits propose the most extravagant and the most obscene questions that can fall into a man's 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 herself, yet the justice is notwithstanding violated as to her Father's regard; yet nevertheless 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 Moral, you should do well to read the Book of Holy Virginity, an Original of one of your most eminent persons; and there you will find Propositions both extravagant and obscene. I will not publish them; not to save you from that confusion, which you have but too well merited; but because I will not offend the eyes of my Readers; and therefore content myself only to give you a Memorandum, of what censure the Sorbon gave on the page 59 
c Haec doctrina, quá dicit aequalitatem efficientiae inter actum generandi, qui exerceretur in statu innocentiae, & inter Sacramentorum nostr●rum efficientiam, est scandalosa, temeraria, & Sacramentis ●ovae legis contumeliosa.  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 actual affection for God, and declare their different opinions thereon. Letter 10. pag. 237.  

Answer.  
If this Fool had only pretended to oppose a particular opinion, I would pardon his Foppery; and if he had wanted respect only for one Divine, I could tolerate his insolency: But he is run to the very extremity of folly, and hath chosen for his opposers the whole School of Divinty, striving to make that pass for a ridiculous amusement, and unworthy of a wise man, which in 
a Controversia est non parvi momenti inter Doctores, de tempore quo tenetur peccator Conteri. Cajetan in Summa, verb. Contritio.  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 days being therefore dedicated to the Worship and Service of God; as Soto. Another, that this Precept binds to make an interior 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 choose a good side is an act of wisdom; but indiscreetly to find fault with, and to use the famous Doctors, as if they were Drolls, because they writ on this subject, 'tis a want of judgement, and a drowning of one's self in the sight of all the wise men of the world, without being pitied 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 Original; 'tis an Antique; and I will show you some excellent features of it, by which you may guests at the Genius of their Author. He writes to Monsieur D' Andilly, and makes use (as he says 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 The Letter of the Abbot of St. Cyran to Monsieur D' Andilly Counsellor to the King in his Counsel of State, from Poitiers 25. Sept. 1620. The Original is in Clermont College, and also printed in the Progress of Jansenisme, pag. 123.  saith he, once for all, to tell you with some expression equal to the depth of my thoughts, in what manner I have dedicated myself to you, I have in that essay done contrary to those excellent Penitents, who find 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 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 myself 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 virtue) 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 transgress it) that you shall always find my actions stronger; what do I say then my words? yea, than my conceptions. What do I say, than my conceptions? yea, than my affections and internal move. For all those have something in them of the body, and by consequence are not sufficient to give testimony of a thing that is spiritual. 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 mixed with flesh, blood, sums, and imperfections; because my love to you resteth in the centre of my heart before it opens, and dilating and stretching itself to you, produceth certain spirits, conceptions, imaginations and passions, which are most excellent. I feel them as an affectionate weight within me, and which I dare neither bring forth, nor disclose, for fear I expose a Saintlike holy fruit, (I had rather call it by that name, than any other) to my senses, to my imaginations, to my passions; which tarnish immediately, and like clouds veil the best productions of the soul. Insomuch that to give myself 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 inferior 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 exterior, and swims (to say so) above my heart, there is none but God can dive into the bottom and centre. Even I myself, 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 careful enough not to limit by any thing since I would persuade myself, that I am in the infinity of a Radical (I had almost said Substantial) 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 Centre and Quintessence of my soul: which being infinite, both in time, and in your virtue 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 always more power to act and love efficaciously, than I could be thought to have by my actions. In this there is nothing incredible, if a man know, 'tis for love of your excellent virtues, that I make this so admirable vow. Can any one find fault with me in offering you the Centre of my Heart, you being, as you are, one self same thing with God? Can any complain, that I express 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 persuade us, That this is the Language of the Ages of the Primitive Church, of Fathers and Counsels, to kindle again that Sacred fire, which the negligence of Pastors, and the slackness 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 profane Foolery?    

The twenty eighth Imposture. French 28.  
THat the Jesuits violate the great Commandment, on which 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 custom, he hath without any ground yielded to the Ministers of Charenton, 
a 
God in the Tables of the Law neither commandeth Faith nor Charity, Thom 1, 2. q. 10. a. 4. & 2. 2. q 79. a. 2. & 2. 2. q. 44. ar. 4.  
Navarr. Manual. c. 11. in the Traditions of Du Moulin, pag. 341, 342.   who accuse Saint Thomas and Navarr for destroying the whole precept of the Love of God: Only he is himself an abominable Falsifier, if he dare affirm, after having read Divines, That they teach, The Act of Charity is not necessary to Salvation. I will not allege out of the infinity of Authors, who establish this necessity, any one who is not a Jesuit; because 'tis under ●●eir name he wounds the reputation of the others▪ They speak then thus.  
Cardinal Lugo 
b Praceptum de diligendo Deo est omnino de jure naturae, & obligaret, secluso quolibet Dei decreto, ut omnes concedunt. Disp. 7. de P●nit. Sect. 12. n. 250.  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 Di●o primò, omnibus hominibus impositum esse hoc praec●ptum. Constat Deut. 6. Diliges Deum Dominum tuum, etc. Et Matth. 10. & 22. Hoc est primum & maximum manda●um. Infra, Ratio conclusionis est, quia hujusmodi d●lectio est medium necessarium ad salutem: om●ia ●utem talia media cadu●t sub praeceptum. Suare●. Tract. de Charitat. Disp. 5. Sect. 1.  in the first place I say, This Precept binds 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 Cum quaerimus, quomodo & quando praeceptum de dilection● Dei obliget, pro certo ponimus illud extare: id enim constat manifesté, tum ex scripturâ, tum ex ratione. Et infra. Dico primo obligare istud praeceptum, ut Deum diligamus, non quomodocunque, sed tanq● am ultimum finem, at que ad●ò summè appretiatiuè, seu quod idem est, super omnia: non autem summè intensiuè. Valentia, Tom. 3. Disp. 3. q. 19 punct.  When we ask, after what manner, 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 Mihi persuadco, nos tencri sub culpâ lethali, praecepto Charitatis Dei, subvenire ac nos opponere, quando honour & gloria Dei & Christi periclitarentur, id effi●tendo quod profuturum ad id speraremus, etiam cum periculo nostro. Molina, Tract. 5. de Justitiâ, Disp. 59 pag. 3167. n. 7. Et infra, pag. 3167. n. 7. Id vero non tollit, quod de Dei Charitatc sit peculiar aliquod praeceptum, tanquam de re D●o debitâ, & tanquam de Medio ad Deum vitamque sempiternam obtinendam necessario.  I am verily persuaded, that we are obliged by the precept of Divine Charity, under pain of Mortal Sin, if there be any danger that the honour and glory of God and Christ Jesus should be hazarded before men, to step in, and oppose ourselves, and even with the peril of our lives to do all that we can hope may be any ways 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 Praeceptum diligendi Deum, est duplex. 1. Generale, quod in toto Decalogo continetur, cujus obligatio est observare legem Dei. 2. Particular, quod positiuè obligat ad actum Charitatis: five hic actus sit dilectio Dei, five detestatio pec●ati, ut est offensa Dei. Hoc ergo posteriore oritur specialis obligatio Contritionis. Becanus de Sacramentis. Cap. 35. quaest. 6. num. 4.  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 ascertain 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 Constat extare praeceptum de dilectione Dei, Deu. 6. & Matth. 22. Ratio est, quia actus dilectionis est ad salutem necessarius. 1. Joan. 3. Qui non diligit, manet in morte. At de omnibus ad salutem necessariis extat praeceptum. Sanchez libr. 2. Moral. cap. 35. num. 1.  'Tis certain there is 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 Praeceptum hoc de diligend● Deo primum & maxium dicitur, Matth. 22. quia est de excellentissimae virtutis primario actu, ●oque inprimis necessario ad salutem. Nam Charitas est, inquit Sanctus Aug. in ●p. Joan. tract. 5. c. 3. sine quâ nibil prodest, quodc●nque habueris; quam si solam habeas, sufficit tibi, Layman, libr. 2. Tract. 3. cap. 2. num. 2.  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 virtue, 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 Praeceptum Charitatis in sacris literis continetur, non uno in loco, sed pluribus ac diversis. Primum, Deut. 6. deinde, Matth. 2●. tum, Marci II. postremo, Lucae 10. quibus in locis hisce verbis dictum est nobis, Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo. Azor. libr. 9 Instit. Moral. cap. 4.  In many places of Holy Scripture we may find a command for Charity. First, in the sixth Chapter of Deut. afterwards 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 Praeceptum de diligendo Deo habet se per modum principii omnibus noti. Tannerus, Tom. 3. Disp. 2. de Spe & Charitate, quaest. 4. dub. 4. num. 62.  The Commandment of loving God is ranked amongst those, which are known to the whole world.  
Castropalao. 
l Latum esse speciale mandatum de diligendo Deo, tenent cum D. Thoma omnes ejus expositoros. Castropalao, Tom. 1. q. de Spe & Charitate, Disp. 1. p. 2.  All Interpreters of St. Thomas agree with that Holy Doctor in this, that there is a particular precept obliging us to love God.  
Maldonatus. 
m Respondeo, hoc tanquam certum statui, nos non nisi bona nobis velle debere; & non alitèr nosmetipsos, quàm propter Deum amaturos esse, cum Deum ex toto cord, ex totâ avimâ, & totis viribus diligere jubeamur: quod si facimus, non possumus nos diligere alitèr quàm oportet. Propterea jubemur proximum eodem modo diligere. Maldonatus in cap. 22. Matth. vers. 39  I answer, we presuppose as a certain Maxim, that we ought not to wish any thing, but good, to ourselves, and that we do not love ourselves otherwise then for the love of God; since that we are commanded to love God with all our heart, with all our soul, and with all our strength. If we do thus, we cannot love ourselves, but as we should. Therefore we are command to love our neighbour, as ourselves.  
Cardinal Bellarmin. 
n Scriptura Divina non solùm praedicat dilectionem esse donum Dei, sed etiam praecipit, ut diligamus Deum: ac certè non praecipit, ut diligamus Deum ex habitu infuso, sed ut diligamus Deum ex toto cord. Leges enim de actibus dantur, non de habitibus. Bellarmin. Tom. 4. l. 6. de Gratiâ & libero Arbitrio. c. 7. pag. 892.  Holy Scripture does not only 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 enjoining the love of God. I say, a Particular. As for the general precept comprehended in all the commandments of God, never any Catholic doubted of it. And therefore in that the jansenist shows 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 distinguished them; that he might show 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 Commandment, which always 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 Author found, which will oppose this. But also there is an affirmative precept, which according to Divines does not always bind us, but only 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 Jesuits, that have believed, a man might fulfil the precept of Charity merely by natural 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 General, that binds us to an observance of all God's Commandments, and this is acknowledged by all faithful Catholics. And another particular, which binds us to make certain formal Acts of the Love of God: which 
o Sancius in select. disputationibus. Disp. 1.  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 quaest. 90. A. 1. Dub. 4. n. 41. Merito ergo diximus, esse pr●ceptum dilectionis. Et paulò post. Sanctus Thomas tantum docet esse Charitatis praeceptum, quod ego non nego: sed quando obliget, non explicat.  Vasquez. But Monsieur Du Val in his Treaty of Charity 
q Du Vallius. Tract. de Charitate.  refutes him, and hath very perfectly explained St. Bernard's meaning. For the others 'tis no hard matter to justify them; since Vasquez in the very same place he alleges, professes the quite contrary opinion: and Maldonatus speaks only concerning the General Precept; which he does not distinguish 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 less with Heretics. For I defy him to show even any one Jesuit, who teaches, That the Love of God is not necessary to Salvation. I do not only speak of that effective Love, consisting in a perfect observance of all God's Laws, but also of that affective Love, as St. Bernard calls it, which consists in the interior act of supernatural Divine Love. Neither indeed durst he set upon any particular person, unless it were Antony Sirmond, with whom he wrangles upon a conditional proposition, which he takes in a wrong sense, and which yet does not destroy the great commandment; unless 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 Chancellor of the University of Paris to say, 
r Gerson i● Opus●ulo Tripartito.  That the Law which binds us to love God with all our hearts, is conveniently accomplished by men, if their works execute his Commandments.  
Thus 
s See Fath. Caussin in his answer to the Mo●al Divinity.  have eight Counsels of France explicated the Precept of Charity; which explication hath been inserted into the rituals of Paris, Thoul, and Bourges, by the Authority of the Prelate's, to the end that it might be proposed to the people, as the most profitable to the edification of souls. And it is following them that Father Sirmond said, 
t 〈◊〉 of the Defence of Virtue. pag. 23.  That we are bound under a grievous penalty to love God with an incomparable love of an inestimable value, so great, that we never equal any thing with him, nor ever v●luntarily stagger between his service and the creatures, being uncertain to which of them to give ourselves: much less, that we never pre●er any thing before him, or suffer ourselves 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 contrary, That the ●ormal act of loving God is necessary by an absolute necessity, by an indispensable necessity, by a necessity at least surpassing that of Precept, as all Divines acknowledge.  
If a man, says he, were dying out of the state of Grace, unless Charity assisted him, it is indeed then in effect necessary, and that necessitate medii, (by a necessity of means) which is more than the necessity of Precept. Whence it appears, that when he disputes, whether or no we are obliged to produce interior acts of the love of God by the necessity of Precept, he speaketh only of that Divine Law, which Divines call Positive, not of that which they call Natural; because it is grounded on natural 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 doubtful and uncertain; affirming, That it is not evident this Holy Doctor acknowledged this particular precept of the love of God; which he cannot say of the Natural Precept, because a little before he told us his opinion concerning the natural Obligation every man hath to add 〈◊〉 himself towards God, so soon as he gins 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 Natural Law, why will you quarrel with him on a subtlety, which is never used but in School Disputes, and of which the vulgar people are no ways 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 faithful, whether they be bound by a Positive Law, or a Natural? By a necessity 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 essential 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 these two sorts of Love; the one 
u Est Charitas in actu; est & in effectu. Et de illâ quidem, quae operis est, puto datam esse legem hominibus, mandatumque formatum. Name in affectu quis ita habeat, ut mandatur? Ergo illa mandatur ●d meritum, ista ut praemium datur. Et infra — Quomodo ergo jubenda fuit, quae implenda nullo modo erat? St. Bern. Serm 50. in Cantica.  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 shows th●r● is, why must that be holy in the works of St. Bernard, and criminal 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 find, what it is which nettles this unjust Accuser. For the Author of that work, in his first Treatise, aims at nothing, but the maintaining the merit and excellency of vows, which was vilified 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 error of certain absurd Heads, who under pretence of going to God only by Love, cannot endure a man should help himself with Hope and Fear; as if it were unworthy of a Christian to exercise those virtues, they being full of self-love, imperfections, and sins. In which error those men follow the spirit of Luther, who teacheth, That all Moral Virtues, and all the good works we do before we have Charity, are sins. A Proposition, which was 
x Censura Sorbonica. Anni 1521.  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 Heresy. (Falsa, temerariè asserta, peccatorum ab emendatione retractiva, & sapiens haeresim.)  
You see what it is, that displeases the Casuist of port-royal, in Father Antony Sirmond: but not daring to tell 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 virtues, unless 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 satisfy 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 errors, 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 one's whole heart to a creature, and to love it, as much as God himself. This is a little ●oo much for a Director of Consciences. When you over-looked the Christian and Spiritual Letters of the Abbot of St. Cyran, you ought for the honour of your Sect, to have reform that Compliment you make him write to a certain Nun. 
y See the Christian and Spiritual Letters, w●i●h Monsieur D' Andilly published under the name of the Abbot of St. Cyran: which are far more polished, than those which are kept in Cle●m●nt College, written by the Abbots own hand, as you may easily judge by what follows.  I am now, more than ever, assured of your great love to God; and 'tis that which redoubles mine to you, rendering 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 confess, these words might have been left out; and that they are not very necessary to Salvation.  
It is not at all necessary, in being Christianly charitable, to be more transported than those, who fall into rage, into drunkenness, and into a passion of sensual love. Those are the expressions of that great Abbot of St. Cyran writing to Monsieur D' Andilly.  
z This is the first Letter of those which are kept in Clermont College, written by tho Abbot of St. Cyran to Monsieur D' Andilly the 25. of Sept. 1620.  A man must be passionate, (as we are) for that invisible beauty, (says 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 only a mutual affection, which bond together that famous Squadron of Greeks, and rendered them invincible. The knowledge of the things of God springs up only 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 Cabal, unless they be first initiated into those Mysteries, which as 
* Orgies were the Sacifices of Bacchus; where the Heathens did run about like mad men, and tear and cut themselves.  Holy Orgies, render their spirits more transported one towards another; like those who fall into madness, into drunkenness, and into the passion of carnal 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 move, 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 one's self happy in the union of these two: nor is it necessary, that the passion one has for an illustrious Solitary Person of Port Royal, should be always 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 learned but by Cabal.  
This admirable Love belongs only to the Heads of your Sect. A man must be of your Cabal to be perfect in it. I am confident, there are very few Wits can write a Language so high, as is that, which himself admires in one of his Letters, very carefully kept in Clermont College. Harken a little, how he speaks of that Love, which flames in his Breast: for he deserves, that all the World should understand him.  

* Saint Cyran's mad Raptures in expressing himself to his Neighbour Monsieur D' Andilly.  Me thinks, says he, on one side, that the Characters of Friendship are as estimable as Letters; and on the other side having been surprised, about eleven a clock, by him, for whom I writ; 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 myself bound by that powerful 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 only 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 than either the time or my hand, to tell you, that I did not take your vulgar and common fashion of speaking, although it was extremely well deduced, by which you engage yourself to me in occasions for my Friend, without remembering 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 rendering myself, as at the very point of a Temporal Eternity, 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 writ 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 express 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 yourself, and not being able to make them come out of that my Spirit, but with the same precipitation of the Spirit of God, which compels 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 'Tis what (probably) this Monsieur D'Andilly has done in the Christian and Spiritual Letters of this Abbot.  to the end you may repolish them, and give them by your Holy and Sublime Thoughts that perfection they desire. 'Tis, sincerely, the only 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 learned 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 writ in the language of God. All the rest being but a shadow, and a fraudulent disguise, of which I am as much an enemy, as I find myself 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 Jesuits, 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 rectify him: and if through ignorance, he has need of a Master, which may give him more certain knowledge, then port-royal has done. Let us carry him to Sorbon. He will find there a Censure by the most able Doctors 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 confess all the errors, he has run into on this Subject in his Tenth Letter, merely by opposing the Doctrine of these Authors to that of the Jansenists.  
The Jansenist believes, 'tis a particular Opinion of the Jesuits, That Attrition only is sufficient with the Sacrament. Yet Monsi●ur Gamasche a Sorbonist, to undeceive him, assures 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 Jesuits have had so great a power over men's 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 only belief of the Faithful. 
a Caeterùm communis ac vulgò recepta aliorum doctrina est, sufficere Attritionem simplicitèr cum Sacramento ad Justificationem: etiamsi cognita illa ●uerit in genere Attritionis. Ita enim d●cent Paludanus in 4. dist. 19 q. 1. A. 2. Adrianus de Confession, q. 5. B. Antoninus 3. p. tit. 14. c. 19 Sylvester verb. Confessio. Roffensis Art. 5. contr. Lutherum. Canus Relect. de Poenit. 5. p. ad. 2. Estque manifestè sententia D. Thomae. Gamachaeus in 3. p. de Poenit. Sacramento. c. 9 p. 550.  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 concerning Attrition, was ever not the only belief of the Faithful, 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. That 'tis a very Catholic Doctrine, and which is very near matter of Faith, and very consonant with the Council of Trent, (thus this Abbot speaks, whose terms ought not to be changed) That Attrition alone, yea, and grounded only 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 Heresy, but yet they will tax it of error and rashness. Monsieur Du Vall on the other side t●l●s us, That the Council of Trent, Sess. 14. cap. 14. has declared, 
b Quinto: Sessione 14. c. 14. Attritionem ●●●ctam Sac●amento Poenitentiae ad remissionem pe●catorum su●●icere; quod ●isi nondum tarquam de side sit definitum, à declaratione tam●● Concilii est ita fidei proximum, ●● q●i contra s●n●it, graviter err●t. Du Vallius T. 2. Tract. de Discipli●â Ecclesiastics, q. 7. pag. 802.  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 Council made, it is a most notorious error to dispute it.  
If he be not content with the witness of one Doctor, 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 words, 
c Quae tradidit de Attritionis insufficienti●, & contritionis, & perfectae charitatis absolute necessitate ad recipiendum Sacramentum poenitentiae, damnavit qu●qu● Facultas, & censuit has propositiones esse quietis animarum perturbativas, communi, & omnino tutae praxi Ecclesiae contrarias, efficaciae Sacramenti poenitentiae imminutivas, & insuper temerarias & erroneas. Ysambert. de poenit. disp. 14. A. 6. in ●ine.  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, etc. 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 principal effect of the Sacrament, but on the contrary, that it is rather an hindrance. The faculty of Paris, to satisfy that scruple which troubles him, hath declared, that the contrary opinion of Fath. Seguenot weakness the efficacy of the Sacrament of Penance, in this, that Contrition justifies the sinner, and restores the fi●st G●ace, which is the principal effect of that Sacrament; and which it could never produce, if Contrition were a disposition absolutely necessary: which was the reason, That Monsieur 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 only 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 precedes the Sacrament of Penance, hinders it from producing its principal ●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 Physic, 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 man's death. They say indeed with Monsi●ur Du Vall, (whom I cite to sweeten that gall which lies in hi● heart) 
d Primus casus, quando quis in evidenti periculo versatur, & conscius sibi est alicujus peccati mortalis, si desint Confessarii, tenetur concipere Contrition●m, quae quidem ●ontinet, vel virtualitèr, vel formalitèr, amo●em D●i super omnia.— Subdit post al●●t●m rationem. Dixi, Si non adsit copia Confessatii. Quia si adsit, cum sufficiat Attritio cum Sacramento, Attritio aut●m tantum exigat, secundum multos, displicentiam peccati, prout reatu● damnationis ater●ae, aut jacturam regni coelestis inducit, non necessario exigit amorem D●i super omnia. Du Vallius Tract. de Charitate, q. 20. pag. 687. col. 1.  That Contrition is necessary at one's death, if a man be in mortal sin, and cannot have a Priest to confess 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, than the fear of pains, or the loss of heaven, it does not bind 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 Jesuits; and that he teaches with them, That although Attrition be sufficient with the Sacrament, nevertheless a man is obliged at that definitive moment, on which depends an Eternity, to make his salvation certain by all means, not only necessary, but possible; and consequently to force one's self fervently to produce acts of sincere Contrition; if it be only, says he, 
e Gamachaus loco jam citato.  to arrive at a true Attrition; which many times is only imaginary in great sinners. Yet if this Divine hath the knowledge of a Doctor to maintain his opinion, he has not the rashness of a Jansenist to condemn that of others; and contents himself to reason like a Scholar, 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 hid 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 supernatural. 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 Citantur pro h●c opinion Dominicus Soto & Navarrus à Gamachaeo, Tract de Poenitent. Sacrament, cap. 9 Citantur reliqut à Leandro, Tom. 1. Tract. 5. the Sacrament. Poenit. Disp. 1. ●. 47. * Sua●ez disp. 20. sect. 2. num 8. Molina, in Concordia, ●isp. 14. in fine. Granados, disp. 3. num. 4. Vasqu●z q. 92. a. 2. de unico. Ci●antur hi omnes, & alii plures á Leandro, loco sup●a citato,  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' Amy a Jesuit condemns, even in that very place which his Calumniatour alleges; which Granado a Jesuit rejects; which Molina a Jesuit 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 natural in its self, and supernatural in its principle, and in its circumstances; forasmuch as it proceeds from the movings of an interior 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 burdensome and difficult obligation. I will entreat him to listen to an ancient Doctor of the Sorbon. 
g Tartarctus D●ct●r Parisiensis, in ●. dist. ●, quaest. ult. §. deinde Doctor.  I put the case, says 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 Confession, than 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 interior moving.  
It is in the sense this Doctor speaks, that the Abbot of Boisic has said, That notwithstanding there is nothing more useful, nor more tending to Salvation, than the practice of Contrition, yet the act being one of the most difficult, which charity can practise, (unum ex difficillimis, quae Charitas praestare potest) as Jansenius himself confesses) it would be very 
h Jansen. Tom. 3. lib. 5. Cap. 33.  burdensome to oblige us to it under pain of Damnation, when ever we confess; and to make that Disposition necessary to the Sacrament of Penance, which is contrary to the Declaration of the Council 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 Maxims of your Sect concerning this Sacrament? Do you agree with the Abbot of St. Cyran in the opinion. 
i 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 merely declarative, of the pardon granted?  
That Venial sins are not sufficient matter for the Sacrament of Penance?  
Do you believe with Monsieur Arnauld, 
k In his Book of Frequent Communion. pag. 326, 327. ibid. pag. 521.  That the Absolution of the Priest is then only real, when it follows the sentence of the invisible Judge: That we ought not to lose any by our Pastoral Authority, but those, whom our Master has raised up by a quickening Grace: That sometimes exterior 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, 
l In a Letter which he writ to the Abbot of St. Cyran: which is in the Memorandums that were used in the Process of that Abbot.  That in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary to confess the number of Mortal 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 the Christian and Spiritual Letters, which he published under the name of the Abbot of Saint Cyran, 
m See the first Edition.  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 Venial 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 Venial Sins, those just persons, who committed them, thought it sufficient to choose of themselves some light Penances, before they went to assist at the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, pag. 265. Let. 32. That Confession was the last remedy, which was practised in the Church, for the washing away of Venial Sins, all the others being more ancient, pag. 769. Let. 92.  
Do you believe with the Translator of the Book of Holy Virginity, Disciple of the Abbot of St. Cyran, pag. 134. 
n Censura Sorbonae Haec doctrine, quâ ait ex ordine & nature â rei requiri, quod sit publica confessio, est nova, falsa, & periculosa. Censura Sorbonae jam citata. Quae tradit de Attritionis insufficieutiâ, & Contrittionis ex perfect â charitate absolut â necessitate ad recipiendum Sacramentum Poenitentiae, & quae addit & approbat de Absolutione, quòd ●ihil aliud sit, quàm declaratio Juridica peccati jam remissi, damnavit quoque facultas, & nonsuit has propositiones esse qui●tis animarum perturbativ●s, communi & omnino tutae praxi Ecclesi● contrarias, efficaciae Sacramenti Poenitentiae imminutivas, & insuper temerarias & ●rroneas.  That both the order and nature of the thing requires, that Sacramental Penance should be performed in public. And pag. 129, & 130. That whosoever should say, Absolution is nothing but a judicial Act, by which the Priest doth only 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 Council, 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 confessed himself to a Priest, only to oblige him to a secrecy, in those wicked Maxims he had told him; which he laughed 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 passed betwixt him and another Ecclesiastical Person, to whom he had also discovered the foresaid Maxims: And that fearing, lest the said Ecclesiastic should relate them to the Bishop of Poitiers, or to some other, he stopped him presently upon the 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 Ecclesiastic consented, though declaring his astonishment at the suddenness of the resolution. He made his Confession, and declared in it, That he acknowledged he ●ad offended in proposing the said Maxims; and then demanded his Absolution: the which, he said, he did to oblige the said Ecclesiastic to keep the said Maxims as a secret under the seal of Confession; which otherwise he could not have been secret in. When he told this, he laughed so hearty, that the Deponent never saw him laugh so much before: at which was present Barcos his Nephew, who likewise laughed 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 yourselves.      

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 Author of the Provincial Letters had vented his malice against the Jesuits, and run through their Moral in his fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth Letters, the Jesuits laid open to the world in the precedent Impostures, his gross ignorance, his falseness in alleging Authors, and his groundless Calumnies; and withal taxed him and his party of many Enormities, and especially of Heresy. Upon this the Author of the Provincial Letters (as it behoved him) undertook to make good what he had writ, and to clear himself and his Party from Heresy. This is the aim of all his Letters from the eleventh to the eighteenth. On the contrary the aim of these Answers is to show, 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 find some things in these last Provincial Letters, which are answered only 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 only to examine the Imp●stures, and see, whether they be true ●r no.  
That there, which the Reader shall find fully done, is, that the twenty nine Impostures, (taken out of those six Letters, where the Secretary of Port. Royal undertakes to tax the Moral of the Society) all 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 lieth in their approved Authors, good and solid Doctrine: and only 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 Heresy.  
And this of itself 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 Detractor (especially in so many, and so malicious Calumnies) ought not in reason to be believed in any new slanders, 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 Author of the Provincial 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 Pope's Authority. Also of holding Intelligence with Geneva and Du Moulin, and being himself a Jansenian Heretic, 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 Libel burnt by the Hangman. 4. That he answereth not any of the charges laid against him for falsifying Authors, though many of these, and all the precedent Letters were out in print, long before he wrote his Eleventh Letter. 5. His defence of Raillery (the Theme 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 boldness 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 public 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 Jesuits 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 Jesuits have with reason fastened upon you, you only 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 yourself, and renders you yet further culpable.  
You could not be ignorant, Sir, that those Fathers accused you of reviving, in your first Letters, the errors of Jansenius, condemned by the whole Church; of sporting yourself 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 yourself; and is besides so pleasing to you, that you have no will to repent of it?  
You know they have convinced 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 public a whole month before, though you would not take notice of it. Why have you not explained yourself touching a point so tender, and of such great concernment? You had a fair occasion for it, when you spoke 
† 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 Cross, leaving only 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 conceit, viz. making, as it were, by a mystery, from all Antiquity the Arms of the City of Geneva. You would better have illustrated that Authors 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 Thiefs that robbed it of its Cross. Confess the truth; should you not have cited that passage entire, and not have cut off an end of it, which is essential to its perfection? Why feared you not the blame that's laid upon you, for falsifying and changing the sense of such Authors, as you have a mind to decry? But because you durst not so much as point out the place, from whence you derived your Doctrine.  
Moreover, Sir, the Jesuits had taxed you, that your Letters were but a heap of Old Impostures, already published in that Libel of the Moral Theology, 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 learned in Du Moulins School, (where you have served, as it were, an Apprenticeship to improve yourself 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 authority you have made yourself the universal Corectour, or rather Corruptour of the Moral; you who are neither Doctor, Priest, nor Ecclesiastic? Wherefore is it, that of all the Casuists quoted by Du Moulin touching the Opinions you impugn with him, (as Navarr, St. Antonine, and St. Thomas) you only attaque the Jesuits? and with what artifice, suppressing the names of those, do you disguise, falsify, 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, than one of calvin's Disciples, blasted by the censure of the Pope; as a Detractor, condemned by the Sentence of Parliament; and as a Scoffer, decried 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 persuade us, that the Saints were Scoffers like yourself, 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 dreadful to Sinners, viz. that of Death.  
But, Sir, to speak no more than the truth, you abuse the Scripture with great boldness, and 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, published a thousand calumnies, falsisied a thousand passages to find matter for your profane derisions, men should hold you for a Saint? and that your scandalous Letters, which are but the scraps of expiring Calvinisme, should pass for Copies, whereof you glory to have found the Original 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 Letter 5.  Villalobes, Koninck, Llamas, Akokier, Dealkoser, Dellacruz, Veracruz, ugolin, Tambourin, etc. (whose clashing syllables are so apt to surprise, and move such wise men as yourself 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 doubtless deserve to be treated with more modesty by a secular person?  
Will he jeer at Potentia proxima, at sufficient Grace, at the Fulminations and anathemas of the Church? Will he on these Authors impose crimes they were never guilty of? Decisions they never advanced? corrupted Texts, dismembered passages, and resolutions forged at pleasure, to make them seem ridiculous?  
Will he scoff, 
c Letter 9  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, than all Christian Monarches 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 intent to consecrate by your Writings?  
But, Sir, do not blind yourself so far, as to believe, that such excesses and transports as these, will be taken for the Raptures of the Saints, and the Ecstasies 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 darkness from daylight.  
The Fathers treated Heretics as ridiculous persons, and you that are accused, convicted, and condemned of Heresy, will make a mockery of Sorbon and Catholic Divines. The Fathers rebuked public disorders, and real crimes; which they endeavoured to render not only odious, but contemptible, by the touches of a stinging Irony: whereas you forge such as are merely false, and which you feign at pleasure, to revenge yourself of those that withstand your disorders, and the pernicious Maxims 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 perpetual Sycophancy, without so much as one observable ratiocination, or one only conception worthy of a Divine.  
How comes it then to pass, 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 calvin's Antidote; where that Heretic makes the Fathers of the Council 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 pass for a Prophet, unless it be with those, who for the hatred they have conceived against the Jesuits, seek out Masters to deceive them; and will believe (against the conviction of their own consciences) that a lie is truth, when it slatters their passion, or 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 errors convinced, and your Hypocrisy 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 criminal? Why employ you Scripture to tell us there are charitable mockeries, since yours are envenomed with hatred? Why in fine, bring you examples of the Fathers of the Church, since being a declared Heretic, you are consequently an enemy of those Fathers, and of the Church?  
You should rather have remembered, Sir, how the Holy Ghost in the Scripture, and the Fathers in the Counsels, do treat those that arm themselves with scoffs and injurious reproaches, as you do, to disturb the peace of God's children, and fight against Orthodox Maxims; you should have considered that the wise man in the Proverbs, 
d Proverbs 22. 10.  commands us to cast out the Scorner, that is to say, Heretics, as Venerable Bede 
e Ejice Hereticum, quem corrigere non potes, de Ecclesiâ, & cum illi libertatem praedicandi abstuleris, Catholicae paci auxilium praes●abis.  expounds it, Cast out of the Church, says that Father, the Heretic that you cannot correct; and when you have taken from him the liberty of preaching, you shall settle peace among the Catholics. You should have remarked with what rigour this severe Discipline hath been observed in Counsels, from whence opprobrious words and railleries have been always banished. 
f Quicunque contumeliis vel risibus Concilium per turbaverit, juxta divinum legis edictum, quo praecipitur, Ejice derisorem, & exibit cum co jurgium, cum omni dedecore de consessione abstractus à communi caetu secedat, & trium dierum excommunicationis sententiam ferat. Concil. Tole: 11. habetur can. in loco 5. q. 4.  Whosoever, says the Council of Toledo, shall disturb the Assembly (of the Fathers) by contumelious speeches, or derisions, let him be cast out of the Council 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 Verbum scurrile, quod faceti urbanique nomine colorant, non sufficit peregrinari ab ore, procul & ab aure relegandum. Faedè ad ●a●●inno● moveris, faediùs moves. l. 2. de Cons. c. ●●. Bern.  counsel to a great Pope, to avoid not only nipping and injurious scoffings, but even those that pass● in the world for an innocent and pleasing divertisement. Or of the advice of St. chrysostom, 
h S. Chrys●● Tom. 6. p. 595. Hom. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. E● Hom. 17. 〈◊〉. ad E●h.  who shows by an eloquent discourse he made on that Subject, how much that jovial humour, whi●h men take for a virtue, is unworthy of a Christian: or of the frequent invectives made by the Saints against Deriders, whom they looked on as enemies of the Cross, 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 shown you by the same Fathers, that there are a far greater number of criminal ones, which are worthy of the public hate and horror, that all good people have commonly for them.  
Bu● to make such a sincere and judicious discernment of them, as may instruct you of what nature those are, wherewith your Letters are ●aught, and what r●nk they have acquired 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 afresh in this Letter; which is but an Abridgement ●f that long answer you made the last year, in favour of Scoffers on the Subject of your Illuminations.  
If it be 
i Pag. 22. of his first writing.  necessary for the just use of Raillery, 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 weakness 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 only reports out of Victoria a famous Divine; that he who has received a Box o● th● Ear, may instantly repel that affronted, even with his sword, etiam cum gladio. A Proposition, whose practice he disavows in the number following, in express 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 only cited to show their conformity wi●h these. 
k Lessius, l. 2. the Just. c. 9 d. 12. n. 79. Ob has rationes haec sententia est speculativ● probabilis; tamen in praxi non videtur sacil● permittenda: primo ob periculum odii, vindictae & excessûs. Si enim D. Augustinus ob has causas aegrè admittit, ut quis pro vit● tuend● alterum possit occidere, quant● minus in tali ca●u ob honor●m tuendum conceder●t? Secundò, etc. n. 80.  For the reasons I have now given, this opinion is probable in speculation; yet is it not easily to be permitted in practice. First, by reason of the danger of giving way to hatred, revenge, and excess. For i● St. Augustin hardly admits, that one may kill a man to defend his life much less would he grant in this case, that one may kill a man to defend his honour. 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 mortal 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 error, 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 requisite that Raillery be 
l Letter 1, 2, 3.  noble, modest, honest, and discreet, to work a good effect, what is there more abject than that Comedian-like, Ho, Ho! which you sound so often in your Letters? What more insolent than the language you use of the Doctors of Sorbon, and of the original of 
m Letter 5.  Casuists? Or what more lubrical and indiscreet, (to say no more) then that which you impose on Divines touching Fasting, and Magic?  
If we ought in since to respect Religion, and never to make sport with holy things, which is to open a man's mouth against Heaven, as the Scripture speaks, and to utter the language of the Impious, what is there more holy than Grace, (which is the rich treasure of the Cross) and Devotion towards the Virgin, which is the Key that opens it to us? And yet, Sir, after you have jeered 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 condemned 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 lie, 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 mental reservation do you glory in public, that you have played upon the Jesuits, and in secret, that you have not mocked St. Thomas, St. Antonine, and even the anathemas of Rome?  
Believe me, Sir, Innocence needs not that Hypocritical artifice to defend itself: you should have expressed it clearly that neither you nor those of your party do believe, That sufficient Grace, potentia proxima, the Rosary, or the Pope's 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 covertly assail under the name of Jesuits, who have taught nothing, but what they have learned of those great Divines; you were not checked for Impiety, but for playing the Buffoon; not for Blasphemy, but Imposture. You were not told, that such kind of Raillery was a Sacrilege; (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 used it, you are yet mor● culpable in maintaining it, and in setting on the Throne of God what one would scarcely suffer on a Theatre: taking the Saints for warrants of an Action, which a Person of reputation would blush to own, and which you have not dared to let pass 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 Satirical 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 than sufficient weapons to defend himself, and pa●ience more then enough to suffer you. This is only to tell you; that you are so b●●n●e, that you see not your own faults, how gross soever they be; and so obstinate in de●●●ction, that instead of acknowledging yourself to blame for having invented so many calumnies, you daily hatch new ones; which (as contemning them) I omit, till you have acknowledged those you have hitherto advanced.  
If the love of Truth could so far prevail over your spirit, as ●o le●d you to so generous a resolution, I would then perfectly clear up your understanding, as to the point of Attrition, natural in its Essence, and supernatural in its Principle. I would satisfy you touching Father Garasse's words, whom you accuse of having mingled Heresy with Raillery, when he says, That the Humane Personality was grafted, and set on Horseback on the Personality of the Word; and when I had removed the suspicion of the first by his own words, 
n Pag. 649. & pag. 628. Lafoy seconde personne so●stient hypostati qu●m●nt la nature human, en sorte que la personalité de la nature humain est comme engloutie honorablement dans la personalité du Verb; comme une goutte d'eau s'anneantit dans un tonneau de Vin, car ●'est de c●tte comparaison que S. Cyrille se sert, etc.  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 impugned by him in this place) I would furnish you with means to justify the second yourself, 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 blindness; if in that exact Answer, wherewith you threaten the 
a S. Paulinus ●p. 4.  Jesuits, you justify yourself but with reproaches, and defamations; if you come not to the point of the accusation; if you content yourself 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 unless you cease to be a Jansenist) I will show you at least, that you merit no further answer, and that a convinced Calumniator ought not to be listened to, much less believed.   

An ANSWER to the Jansenists twelfth LETTER.  
Argument.  
1. THat the Jansenist hath no reason to take it ill, to be called Jansenian Heretic, 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 myself to the censure of all by citing false. 4. That he still useth the same Imposture he was convinced of, in clipping and altering the sense of Vasquez. 5. That he continueth his his Imposture in order to Valentia and Tanner. 6. That his new Objection of Eradus Billus needeth no Answer; that Father having cleared himself long since. 7. His ignorance in imagining Simony of Positive Right to be different from Simony in cases expressed in the Law. 8. His evident falsifying Lessius; and toy of excuse in saying he took it out of Escobar : whose Book is an Abridgement of many, and cannot give the full sense of Authors.  
SIR  
YOu have not kept your word wi●h me; you made me expect an exact Answer, and have only shuffled me off with an evasian: you promised to defend yourself, and now you will have me a witness both of your tergiversation, and causeless complaints.  
I might, Sir, let you fly with confusion, and in disorder, without troubling myself to run after you; but seeing you witness 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 yourself, and call to mind that you suffer little in respect of what you have merited; since having for a long time exercised the patience of others, it is but just that you practise it yourself 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 repel your Calumnies: and you know, there are no better weapons to beat down falsehood and error, (whose Secretary you glory to be) than those of Truth, which you have rashly withstood.  
If one terms you Heretic, 'tis but after the whole Church has called you so; which cannot be mistaken: and 'tis an article of Faith, That Jansenius' opinions touching Grace, being (as all the world knows) condemned and fulminated by the Church, all the Jansenists that persist obstinate in their defence, as you do, are Heretics.  
If one say you are a Calvinist disguised, and a Disciple of Du Moulin, 'tis but after you have been convicted of it, by the conformity of your Maxims, and Impostures, with those of that Minister: whereto having made no answer, you cannot avoid the censure of being either his Scholar, or a Filcher of his works.  
If one reproach you for being a Scoffer, 'tis indeed a shameful quality for a Censurer of Morality; but you have drawn it on yourself, by those injurious Satyrs you have learned in calvin's School, and which you pretend to sanctify by the example of the Saints, and of God himself.  
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 Moral Theology, as an infamous and scandalous Libel, 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 condemned 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.  
Nevertheless how unjust soever that pretention is, wherewith you flatter your imagination, I can affirm, that the proofs (whether general or particular) whereon you think to build your justification, are so extremely ruinous, that had you not told us you intended an Apology, I should have been persuaded by your reasons, that you meant to make a public confession of all your Impostures.  
The principal reason, whereby you pretend to show 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 allege, is, that you are alone, without force, or any humane assistance against so great a Body. ● answer, we must find out a new Logic, 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 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 faithful 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 wished, but I fear not so soon to be expected. You are alone! I verily believe you would fain have people pity you; and as for myself, I have a compassion to see thirty or forty Solitaries extremely busy, 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 yourself, cry, I am alone, without force, or any humane assistance; therefore I am no Impostor. This kind of reasoning is very powerful and persuasive.  
You add secondly, that it is not likely you should hazard the loss of all, by exposing yourself to be convinced of Impostures; and you rely much on that proof. But, Sir, since you have blindly cast yourself amongst a party of Heretics; since you have lost Faith by defending of Jansenisme; Charity by an implacable hatred against them that cry down that Heresy; Religion and Honour by your profane Railleries' against Grace; take it not amiss, if I tell you that you had not any thing remaining to lose, when you exposed yourself to be convinced of Imposture by assaulting the Jesuits; and that such an enterprise was the effect of a final despair, which put Calumny into your mouth, having first stifled the love of Truth in your heart. Besides you are assured (in case there were any thing remaining after so sad a shipwreck) that so long as you miscarry not in your design of keeping yourself unknown, all the infamy you deserve, will light upon your Sect; and though the name of Jansenist lie under the blemish of an eternal ignominy, you foresee your own will be ever safe, provided you keep always 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 easy 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 natural 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 discerned 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 disguise them by your last sheet, serve but in lieu of a shadow, to give them a clearer light.  
There is nothing easier than to make ●●iall of it; there needs no more but merely to show you, that in the defence of those you endeavour to palliate, you incessantly 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 faithful in observing them, as you were bold in receiving them.  
The first of your Impostures, you know it, Sir, and confess it yourself, is about Vasquez's opinion touching Alms. I maintain that you have falsified it: You on the contrary pretend you have rightly reported it. I have therefore only to show you, in evidence of the weakness of your Answer, that you have not so much as touched 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 aught of that kind? 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 called superfluous. Wherefore it will be hard ever to find any thing superfluous among secular people, no, not even among Kings.  
Is it not true, that you conclude from thence by a consequence no less injurious to that Author, than 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 superfluous, 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 says, in interpreting the word superfluous, that in the opinion even of Cojctan himself, Lay people may employ their wealth, for the raising of their condition by lawful courses; (statum quem licitè possunt acquirere) and for acquiring Offices, provided they be worthy of them; (statum quem dig●è possunt acquirere) and consequently that men call not that superfluous, which is necessary 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 justify 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 yourself to the contempt of the Wise, and laughter of the people, to maintain against Vasquez, that 'tis a sin of ambition to raise ones own, or Kindred's fortunes, by lawful courses. It was therefore requisite (to give some colour to your calumny) to suppress that Text which stood in your way, and to render yourself equally criminal 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 only 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 lawful ways: 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 find that to raise one's fortune by ways that are just and lawful, 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 falsehoods you stand accused of; if it be manifest, that in case you be culpable thereof, as without all contradiction you are, you have imposed on Vasquez; and finally if it be indubitable, that to discharge yourself of this crime, you were obliged 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 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 yourself, that you afresh commit two great and unpardonable falsities. You aver, 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 obliged either in justice or charity to give of their superfluous, much less 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 blind you, there needs no more but to set Vasquez his own words before your eyes. 
* Vas●. ●p. de E●ecm. c. 1. d. 1. n. 29.  'Tis certain, says this Father in the first Chapter, that it is not only extreme 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 only to their own superfluity, but to others necessities, which they ought to relieve in such sort, as we have explicated. Therefore Sir, it is false, that the rich, according to Vasquez, are not obliged to give of th●ir necessary, but in occasions which seldom or never happen.  
He says, numb. 18. of the same Chapter, Men are not only oblged to give alms, when the 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 obliged to it in that occasion, who can deny that they are not also bound to do it, when one is in danger of being ruined, 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 ruin 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 says, numb. 13. against Gabriel, Major, and Gerson, who teach that the rich are not obliged to give alms, but in extreme 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 extreme necessity. (Haec enim vix occurrit) And that the Fathers had done vainly to make such severe Invectives against rich worldlings, who neglect to secure the poor; and so easily condemn them to flames, if they were not bound to relieve them, but in that extreme 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 obliged to give alms, but in occasions so rare, that they scarce ever happen.  
That which deceives you, Sir, or rather serves you to deceive others, is the acuteness of this Author, 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 one's present condition; superfluous to the present condition, and necessary to that which one may acquire by lawful ways; 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 one's state and condition, not only 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 obliged 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 only in this, That what the rich lay up to raise their own, or Kindred's fortunes, is not termed superfluous to their state, though it be not necessary to their present condition. Notwithstanding which he is much more severe than Cajetan; who obliges not the rich to give alms to the poor, (except in their extreme necessity) but of their superfluity, which is neither necessary for maintaining their own, or Kindred's condition, nor for advancing it. And in his Treatise of Indulgences, he asserts this obligation, not to exceed a venial sin; though in his Treatise of Alms he extends it to a mortal. Whereas Vasquez hath far different Sentiments; for he obliges them in many occasions, besides that of extreme necessity, to give not only what is superfluous to their condition, but even what is necessary to maintain it, provided only it be not necessary to life or reputation; and that under pain of mortal 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 things by a prodigious subversion of Divinity. Yet you carry it high upon pretence of maintaining Cajetan's Doctrine, and cunningly make account to escape, by seconding him against Vasquez. Defend yourself. Sir, that excellent Author needs not an Heretics help to dispute out his difference with an Orthodox Doctor. 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 obliged 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 rigour of Justico, according to the Fathers, or only upon the account of compassion: and whether the Great Ones of Paris, that might (if they would) forgo those gilded Coaches, that great train of Lackeys, and those sumptuous houses both in town and country, be obliged in conscience to restore to the poor, what they profusely waste in those superfluous expenses▪ These are questions of Right, which have been raised 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 says not, That that is not called superfluous, which Lay-people lay up to raise their condition by lawful ways, (statum quem lici●è possunt acquirere.) And whether you have not dissembled these last words, to infer a consequence as odious against the Author, 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 yourself thereof, who sees not also this accusation to be so certain, that you durst not so much as contest it. Let us pass to the second.  
But first, Sir, give me leave to put you in mind, that in this dispute, I am only obliged to discover your falsities, we being here upon questions of Fact, and no other, which you always seem to forget. What is then the question of Fact touching your second Imposture, which relates to Simony?  
Is the point in controversy to justify Valentia's Doctrine, which you are pleased to qualify 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 show you the faults you therein commit through ignorance, but only the 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 business 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 only to know, whether it be not true, that you have used deceit in citing Tanuerus upon the question of Simony, and whether you be not far from clearing yourself of it in your twelfth Letter, which I refute? seeing you relapse into your first fault, and are guilty of other greater.  
Look to yourself, 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 temporal good is received as the price of aspirituall: But when it is taken as a motive, inclining a man to bestow the spiritual; 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 principal. Thus (adds 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 termed of Positive Right, or that which is presumed such in the external Tribunal. This middle piece, by you cut off, is decisive, and could not be omitted without condemning yourself. You were formerly accused 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 accustomed to these cheats, that you here suppress 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 engaged yourself to dismember the precedent Text, you likewise maim the subsequent, perfecting thereby the proof of your own fraudulent dealing: which I was obliged 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 temporal as his principal end, nay prefer it before the spiritual; though St. Thomas and others seem to say the contrary, while they affirm that it is absolute Simony to give a spiritual good for a temporal, 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 entire; which shows your unsincere practice: for you have lopped off this ensuing part, which is essential 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.  
How comes it to pass. Sir, that being charged with suppressing two so remarkable parts of one only place of Tannerus, you do not vindicate yourself? Why do you suppress them afresh, as if you had never been accused of it? Whence is it, that by a ridiculous evasion you complain of being accused for having only 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 befallen you as to those, who being hurt complain of the blow, but show not the place where they received the wound? You have been convinced of cutting off by the middle two of Tannerus' Propositions at a blow; of leaving out one part of the Text, to conclude from the other which remained imperfect, that according to this Author it is neither Simony nor sin, to give a spiritual good for a temporal, if one give it not as the price, but only 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, exment D. Thomae) and according to the mind 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 termed of Positive Right, or that which is presumed such in the exterior Court▪ See what a palpable Imposture you are guilty of. Can you deny it? See, I have given you a real wound; Nor were you able to decline the blow: And will you now dissemble it? affirming, that you are accused of forgetting two words, which yet are not at all in the whole passage. This is rare indeed.  
But not contenting yourself with so base an artifice, (to amuse the world) you intent to show 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 yourself to the laughter of the learned. Had Tannerus affirmed it generally, as you maintain he ought to have done, he must have been, what you now are, very little enlightened as to the question of Simony. For it would thence follow, that there are Simonies in respect of Positive Right, which are not expressed in the Positive Law. Reconcile 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 only 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 yourself by reproving this Author; which I pass over, to tell you, that 'tis besides the purpose to dispute, whether Tannerus affirmed in general, or in particular cases only, that it was a Simony as to Positive Right, It is sufficient to show he has affirmed it as he ought to do, generally in cases expressed in the Law; and that you have omitted it, even in the manner he affirmed 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 boldness, 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 exterior 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 Mass on a Festival day? But you are to blame to think me obliged to read you Lectures of Divinity; I should too slightly lose a thing no loss precious than time. I have performed my duty in clearly evincing 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 constrained to ask extravagant questions, by not being able to give any solid Answers.  
Wherefore I come to your third Imposture concerning Bankrupts, which needs no long discourse to clear up the business; being of all the most visible and gross, to speak in your own terms.  
For indeed what can be more gross, then to make Lessius affirm, That he, who turn● Bankrupt, may with a safe conscience retain as much of his own goods, as is requisite to maintain his family handsomely, (ne indecorè vivat) though gotten unjustly by crimes notoriously known? Seeing you were advertised in the Answer to this Calumny, that he is so far from that opinion, that he affirms point-blank to the contrary. That in the disorder of these times, wherein we see many who become rich on a sudden, raising themselves prodigious fortunes, built only upon crimes, frauds, and injustices; such people must not imagine themselves discharged 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 enormous crimes.  
You cannot but grant, Sir, that this assertion is diametrically opposite to that you have charged him with. Wherefore to vindicate yourself, 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 falsely cited him, and cannot exempt yourself from that Reproach.  
For it contributes nothing to your justification to object this other Text, which you cite in Latin contrary to your custom. 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, etc. This only citation is enough to condemn you, and shows your & cetera to be of the nature of those wherewith Cardinal Perron reproached that famous Heretic 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 alleged 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 than necessity alone would do without it; because though he breaks, yet no more is allowed him then mere aliment, and that too by way of compassion; for it is not always granted, but only 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.  
Secondly he answers, that in the exterior Tribunal Session, or the act of breaking, works two effects. The first, That one cannot imprison the Debtor, 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 shows 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 Creditors 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 general 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 seems to be inferrable out of the Law, qui bonis ●. de cess. bonorum. Where it is said, that he who hath turned Bankrupt, 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, says 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 criminal, but miserable; and those who engaging themselves in restitutions by their crimes and injustices, become miserable after they have made themselves criminal? The innocent Debtor 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 endless work to rectify you) The criminal Debtor, on the contrary, may retain part of the goods he gets after turning Bankrupt: and this the Text you allege, specifies; but not of those he had gotten before Bankrupt, by rapines and public extortions: which you falsely 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 advanced his fortune, and had raised his condition by public and scandalous crimes.  
Thus, Sir, you see how you disguise and falsify 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 alleges. But since you say you have written to him at Valladolid, I need not think myself responsable for him. Transport the war into Spain, seeing you have had such ill success with it in France. Fly into a strange country, since you can no longer subsist in this with honour. Change your French Coin for Spanish. Brag 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 anathemas of Rome. It is not an action deserving honour to combat with Religion; 'tis an Impiety 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 less honourable to their Society to serve for a Buckler against Heretics, than it is ignominious for you to cast against it the darts of an envenomed detraction. It will subsist after it has endured your insolent assaults, because it is founded on the Name of Jesus Christ, who is the fundamental Stone of that Building; but your Sect will perish, after it has bred disorder in the Church; and rendering itself guilty of an infinity of evils, will find nothing in its ruin●s but an eternity of Repentance.   

An ANSWER to the Reply made in defence of the Twelfth Provincial Letter.  
Argument.  
1. THat the Author of this Reply hath not excused the Author of the Provincial 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 Author of the Reply, and the Jansenist, are evidently convinced of notorious Imposture. 4. Some general 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 Heretic; since the Church calleth him so, for defending the Heretical Propositions of Jansenius. What Answer do you make? You know he was told, that since (as was showed 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 Falsifier, was given the Author of the Book of Moral Divinity, burnt by the Hangman; and therefore he having form his Letters on that mould, ought not to count it a wrong done him, that the Jesuits gave his Letters the Title, which the Parliament of Bourdeoux gave the Original, from whence they were copied. What Answer do you make? The real crimes, which your Friend hath committed, make him guilty of these Titles, of Heretic, of Disciple of Du Moulin, of Impostor, etc. 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 Author. From what? That you do not tell us. But ●●e tell you from what. These things were said to divert the Author from falsifying and abusing learned Writers, which he doth not understand. They were said to divert him from stealing calumnies out of condemned Libels. 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 gross and ignorant Calumnies. It was this diversion was aimed at, for his good, and the good of those, whose facile 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 Authors; 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 express 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 pitifully 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 written in undeniable Characters? It is no friendly part to be glad, that one, for whom you have a kindness, 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 writ, will be as glad to see your Letter, which is much according to his palate, full of falsity and errors.  
You undertake to show, 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 Author then of the Provincial 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 find any, among those that are worldly minded, that have aught superfluous; no not even among Kings. And a little after he concludeth, That it will be as sure a way (according to Vasquez) for a man that desires to work his Salvation, to be guilty of ambition enough, that so he may have nothing superfluous, as it is (according to the Gospel) not to be ambitious at all.  
To this the Jesuits 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 Author of the Provincial Letters ●ad cited Vasquez right, or no? And you, Sir, who undertake to second the Jansenist, Author of the Provincial Letters, maintain, that Vasquez is not wronged, but that he is really Author 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 only 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 only 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 mortal sin) when our neighbour is in extreme necessity. Ibid.  
Thirdly all seem to agree, (though perhaps some dissent) that no man is bound to give Alms, when the necessity of the poor is not urgent, but only ordinary. Ibid.  
Fourthly some say, that though you have that which is superfluous, not only to nature, but also to your state or condition, yet that there is no obligation of Precept for you to give Alms, excepting only, when some poor man is in extreme 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 extreme 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 mortal sin. ●. 21. But as extreme necessity doth oblige, so urgent necessity obligeth also. n. 24 As therefore I am bound under Precept to relieve another man's extreme 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 occur. n 25. Neither is any particular secular man bound to relieve this, or that particular poor man that doth occur, when he may justly suppose, that some other will relieve this poor man, if he do not. That therefore I be obliged under mortal 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 equal, or unequal. For I am not bound to conserve my neighbour's life with loss of my own life: but I am bound to conserve his life with the loss of other things. n. 25. If therefore my neighbour be in danger of his life, or in great sickness, 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 secure 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 loss in my neighbour. This is the express 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 one's state: So that one will scarce be obliged to give Alms, (understand this in the case here spoken of, when my neighbour is in danger of losing his state, unless 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 only out of what is superfluous to one's state. num. 27. It is certain then, that not only extreme necessity, but also many other urgent necessites oblige us to give Alms. Nor must we look only on our having superfluity, but on our neighbour's necessity. Num. 29.  
Ninthly Corduba doth justly reprehend Cajetan for saying, it is only a Venial sin for an Advocate or Lawyer to refuse to plead for a poor man; or for a Physician to refuse to prescribe physic to a poor man. For Corduba judgeeth it a Mortal Sin to refuse to prescribe, when the poor man is in danger of falling into a great sickness, 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 only when the question is of preventing the loss 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 Father's opinion) under Precept of Mortal Sin. Now tell me, what is here so criminal, that the whole Society should be defamed by it? With what face, but that of Impudenc● itself, could the Author of the Provincial 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 satisfy 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 only that of extreme necessity. And Saint Antonine, Conrade, and Durand dare no● say. That any other cases oblige under Mortal Sin. Yet Vasquez hath the knack of complying with rich men, though he tell them, there be many other cases which oblige them under Mortal Sin. You see Cajetan obligeth not the Lawyer, or Physician, to assist the poor Patient, or Client, but under Venial 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 Mortal 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 find his Doctrine as far from being lax and compliant, as you, Sir, are from sincerity; that is, as far as heaven is from the earth.  
You complain pag. 194. of the second Engl. Edit. That the Answer to the Twelfth Letter of your friend the Jansenist toucheth nothing of what your Friend had said in his Twelfth Letter. I answer for him then, and tell you, the reason was, because your Friend had said nothing to the purpose: no more do you. ●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 show, that he had not cited Vasquez false. This he never shown; nor do you, or can you show. And yet till you show this, you say nothing to the purpose. This Answer is abundantly enough. No more needs be said, to prove you and your Friend both Impostors. 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 satisfy the Readers, I will observe some of your errors.  
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 find any, among those who are worldly minded, that have aught 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 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 Clergymen 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 Clergymen, and saith, That there is great difference betwixt Secular and Clergymen; for Secular Men may lay up to increase their state; but Clergymen may not. So in Secular Men, even Kings, you will hardly ●inde any thing superfluous; in Clergymen, that have fat Benefices, you will (saith Vasquez) always find 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 Jesuits answered, that Vasquez was severe enough in his obligation: and to show that he favoured no● ambition, they told your Friend the Author of the Provincial Letters, that Vasquez allowed not Secular Men any other raising their fortune, but such as was lawful, nor any other pretence 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 purpose? Who ●id your Friend cite a wrong place? It was a gross error in him to do so; and it is a gross error in you to bring such a simple excuse, unless you did it of set purpose to make your Friend be laughed at.  
Another error of yours is, that as you confound the citations, so you confound the terms, which is to make yourself ridiculous among Schoolmen. 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 superfluity, would be bound to give Alms sometimes, so to fulfil the Precept of Charity. This Cajetan will deny, as well as Vasquez: Cajetan, because h● requires, as a condition to expedite the obligation under Precept, that there be some poor in extreme want; Vasquez, because he holdeth, that superfluity alone is not enough to oblige a man under mortal sin to give Alms, but joineth with the superfluity the extreme 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 criminal; whilst notwithstanding he saith no more, then generally all Casuists do. For all say, That there is no obligation under Mortal Sin to give alms, unless there be some poor, either in extreme, or in urgent necessity. Urgent necessity. I understand to be such, that they cannot well pass without your alms. For if they can (as Day-labourers for example do) it is very hard to say, that it is a mortal sin not to give Alms sometimes, only 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 err by not understanding the terms of ordinary and urgent necessity: and I hope you will say no more, that the Jesuits shuffle in distinctions, and con●ound matte●s with terms, since your error proceedeth from ignorance in terms, and from not distinguishing ordinary and urgent necessity. Ordinary necessity is that which Casuists call, communis necessitas pauperum, the common necessity of all those that are truly poor: urgent necessity is that, which maketh poor men stand in present need of something, necessary either for life, as Beggars do, (I mean true Beggars, that know not well where to have a meals meat) or for health, as sick that are in want, or for preserving their fame or goods, as those that are oppressed by the rich, do. These and many other such like cases are urgent; in which Vasquez obligeth rich men under mortal 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 show you another error of yours. The Jesuit (for he was a Jesuit, though you will needs mistake him) had in his Answer to the Jansenists Twelfth Letter, urged the Jansenist to show, 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 Jesuit in the Imposture. Pretty, Pretty. Do you take your Friend to be excused from falsifying an Author, if a Jesuit do not pull him by the sleeve, and say, Here, Sir, you have falsified this Author? Ridiculous. Is a lie no lie, unless a man be challenged with it? Or a Theft no Theft, unless a man be caught in it? John D' Alba will thank you for this Maxim, which makes his stealing more excusable, than the Jesuits Moral. 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 Nonsense, which makes your second answer. The Sum 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 extremely 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 Child at School, and make him a Lawyer, or a Physician, or (if God so call him) a Clergyman? 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 days? I am very glad, Sir, that you cannot impugn Vasquez his Doctrine, nor make it appear ill, but by advancing such Paradoxes as these.  
There remain yet two Objections more against Vasquez, which I will take notice of: you would prove by them both, that at least Vasquez obligeth rich men but very rarely to give alms. But what if you should prove this? Have I not showed you, that Cajetan, and divers others oblige only in case of extreme 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 only, 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 than others? Cajetan (as I have told you) holdeth, That I am not bound to give alms, but when I see a man in extreme necessity. Now I can never know, that a man is in extreme necessity of my alms, unless 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, than out of Vasquez his Doctrine. For Cajetan will say, That to oblige you under Mortal Sin to give this man an alms, you must know, that this man standeth in extreme 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 extreme need of your alms, or in urgent need of it: Now urgent need is a great deal more common, then extreme need as is evident.  
But now I come to your grand Achilles, by which you would make it peremptorily certain, that Vasquez is very indulgent to the rich, and obligeth them very seldom to give alms; Because (say you) in those cases, in which Vasquez obligeth rich men to give alms, he alloweth the poor to steal from them. For to answer this, I will do, as I did in the former matter, first set down Vasquez his Doctrine, which in cap. 1. dub. 7. is delivered in two Conclusions.  
First, he saith with all Casuists generally, That in extreme 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 general: 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 secure 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 convinceth, that Vasquez is stricter in point of obliging rich men to give alms, than Cajetan, or other Divines ordinarily are. For Vasquez therefore granteth, that the poor may take from the rich that which is precisely necessary, in more cases than Cajetan and others do, because he holdeth the rich obliged to give alms in more cases, than 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, than the poor man may take to supply his necessity. Now this is not ordinary. And it is made less ordinary, and consequently the poor man's permission to steal less 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, unless he probably suppose, that no body else will, or can do it. This caution you very simply laughed at, though it be a necessary one, and showeth, that the poor man, if he be refused by one rich man, aught 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 only in his extreme, but also in his urgent want.  
This is Vasquez his Doctrine; 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 only one thing more to add, That this Treatise of Vasquez concerning Alms is a Posthume Work; and therefore it must not be wondered, if it be a little obscure, wanting the Authors last hand. Nor were it any great credit for you, if in a Work, which the Author never lived to perfect, you should spy some ●rrour. But your disgrace is not the less, for having falsified this Work.  
But it is time to pass to Valentia and Tanner; whom you accuse of favouring Simony, which is crime enough, if you can prove it.  
But before I begin with you, I will set down something for a general Notion of Simony, to clear the Reader, and let him know in what all agree, and what the terms, which we must use, do mean. For though you, Sir, and your Friend, would needs be answered in this matter without School-terms, yet I judge it very impertinent to humour you in this desire: and if every Tradesman is allowed his terms; if a Falconer or Huntsman 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 Spiritual Thing, or something annexed to a Spiritual Thing.  
Secondly the Author, 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 Author of the Provincial 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 Simoniacal, there must be a Buying or Selling of some Spiritual Thing, or something annexed to a Spiritual Thing: And if there be not a Buying or Selling, than all agree, that there is no Simony. By this means Curates, and other Churchmen are exempt from Simony. For though they receive Tithes, Pensions, Stipends, and Distributions from the people in respect of their Spiritual Functions, yet they receive them not as a price of their Spiritual Functions, but as a Temporal 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 spirituals: and this is grounded on Christ's appointment. For as St. Paul tell●th, 1 Cor. 9 So our Lord ordained, to them that announce the Gospel, to live of the Gospel. It is therefore allowed by all, that it is not Simony (speaking only according to the Definition) to give a Temporal Good for a Spiritual, either by way of gratitude, or to incline 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 Cross. This act is commended by Baronius; who would never have commended Simony. Nor indeed can that good King be suspected of Simony; since God blessed him, as Luitprandus relateth, with a great victory by means of that Lance. And besides he made a vow to God to extirpate Simony in all his Realm. We must therefore say, that what he gave for the Lance, which he esteemed Sacred, was not as a price to buy it, but as a motive to induce King Rodulph to give it, or a gratitude for it. And the like we must judge of divers other such actions, commended by Antiquity, and practised by Saints.  
Fourthly it is to be known, that among other Divisions of Simony one very common is into Simony against the Divine Law, and Simony against Positive Law. Simony against Divine Law is that, which properly and strictly agreeth with the Definition above mentioned: Simony against Positive Law, as Sotus saith, lib. 9 de Justit. q. 5. Art. 2. is not properly Simony; for it hath not in it a Buying, or Selling, of a spiritual Thing, or any thing annexed to a Spiritual 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 Spiritual Thing. These acts are all expressed in the Ecclesiastical, or Positive Law. So that to incur Simony against Positive Law, is to do some act expressly forbidden in the Positive Law under pain of Simony. These acts are very many, and it imports not to set them down: we have said enough for our purpose.  
These things then being foreknown, now I come to you, Sir, and will begin with what you say against Valentia.  
Your Friend the Jansenist in his Sixth Letter, pag. 114. chargeth Valentia to have deserted St. Thomas, and to have taught in his 3. Tom. pag. 2042. this Doctrine, If a man give a Temporal Good for a Spiritual, (that is to say, money for a Benefice) 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 principal end. This is the charge he layeth to Valentia; which you, Sir, undertake to make good. The Jesuits 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 reflected on the citation, which was only 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 find it out. There have been several Impressions of Valentia, and in my Book, which was printed at Ingolstad, Anno 1603. there is no such thing in the page cited. I was troubled at this; but being resolved to search further, and to find 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 find 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 Sequel will show 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 Latin 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 falsified Valentia, both in his Sixth and his Twelf●h L●tter. And this falsification consisteth chief in two things. First, whereas Valentia treate●h only of Simony as it is against the Divine Law, and in the Definition 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 expressly 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 Jesuits 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 show 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 shown the illation; you should not have changed and chopped 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 withal, that St. Thomas is of a contrary opinion, in that he absolutely maintains, that it is undeniable Simony to give a Spiritual Good for a Temporal, if the Temporal 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 than Valentia; and next of speaking against the absolute authority of St. Thomas.  
For this the Jesuit 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 Impostor, so clearly that I need not add one word. After all you come, Sir, to maintain the Impostor: but your Discourse is so childish, and so manifestly against reason, that a young Logician, newly stepped 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 falsify Tanner, in telling us he speaketh in general of Simony. He doth not in that place speak in general of Simony; he speaketh only 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 express Caveat, which he immediately giveth, as the Jesuit 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 adjoineth, That this hindereth not, but that it may be Simony of Positive Right: which is the exterior 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 interior 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 infer.  
You go on therefore, and say, Simony of positive 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 exterior Court) where Positive Law is pronounced, as every Divine can tell you.  
Now (to omit some of your Nonsense) I come to the consequence which you draw from this; which is, Consequently there are some Spiritual things which a man may, without Simony according to Positive Right, give for Temporal 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 err grossly in Logic. 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 Spiritual Things, which a man may without Simony against either Divine or Positive Right, give or do for Temporal 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 Baptising your Child; 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 Mass for me, ● and there's no Simony, though you are so simple as not to understand it. So also all the Tithes, Stipends, Distributions, and Fees, that are given to Clergymen, are given, not as the price of their Spiritual Functions, or administering 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 Churchmen for nothing, nor are Simoniacal for paying their Duties.  
And so, Sir, you are extremely out in Tanner, 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 falsify either Valentia or Tanner, for to have drawn the Argument, which you and your Friend make. If you had not had a mind to butt against some Jesuit, you might have made a better Syllogism 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 Spiritual Thing, or something that is annexed to a Spiritual Thing. But where a Temporal Thing is given freely, and is not a price, but only a gratuity gift, or a motive inclining the will, there is no Buying or Selling a Spiritual Thing, or any thing annexed to a Spiritual Thing; therefore where a Temporal Thing is given freely, and is not a price, but a gratuity 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 Jesuit. 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 defy you to answer without using the distinction of Divine Right, and Positive Right, which the Jesuits 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 show, that Vasquez, Valentia, and Tanner did teach, that which was imputed to them by the Author of the Provincial Letters. This you have not performed; and so your Friend remaineth still an Impostor. Now if Sanchez, Es●●bar, Eradus Billus, or any body else do say what you allege, (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 Impostor. And ●o Far you well.   

AN ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Thirteenth Letter.  
Argument.  
1. THat the Fable of a Box on the Ear, asserted by the Author of the Provincial 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 error, 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 Slanders; though some have taught it lawful, for ●ai●ous Calumnies, that concern Honour and Life: wherein the Learnedest Jesuits, as Suarez, and Vasquez, condemn them. And if some private men have taught otherwise, their Doctrine is disowned by the whole Body, and that by a public disavowing. 6. That the distinction betwixt Practical and Speculative Probabilities (which he maketh the Secret of the Jesuits Politics) 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 University. 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 Practic; 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 yourself: always weak in your answers, and violent in your passions: always cowardly in your defence, and confident in your Impostures.  
This of the Box o'th' Ear at Compeigne is no stolen one: There I intent to begin. This question of Fact is without perplexity, and is also very honourable for you. The world will hereafter clearly perceive what esteem men ought to make of your integrity, and how far you are from 
a Letter 12.  a hazarding the loss of all by exposing yourself to be discovered for an Impostor. For you could not give the world a more illustrious proof of the sincerity of your words, nor evince by a more signal instance, That a Jansenist never lies.  
The King knows it; the Queen is throughly informed of it; the whole Court has heard the relation; and I assure myself, that it is still the discourse of all France; behold a large Theatre set open to your reputation. 'Tis pity you discover not yourself, 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 days since in the Town of Compeign, that a person, whose name is well known, had received a Box o'th' Ear from a Jesuit, whose rare modesty hath gained him the affection of the greatest in France. Monsiegneur de Rhodes desirous to inform himself thereof, learned the falsehood 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 lie being ashamed to see itself discovered, and not daring to be seen any longer at Court, repaired to you in your darkness, to request you to lend it that fair gloss you set upon your Impostures, that so it might pass currant through the streets of Paris.  
You have given it welcome, because you love it; you have joyfully entertained it; and having painted and disguized it, you set it in the fairest part of your Letter, at the head of an infinity of falsehoods which attend it as a Convoy.  
Were you a grave Author, the Jesuits 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 lie once dare to appear? What will men say of that able Writer, who has put it among his cases of Conscience? What will become of the Christian instructions of that Curate, whom you only put into your Letter, because h● has no great good will for the J●suites, and was driven out of Pa●is for ●earing less affection to Religion? In ●ine, what will the Jansenists answer, when it shall be ●aid to their charge, that to the prejudice of innocence's you have, from a silly report, made the decisions of their Moral Divinity?  
Really, Sir, I do not see what they can say, unless haply that Grace b●ing Verity in the Spirit, and Charity in the Heart, they have both f●●led you. B●t since this confession is no● v●●y Cathol●q●e, I ●ad rather s●y you h●ve failed, 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.  
Here leave we then your Imposture of Compeig●e; and let us see whether you defend the Fourth any better, than you have done the former Thre●.  
I have convinced you of falsehood upon the Text concerning Homicide; which you ascribe to Lessius a Jesuit, 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 excuse yourself 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 perceive plainly it is a Subject that does not please you, as not finding yourself 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 weakness behind, but must car●y his sickness with him? You may well fly to another Subject, because you find not your advantage in this. 'Tis the ordinary method of Heretics, in whom you are not meanly studied. But you cannot persuade yourself, that to father words on Lessius, which you are forced 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 received a B●x o'th' Ear, may not have an intention to revenge himself, but he may intent to avoid infamy, and on that account immediately repel the affront, even with his sword. Tell me then, Sir, is not this the Text you ascribed 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 compel 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 Author, which he only reports out of another. I might content myself with having forced you to a public 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 citys them not, but to follow them. This is a new Imposture, which draws indeed many other after it, but does not justify 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 Jesuits words, it might have been taken for an effect of your distemper, which would have begot our pity. But to change his thoughts, and corrupt the purity of his Doctrine, is an effect of an 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 excess? Can he declare himself against ●hat celebrious Author in any rougher expression, without transgressing the bounds of civil●●y, and that respect which ought to be observed in this kind of dispute against Catholic Doctors?  
Is it a following of his opinion to impugn it with St. Augustine's authority, (which you had no mind to make known, because it would at the same time have discovered 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 less would he affirm it lawful 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 Maxim, which permits to kill in repulse of a calumny that admits no other defence, that he also condemns it in the practic? Haec quoque sententia, (these words are remarkable to show the connexion of this decision with the precedent) haec quoque, (give me leave, Sir, once again to repeat them, that I may show 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 advertised you of it in my answer to your Eleventh Letter, but to show you their conformity) Haec quoque sententia mihi in praxi non probatur● quia mul●●s coedibus cum magna r●ipublicae perturbatione praeberet occasionem. Neither do I approve this opinion in practice, because it would open a gap to many secret murders, which would occasion great disorder in the Commonwealth; and when we dispute of the right, which every man hath to defend himself, we must always take heed, that the practice thereof be not prejudicial to the public.  
After such evident proofs how durst you assert, that Lessius citys Victoria's opinion for no other purpose, bu● to follow it? How had you the confidence, to take to witness all those persons of quality, that saw it in the Original, even before I had designed 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 affirm without blushing, that I hide 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 baseness to dissemble it?  
I verily believe, you imagined there were not left in the world any persons of Honour or Learning; and that therefore you might with impunity call them to witness, like those free sinners, Letter 4. those full and accomplished sinners, who (you know) swear incessantly by God, and tak● him to witness 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 80. which directly impugns Victoria's opinion; since by citing it in my answer to your Eleventh Letter, I had prevented this cavil? 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. Remind yourself, that Lessius compriseth these two opinions, as two species of the same genus, in one and the same question, viz. Whether it be lawful to kill a man in defence of ones honour. Remember that the reasons he brings to overthrow the one, are of equal force against the other. Call to memory those words, which show their connexion in this Authors 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 received 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?  
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 Council of Trent was but a Council of Divines that had much altered the Doctrine of the Church, and deny it aloud, when he was accused for having said it. But I must needs confess the Scholar does far surpass the master. For you think it lawful 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, unless you imitate Monsieur de St. Cyran in one of his excellent Letters, whereof the Jesuits have the Original in Clermont College, which you may see when you please; for I assure you they show them as willingly to all the world, as you have formerly been solicitous to suppress all the Copies.  
Hear then, Sir, how this incomparable Abbot speaks, writing to Monsieur D' Andilly. If I am sometimes caught in contrariety of discourse, as I lately was by that excellent Cousin whom you love, I have reason to defend myself, 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 destroys not the other. Like as in the Heavens, the fire that neighbours the Moon, which is not far from the waters that environ it, feels not any diminution of its heat.  
Truly the Abbot of St. Cyran reasoned 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 Jesuit the opinion of Navarr touching Duels, which is the subject of your Eleventh Imposture: you have forgot it.  
I expected a more faithful translation of two 
b In the 13. and 14. Imposture.  passages of Molina, which you have so cruelly maimed: it was quite out of your mind.  
I judged with you, that it was but just to make some satisfaction to 
c In the 16, 17, 18.  Reginaldus, Lessius, Filiucius, whose Texts you have falsified and lamed, by suppressing one part to corrupt the other: This slipped clean out of your memory.  
In fine, I thought you would have showed me some Jesuit, that taught what you falsely accuse them of, That the Law of God forbids not to kill for simple detractions; for 'tis the word simple that makes the jest: and truly, Sir, you were of opinion, that it was ●it to give satisfaction therein. But your memory failed you. You resemble those bad Debtors, who daily commence new suits 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 Creditors? 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 excelled in most, Judgement or Memory.  
I might send you to the first Quaternion of the second part of your Impostures, which very seasonably appeared at the same time your Letter came forth, to show 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 scandal you have given the people by most calumniously publishing, that the Jesuits permit, according to the Law of God, to kill men for simple slanders, and that if they forbidden it, 'tis only for politic reasons, I have thought it necessary in refuting that horrible falsehood to advertise the public of two things. The f●●st, 
d In my answer to the 15. Imposture, and in the advertisement that follows the Eighteenth.  That no Casuists ever advanced that Maxim. The second, That some have written it as lawful to kill for heinous calumnies that concern Honour and Life, when they cannot otherwise be rupulsed: and it is pity, that Monsieur Du Vall engaged himself with Bannes in that party. But as to the Jesuits, their most learned Authors, as Vasquez and Suarez, do absolutely condemn that Maxim: the rest condemn i● in practice. I add, that if some particular men have followed that strange Doctrine, 'twas their misfortune to recede from the Sentiments of their Order, which has publicly 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 Authors; where some of them disallow the opinion of Ba●nes both in Practice and Speculation, o●hers condemn it only in practise; and by a new stratagem, instead of dividing your enemies, you will unite them against their own sentiments. But for what design? To show that they conspire by an admirable accord to establish that Doctrine, 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 Sophisms. This indeed is a subtlety worthy of you: but you even surpass yourself in 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 University has looked on as ridiculous, is an invention of the Jesuits, and a secret of their Politics, which is sit to be made known.  
The Jesuits by this account are much more ancient in God's Church, than I conveived they had been, by rules of our Chronology. For 
e Hujus distinctionis Author primus est Cajetanus op. 17. resp. 13. d. 7 & in 1, 2. q. 57 a. 5. ad 3. ubi sanctu● Thomas ansam pr●buit, & postmodum multi Doctores eam amplexi sunt. Tho. Sanch. lib. 2. de Matrim. disp. 41. num. 4.  Sanchez the Jesuit had made me believe hitherto, That Cardinal Cajetan had introduced it into Divinity; that St. Thomas had opened him the way to it; and that many Divines had since received 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 1 Cor. c. ●.  who grants, that to eat of the flesh of Victims is lawful in itself. (This they call in the Schools lawful in speculation) Yet that in the circumstances of the time, when the scandal of the Faithful was so dangerous, he would never have practised it. (This they call forbidden in practice.)  
Further, Sir, the Jesuits 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 Johannnes Sancius disp. 44. n. 63.  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 only 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 Du Valliu● de Bonit. & Malit. human. Act. q. 4. n. 12.  Mo●sieur Du Vall has made it common in Sorbon. 
i Diana. p. 8. T. 1. resp. 9 & p. 2. T. 6.  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 Jesuits made a secret of it in their Politics; and that the University of Paris considered it as ridiculous. Do not you yourself deserve to be used ridiculously by all the Universities in the world?  
You add, that the secret of this distinction avails them not for questions wherein Religion is concerned; and that they little trouble themselves therewith, because 
k Pag. 4.  this is not the place where God visibly exercises his justice. But make great use of it, when they are to secure themselves as to the Judges; 
l Pag. 6.  and so by a subversion contrary to the spirit of the Saints, are bold against God, and timorous 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 jealousy to all Divines, by these rare commendations which they deserve as well as the Jesuits, seeing they teach the same Doctrine; you furnish Thiefs and Murderers 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 shown the Judges, that 'tis lawful to rob and kill speculatively, they will find a way to pass (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 Doctors, but would rather prefer that of Jansenius, who had found a method, how to take secretly as much of the money belonging to the College of Saint Pulcheria, as would maintain Barcos without any man's discovering it by the yearly accounts he was to make thereof.  
Behold how opposite the Maxims of the Jesuits are to those of the Jansenists. The Jesuits, say you, approve of crimes in speculation, and condemn them in practice: The Jansenists commit crimes in practice, and condemn them in speculation. The Jesuits, according to your visions, seek distinctions to secure themselves against Judges: and the jansenists invent calumnies to secure themselves against the Popes. But which is much resented by those who have a real love for that reformed Church, whose re-establishment you project, the jesuites for the zeal they bear to the good of the State, are welcome to the judges: whereas the jansenists, by reason of their rebellion against the Church, find 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 Jesuits 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 justify the sound Doctrine of the jesuites, as it hath done to calumniate it, could it have suggested to you a more pregnant, clear, and invincible proof than 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 mind what you practised at Rome, with Pope Innocent the Tenth, and the arts you used to purchase credit in the Church. Have you prevailed therein? Have you by all your Intrigues procured approbation of any one of your pernicious Maxims? The very name of jansenist, is it not equally suspected of Church and State? Have not all your Books been blasted by an opprobrious Censure? Find you not above forty of them in the list of prohibited Books? And have they not lately condemned 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 errors? and a penalty necessarily annexed to Heresy?  
Now therefore argue thus by the Law of contraries. The Jesuits have reputation in the Church. Counsels approve their Institute; Popes make Bulls in favour of their sound Doctrine, and good life: The Bishop's honout them with employment in their Dioceses, to labour for the salvation of souls, and instruction of the people. The good and virtuous, that know them, love them; there are none but Heretics and Libertines, that persecute them. Men must therefore conclude, that the jansenists are much to blame for decrying their Morality, since it is universally approved, that those scandalous Letters, which fly over all France, are filled with nothing but Impostures, Falsehoods, and Disguisements.  
Really, Sir, this only consideration might serve, as a general Apology for all you have hitherto said: which though you should repeat a thousand several way●s, men might content themselves with se●●ing you to Rome, and desiring you to present you● grievances to the Pope, who is the sovereign sudge, as well of the Doctrine 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 instruction.  
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 Heretical, as that of the Waldenses, who held it was never lawful to kill a man for any cause whatsoever; no, not by the Laws of justice.  
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 God's prohibition of killing, and the speculative permission that is given therein by Authors. For seeing you never explain yourself what prohibition, or what permission you mean, men have cause to doubt, whether or no (to seem more holy than the Laws) you affect not this error. 
m A Castro. Minor. verb. Occidere, Haeres. 1.  That it is never lawful to kill a man, no not by public Authority, nor to defend one's 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; or in an excess of rigour, which ruins the Doctrine of Faith.  
There be other that are against good manners, which we term scandalous, as those of Monsieur de St. Cyran, 
n 'Tis a part of his Indictment, to be seen in Clermont College.  who taught, that one was obliged to kill a man, when incited thereto by inspiration, though it were contrary to the exterior 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 Royal question, which you acknowledge for the first of his works, that men are oftentimes obliged 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 mind to perform it.  
There be other opinions that are received by the whole Church, from which it is not lawful to recede, and which for that reason we term Orthodox, Catholic, Indubitable. For instance, that he who kills a Thief, whom he finds in the night forcing the doors of a house; or breaking through the walls, ought not to be questioned for it; for the Scripture itself declares as much.  
There be yet other opinions, that are not so clear and evident, which the Church leaves to be disputed by Divines, permitting them to hold what they think good; and these are they we call probable: among which we must yet distinguish opinions probable in practice, (that is such as one may practise with a safe conscience) from those which are only probable in speculation, that is to say, in the subtle precisions of the mind, which contemplates things lawful in themselves; though in practice they are ever accompanied with such dangerous circumstances, as render them unlawful.  
You see the reason why Divines affirm them probable in speculation, but not in practice. And if some few, as you have observed, teach that all things, which are lawful in speculation, are also allowable in practice, 'tis not in that ill sense you ascribe unto them: but in another clean contrary. For they always 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 universal Sentiment of all Doctors) from the Speculative to the Practic. 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 P. D' Escobar. lib. 2. Theol. Moral. Sect. 1. de Conscientiâ, Problem. 5.  I hold, says 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 lawful for me to make use of it. I grant nevertheless, that all that is lawful, is not always expedient, by reason of the exterior circumstances. And moreover if the Prince, or a Sovereign Court, should forbid it by their Declarations, or Ordinances, than 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 Council of Trent: and yet since that Council, it is not lawful 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 occur in the practice, show us the falsehood 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 jesuits 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 whatsoever is approved by celebrious Authors, is probable and safe in conscience. You take the words of Authors merely to corrupt them. When it is said that one celebrious Author is sufficient to 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. Cardinal Cajetan is a famous Author; and yet, by a supreme order, they have cut oft from his writings divers decisions that were not maintainable. The true sense of this Maxim, Sir, is, that the probability of an opinion depends not so much on the multitude of Authors that teach it, as on the strength of the reasons whereon it is grounded. For were there but one sole Author that asserted it, yet in case the reasons he brought were solid, and the opinion he established 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 deceived you. You separated the authority of the Author from the force of his reasons, conformable to Faith and good manners: and 'tis no wonder, if from a Maxim corrupted by ignorance, or disguised by artifice, you have deduced no better consequences.  
It is consequently false, Sir, that the Doctrine of Probability makes the Jesuits the maintainers of all the errors 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 fatal to Religion. This smells of Calvinisme: nor can you aver such a falsehood, without offending the Pope, who permits them▪ 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 mind and doctrine, he takes not from them the liberty of probable opinions, but severely forbids them to embrace heretical and dangerous opinions: and were there any one among his Children, that had embraced Jansenisme, their Order could no more endure him, than the sea can endure a dead body, without thrusting it from its bosom, and casting it on the sand.  
It is false in fine, that the doctrine of probable opinions, is a mark of their remissness. And when you say, That there are many other Casuists that are grown remiss as well as they, because with them they maintain probable opinions; you do them more honour than 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 yourself to all Catholic Doctors, 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 purity of their Institu●e, the sanctity of their Founder, and the wisdom of their first Generals; whom you seem to involve in the confusion of that pretended disorder of Probability, when you say in your Fifth Letter, That at their first appearance St. Augustine, St. Jerome, St. Ambrose, and all the rest of the Fathers vanished 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 Jesuits ought to hold themselves satisfied as to that particular, since their Order having spread itself over the whole earth, under St. Ignatius and their first Generals, whom you exempt from blame, 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 Generals 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 Moral 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 show you, that though you are a declared enemy to the Doctrine of Probable Opinions, yet you are obliged 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 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 says, That in no Science there is more of Probability, and less of evidence then in Morality, is it not absurd to expect to find in it what is not there? I should as easily say, you have found the evidence of the truth, and falsehood of all things, and that in case we hearken to Port Royal, we shall have nothing but Articles of Faith in Speculative Divinity, Canons and indubitable Rules in Morality, infallible Aphorisms in Physic, Demonstrations in Philosophy, Questions of Right and Fact clearer than 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 than probable, that you either deceive the world, or yourself, if you be in that error.  
Moreover presupposing that you must needs pass for ridiculous, unless you admit of Probable Opinions in Morality, either you hold that of two Probable Opinions, we must always follow the securest; or you hold it not: If you judge that men are not always 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 secure, than the less safe opinion will remain probable only in Speculation, and will never be probable in Practice.  
Thus of a severe Censurer, behold yourself become an Approver of that distinction which the University (say you) branded with the note of ridiculous. Behold yourself guilty of all the disorders it is cause of. Behold yourself a Complice of that fatal secret of the Politics of the Jesuits; a Voucher of all their Opinions; responsable for their corrupt Maxims; 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 Author of a Doctrine he never taught, and charge with a Chymericall offence. In fine, a Pagan with all the Jesuits, 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 conformity 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 Heretics like them; and finally modest and discreet like them, not rashly to condemn the Probable Doctrine of all Catholic 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 mere 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 man's Verdict. 5. The Jansenists are no fit Judges of the Doctrine of Killing, who teach, that it is lawful to kill one's self: and that when the Interior Spirit moveth, one may, and must kill his Neighbour, though the Exterior Law forbidden it. 6. Other Maxims of the Jansenists are set down; which they teaching, are unfit to censure others. 7. His falsifyings of Lessins', Layman, Molina, Reginaldus, etc. are again taken notice of. 8. port-royal complaineth of the Jansenist for his lose Divinity; and his Answer to them solveth all his own difficulties. 9 That the Casuists favour not Crimes, when they teach it lawful to kill in the just defence of Goods or Honour; but the Jansenists favour Thiefs and insolent Fellows, when they say, that the Innocent may not defend their Goods and Honour against them, for fear of killing. 10. The Jansenists challenge, to show any one that alloweth that one may kill in defence of Goods and Honour, answered, and many Authorities produced; whereof none are Jesuits, but all conspire with Jesuits in their Maxims, 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 always in extremes; and having for a long time played the Scoffer, you will all on a sudden act the part of a Doctor.  
You have reason to renounce that Title, since it becomes you so ill; and if you proceed with so pitiful 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 Murders, Homicide, and Blood. 
a Thus a great Bishop writ to Monsieur de S●. Cyran whose disposition he was acquainted with. His Letter is among the Records of the Abbot's Trial, to be seen in Clermont College.  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 aught 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 counsel, which a great Prelate thought himself bound to give him, at the time when he was beginning to form your Sect, he had never instilled into you such deadly Sentiments against the Casuists: and if you would follow it yourself, you would presently expunge out of your mind all those sinister impressions you hav● received against them.  
Those that distemper you touching the point of Homicide, are very strange: the convulsions they cause in you, show 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 Letter 14.  Their Maxims, 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 Author 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 show us, that it is their criminal Maxims, that have put you into this ill humour. You have often disguised the Truth; be once at least sincere: and haply when the ground of your distemper is rightly understood, it will be easier than you imagine, to dissipate those Apparitions that affright you.  
Do they say it is lawful to kill for simple slanders? 
c Letter 7.  It is no simple one to write it to a Provincial, 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 Letter 14.  in defending that false honour which the Devil 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 He names the Devil seven times in one page.  the name of that Father of lies is too familiar with you: 'tis to be feared, lest having him incessantly upon your tongue, he shed not some of his venom 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 virtue, and its loss a civil death, more afflictive to worthy minds, then that which puts the body in its grave?  
Peradventure they permit expressly to kill a Thief, who defends not himself. 
f Letter 14.  This expression is ambiguous; it is a snare set to surprise 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 falsehood of the largest size: and while you endeavoured to make it pass for currant, with all that boldness wherewith you bolster up your Impostures, you durst not affirm it but by halves: so base and timorous a thing is a a lie, even after it has passed all the bounds of modesty.  
In fine, do they assert that it is lawful to kill for a crown, nay for an apple? 
g Letter 14.  'Tis clear in your opinion, Lessius has so determined 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 subtleties. 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 lawful to kill for the conservation of ones goods, in case the loss be not considerable; nisi illae facultates sin● magni momenti. Say it is most unjust, according to that Father, to take away a man's 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 add these words which you suppresed, juxta Sotum: acknowledge it to be the opinion of Sotus, whose name is illustrious in the School of St. Thomas: Fling not the apple at Lessius, 
h Possess conari, & si opus esset, etiam occidere juxta Sotum; tunc enim non tam rei, quam honoris esset defensio. Lessius l. 2. c. 9 n. 68  who does but report the opinion of that excellent Divine, who appeared with honour in the Council of Trent, and governed the conscience of the Emperor Charles the Fifth. And when you have restored what belongs to him, you have nothing remaining to yourself, but the shame of having aimed to do a mischief, but could not, though there's not any thing more easy.  
Come then to the point of our difference, and tell us in fine, what it is you find horrid in the Doctrine of the Casuists. But speak it clearly; for I ever mistrust this turning of the hand, which with a Backblow 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 lawful for a private person to take away his Neighbour's 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 loss of life and chastity; and you are of the same opinion. But they also comprise therein the loss of goods and honour which St. Thomas calls the two prime Organs of life, without which 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 excess of heat has I know not what of resemblance, with the transports of those fantastic spirits, who give all the world to the Devil, having first given themselves over to the Daemon of choler, which predominates in them.  
Did you hold intelligence with that Prince of Darkness, 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 Doctors, as men devoted to his orders, Ministers of his fury, Emissaries of his errors, and Complices of his crimes.  
Sorbon, to give you satisfaction, must sacrifice Monsieur Du Vall, 
i Du Valliu● de Charitate q. 17. a. 1. § dices justa est.  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 Cardinal Cajetan, 
k Cajetanus in 2. 2. q. 64. a. 7,  who defended this opinion, before there were any Jesuits in the world.  
The School of the Clarks Regulars must leave to him their General, who has lately published the same, even in the Court of Rome, and dedicated it to Cardinal Carassa, whose name he bears. 
l Carassa praepositus generalis Clericor. Regular. tract. 3. sect. 2. quest. 16. & alibi passim.   
The same Court of Rome must tear from its bosom the Learned Cardinal De Lugo, and condemn the judgement of the Pope, who has covered this murdering Doctrine, as you call it, with the splendour of his Purple. 
m Lugo de Justitiâ disp. 10. sect. 9 n. 175.   
You spare not the very Saints themselves; and though their virtue 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 Raimnndus. l. 2.  gloss wherein this Maxim is contained. The Church has hitherto given to St. Antonine, a rank among the Blessed, though he also teaches 
o D. Antoninus, part 3. tit. 5. c. 3.  the same Doctrine: But they were both deceived in your opinion, and deserve (if you might be believed) to be thrust out of Paradise with shame, as men so far devoted to the Devil's Orders, as to publish among Christians those horrid Maxims, which were too bad to have come even out of Hell itself.  
Who gave you the Keys of Heaven to dispose of them in such a manner? Who put into your hands the thunderbolts of God's justice to strike his friends with; you who are beaten in pieces with the thunderbolts and anathemas of the Vatican? Had you the pride of Giants, and not felt their punishment, I should not be astonished at an enterprise so insolent. But having been so often beaten, so often thrown down and humbled by a sovereign and inevitable power, how have you the boldness 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 criminals, to pronounce Decrees? to Corrupters of the Faith, to make themselves Arbiters of Manners, and Interpreters of Laws? They that teach, That it is lawful to kill one's self, and that a man is often oblged to do it, 
p Question Royal of the Abbot of St. Cyran.  have they right to define, when it is lawful to kill their Neighbour? And they that hold, 
q Abbot of St. Cyrans' Maxim according to the deposition given against him at his Trial; which is to be seen in Clermont College.  That we must follow the interior motion that incites us to Homicide, even when the exterior Law prohibits it, are they not gracious people to take upon them to determine, at what time that exterior Law permits, and leaves it in our power.  
Have you already lost the memory of those pernicious errors that caused so great a scandal among Christians; viz. 
r Jansen condemned by the Pope. Tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 21.  That Christ did not die for all men; 
s Jansen Apol. 1. pag. 117.  That he is not the Redeemer of those that perish; that they have reason to reproach him for not being so; that he prayed not to his Father for their eternal salvation, no more then for the Devils; 
t Vindiciae pag. 286. 292. & Jansen. Tom. 3▪ lib. 3. cap. 8. in the Title of the Chapter.  That the old Law itself induced the Israelites to sin; that the Grace, which God gave them, was an obstructing Grace, that rendered justice more difficult and impossible, as if it had put a wall betwixt them and it: 
u Jansen. Apol. 1.  That sufficient Grace is a gift for the Devil to give, and that the Devils would willingly give such gifts, if they had them to bestow: 
x The Rosary of the B. Sacrament. A Piece lately come forth of port-royal, approved by Jansenius, but censured by eighth Doctors of the Sorbon.  That one may renounce all God's 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, choosing rather to be forgotten by him, then by being in his memory, to give him cause to departed from the application of himself, to attend to Creatures.  
These are the horrid Maxims 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 Devil was the first Author of 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, than what the Vicars of Christ have pronounced from the Throne of St. Peter: then what the Bishops of France have declared in their general Assemblies: what all Orthodox Doctors have taught in their Schools: and lastly what the Universal Church holds for certain, no man daring to contradict, that is not a manifest Heretic.  
But this is strange indeed, that in lieu of submitting to the voice of the Sovereign Pastor, you should choose rather to be a Master of Error, than a Scholar of Truth; that being voluntarily blind in the ways of God, you should presume to enlighten the Children of light, and that even while you sin against your own conscience, intrude yourself to regulate the conscience of your Neighbour: doubly culpable; to believe that the whole world is deceived, and not see how much you are deceived yourself.  
Open your eyes, Sir, and of an infinite number of errors acknowledge those at least, you have committed in your last Letter. I will not tell you, it is only a common place, which you have reserved a long time to secure your retreat, or rather that it is a perpetual digression, which to all men of understanding discovers your flight, and that having nothing to answer to the real Impostures I have convinced you of, your anger and despair carry you away so far beyond judgement, that a man cannot choose but laugh, to see how you run yourself out of breath. I will not blame you that you accuse me of departing from my subject; since I only do it to reduce you thither; and am necessitated to do so, if I ever intent to meet you; who seldom or never come near it, but by compulsion.  
Neither will I force you to blush at your strange boldness in making me say, that Layman a Jesuit followed Navarr in the point of Duels; whereas I myself had laid it to your charge in the first part of my answers, that you falsely ascribed to Layman that opinion, by concealing the name of him, who was effectively the Author of it.  
I will endure, that instead of justifying yourself 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 less, suppressing this clause, cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae, which is essential to that Father's decision; because it presupposes, that the party l●ll'd is an unjust Aggressor, and that the killer cannot otherwise repel the violence offered 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 says, he means in that place, that 'tis lawful 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 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 equal advantage with ours; as if in this latter proposition the question were only of the loss 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 armed to take from him a trivial thing, and hazard his life for a crown. This is absurd: you fail in giving colour to your Impostures.  
In fine I will not press you any further to satisfy Lessius and Reginaldus, whom you falsify afresh; because I look upon you as a man that has suffered shipwreck, and is disabled to satisfy his debts.  
I take only what you give: I tie myself wholly to the question you treat of, (though it be nothing to the purpose, where the matter in debate is to justify your citations, which you perform the least of all.) And to show you what advantage truth has over falsehood, I will only make use of your own weapons to fight against you.  
You grant, a man may kill to avoid the loss of life, and chastity, without exceeding the moderation of a just defence: but cannot keep within that moderation, if he kill to avoid the loss of goods and honour.  
Fear not that I shall accuse you of being too severe. If I must take your measure by your former Maxims, I shall find you but too remiss: you are no longer that conscientious Jansenist, who told us resolutely heretofore, I am for the Sure, not for the Probable; and I believe Port Royal 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 feared by a just man: let an enemy assault him, he can do him no considerable hurt: he fears nothing but the loss 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 another's. 'Tis true he is allowed to make a lawful defence: but to be such, ought it not to remain within the bounds of the Gospel, which has heart enough to give blood, but no hands to draw it? Usque ad Evangelium, says St. Ambrose, 
x St. Ambrose l. 10. in Lucam.  non autem postea. The Civil 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 Chancellor 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. affirm, that it is never lawful to take away a man's life by private authority: and this was the Maxim of the 
y 
Legem quidem non reprehendo quae tales jubet interfici; sed quomodo istos qui interficiunt defendam, non invenio. S. Aug. l. 1. de lib. arb c. 5.  
Vide Tostatum in c. 5. Math●i q. 10. Et Villadiego Tract. de Irregularitate.  
S. Cyprianus l. 1. ep. 1. S. Cyril. Alexand. l▪ 11. in Jo. c. 35. Lactantius, l. 6. I●st. c. 20.   Ancient Divines, is agreeable to the Sentiments of St. Cyprian, St. Cyrill of Alexandria, Lactantus, and St. Augustine: 
z Quidam dicunt, quod non repercutere, praeceptum est perfectis, & consilium imperfectis. Gloss. in Sumn●â B. Raymundi. l. 2.  that this prohibition may be a counsel to the imperfect, but 'tis a precept to the perfect.  
How comes it to pass 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 yourself amongst the imperfect? and by what unexpected change have you embraced 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 Doctors hath trodden you out the way; that reason itself hath served you for a guide, and that you could not shut your eyes against that clear beam of natural Light, which shows you that we must not disarm Innocence, to expose it to the insolence of the wicked: that it were an inhuman meekness 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 others, and prejudice of the Public 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 followed it, in a moment you turn your back to it again; and that having denied Assasins and Lascivious persons the impunity of committing evil and assailing the virtuous, by giving leave to kill them, in case it be necessary for repelling their violence; you should leave it entire to Thiefs and Robbers, by forbidding to touch their persons, as if they were sacred and inviolable. By what Prerogative exempt you these from danger rather than the other? Why give you them more liberty to sin, since they have not a greater right? For you cannot be ignorant, that 'tis only against those public 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 contrary they obstruct their course, by repressing the boldness 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.  
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 men's misfortunes. Nor do they allow it, but in case of extreme 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 Laws; when they are in danger, not only probable, but certain, evident, and indubitable of losing either their Fortune or their Honour: I mean not the false honour which dazzles your eyes; but that honour which the most wise and virtuous hold for such. The rules of Morality go no further: If any one imagine the contrary, he is deceived; and if he dares affirm it, he is a Deceiver. Consider, Sir, the equity of this Maxim; the wisdom wherewith it was established, 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 Thiefs, when they shall be out of danger, will not expect the dark of the night; nor offer more vows to the Moon to render her Propicious. They will rob by open daylight, and shall be quit for saying, that their quarrel 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 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 meekness 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 only to facilitate theft, and offer impunity to Thiefs and Robbers. Truly, Sir, they are much obliged to you; and if they have any resentment of the good you do them, they will choose you for their Director: and though you should gain nothing over the Jesuits, you would purchase at least this advantage to be called the Casuist of Thiefs and Cutpurses. That glory is due to you without dispute; you have deserved it: for the Jesuits having, with all other Divines, taken the part of the Innocent against Murderers, 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 all united against you in the Principle; and I know not wherefore you have challenged me to produce you one Law, one Canon, and Interpreter of the Law, that is opposite to you; unless haply it be to show 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 Bannes in 2. 2. q. 64. a. 7.  a famous Disciple of Saint Thomas says, 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 always he observe the moderation of a just defence, Haec conclusio est consensus Philosophorum, & sere omnium Theologorum. This is clear.  
Would you have 
b Cardinal Richelieu in his Instruct. of a Christian. Lesson. 16. Cajetanws in 2. 2. q. 64. a. 7. Toletus l. 1. de Instruct. Sacerd. c. 81. Lugo de Justitiâ disp. 10. Sect. 9 n. 175.  Cardinals to warrant this opinion? Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal Tolet, Cardinal Richelieu, and Cardinal 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.  
Would you have Saints? St. 
c Quando violentia infertur rebus, aut violentia r●bus illata potest per viam judicii repara●i, ●unc non licet qualiter cunque: si autem per viam judicii reparar● non potest, tunc licet qualitercunque de●endere, ●tiam personam occidendo. 3. part, titulo 5. c. 3. initio.  Antoninus, who was one of the Oracles of the Council of Florence says clearly, that when a man will by violence take from us our goods, if there be means to repel the force by way of justice, it is in no wise lawful to kill; but if that means be wanting, it is lawful to defend them, any way whatsoever, even by killing the person. Tun● linnet qualitercunque defendere, ●tiam personam occidendo. The●e can be nothing more express, and yet it is a Saint that decides it; who has the science of the Divines, and the conscience of the Just.  
Require you the authority of the Civil Laws? A private person, says Sylvester, 
d Privatus hominem occidere potest authoritate Legis Civilis, sin● poenâ, qu● pro homicidio in foro conten●ioso debetur. Primo defendendo personam suam; secundo defendendo honorem suum; ter●io defendendo res suas, quando aliter haberi non poterunt, secundum multos Logisias. Sylvester v. Homicidium 1. q. 2.  (who has that incomparable glory to have been the first that writ against Luther) may kill a man according to the Civil Laws, without incurring the penalty wherewith Homicide is punished in justice: First in defending his person; secondly in defending his honour; thirdly in defending his goods, if he cannot otherwise recover them, Secundum multos Legistas. He could not express himself more clearly.  
Would you have the authority of Canons for you? Navarre one of the most esteemed 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 virtues, usually dividing the day between the School, the Hospitals, and the Prisons; who made it glorious by the reputation he had acquired 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 Sum; you will be amazed at the number.  
Covarruvias 
c Quarto manifestum es●●icere cuiquam ●urem diurnum res auferen●em capere, & cumse defendentem à captione occidere, hoc probat Textus in d. c. 4. ex August. Textus item in d. l. 14. ad l. Aquiliam, & post pauca: Quinto inde constat sensus ●jus quod Plato dicit Dial. 9 de legibus licitum esse, cuiquam spoliatorem in sui defensionem occidere. Covarruvias in Clement. ●uriosus 3. parte, Parag. ultimo. Vide ●●nem ●ujus Parag. pro irregulari●ate.  B●shop of Segovia maintains, that one may stop a Thief that ●lics after Robbery, and kill him, if he defend himself, even at noon-days, without incurring irregularity, which he proves both by the Canons, and by the Laws.  
S●bastian Medici's, 
f S●bastianus Medici's de fortuitis casibus, quaest. ●.  who hath made a Summary of all Heresies, your own excepted, because it is yet too young, says, 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 loss of honour to that of life; quia periculum famae ●quiparatur p●riculo vitae.  
Brun●llus 
g Brun●llus repetit. 17. c. 1. de Homicidio, n. 75.  a Learned Lawyer of Orleans assures us, that if it be lawful (which he proves) to kill a man in defence of his life and goods, it is lawful, à fortiori, to do it for the preservation of his honour; because Honour is preferable before Interest, according to the Law. Causa bonoris potior est quam emolumenti. L. Julianus.  
Bartolus 
h Bartolus in l. ut vim, ff. de justitià & jure.  asks the question, whether a man be obliged to fly from the Aggressor when he can, for fear of being engaged 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.  

i Petrus à Navarrâ l. 2. de Restit. c. 3. n 398.  Peter of Navarr extends the same Maxim not to life only, 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 unlawful to kill in defence of goods, except in occurrences where life is also concerned, se suaque liberando: It is evident by the sense, which all these Authors give it, that you understand it not aright; and that if we could not remain in the moderation of a just defence, without inseparably joining the interest of goods and life together, a man could no more defend his life without his goods, than his goods without his life.  
Must I then, after so many clear testimonies, open you all the Libraries, and lead you throughout all the Universities of Europe, to find Interpreters to expound to you the Canons? Must Major 
k Major in 4. dist. 15. q. 13. Parag. 6.  speak for me in the University of Paris? Silvius 
l 
Responsio communis est, licitum esse occidere abripient●m bona nostra, siea sint magni momen●i, & non possint aliter aut defendi aut recuperari. Sylvi●s in 2. 2. q. 64. a. 7.  
Bannes in 2. 2. q. 64. a. 7. Caraffa Generalis Theatinorum jam citatus. Diana Tom. 5. Tract. de Homicide.  
Sotus l. 5. de Justitiâ q. 1. a. 8. sic ait. Citra dubium licet surem, etiam diurnum, in defensionem bonorum temporalium interficere, ●● aliter illa ●ripi ab ipsa ●equeunt.   in that of D●way? Sancius 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 ashamed to see all these great Scholars so firmly united with the Jesuits, in the opinions you reproach them with, as the sole Authors thereof? Have you no regret for having treated them with so little respect, like men so far devoted to the Devil's 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 mystical Jerusalem, unless haply Calvin, Luther, Melancthon, and Du Mouli●? Compare a little your Morality with that of the Jesuits; and of that multitude of Catholic Doctors who embrace the opinions of the Jesuits, give me but one only that favours Jansenisme? Give me but one that teaches with Monsicur de St. Cyran, 
m These Maxims are verified by the testimony of the Abbot of P●ieres in the information against Monsi●ut de S. Cyran.  That the Church is corrupted in her Doctrine, that she is at present in her declension, and that God himself destroys 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 Proiuncial, That sufficient Grace is sufficient without being such: and in the last page of that same Letter, That one may without peril 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 observed in that August Temple of Justice; as though one could observe those long proceed at the corner of a wood, when a Thief surprises 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 yourself, 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 show 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 yourself: You will at once learn to speak more modestly yourself of those holy and most celebrious Doctors; and you will ●ase me of the trouble of upb●aiding your insolence.  
Keep your promise with me, Sir, and you will surpass my hopes; but if you will fully satisfy 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 Error, nor your Pen to Calumny.  
'Tis now above an Age ago, since that foul-mouthed Vice undertaken 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 jesting with Divine Justice; the Wisdom of God is not subject to surprise; men cannot impose on the prime Verity, which endures not falsehood without destroying it: in vain do you disguise the matter; you cannot make it probable to him; and except you sincerely disavow 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 learned it. 2. Since the Jansenists have used ill language to Popes and Prelates, and accused his Holiness' Bulls of falsity, it is not to be wondered 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 Lie, 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 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 showing the Originals.  
SIR,  
I Perceive you are nettled, and that your game does not please you. When I had accurately examined the principal parts of your Letter, the whole force and substance of it seemed comprisable in these two words, which in your opinion amount to a just Apology, and do wholly acquit port-royal; mentiris impudentissimè: 
a Letter 15.  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 mind 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 toss it to and fro, it is hardly able to make a good election of its words.  
That Learned man, whose errors make up the Theology of your Sect, and whose name is one of the most magnificent Titles of your glory, 
a Letter 15.  said very ingenuously, (you know it, Sir, and have graven it since his death, on the Frontispiece of his Work) 
b Subtilis cholerae nonnihil habuit, quam siamulae Salpetrae lepidè comparare solebat; quae momento incenditur, & ●ine nidore & ●umo momento in nihilum dispergitur. Jansen. in Sy●opsi vitae ejus, pag. 2.  that the humour predominant in his constitution, participated of the qualities of Saltpetre; which being of a thin and simple substance, takes fire in an instant, and as suddenly goes out, leaving no ill smell nor smoke behind it. Your fire is more offensive; your Salt peter has Sulphur in it; and those injurious writings, which degenerate so much from the natural Civility of the French, smell too much of the Germane 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 learned as good language as this in the common Marketplace, or among the Wash-women at the River side. But I recalled to mind. that you had good Friends in that Country; and that Luther, who first found out this excellent Method how to vindicate Heresy, had made an advantageous use of it against the highest powers; opposing both to the Writings of a King, and the anathemas 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 Thomistica vestra dominatio. Egregia Regis Thomislitas.  to elude those invincible reasons of St. Thomas, which that Prince had urged; and makes him this respectful compliment, Ego fine larva, sed aper●è, dico, Regem Angliae Henricum istum mentiri. I fear not to unmask myself, 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 Innocent the X. against the Jansenists: 
d Mentiris▪ ne calumniare. Ulricus de Hut●en Eques apud Lutherum. Tom. 2. fol. 54. p. 1. Wittebergae 1546.  You lie, says he; cease to calumniate those who maintain the Truth, which for three hundred years past, you have unjustly oppressed. 
c Obsecro quae est frons tua meretricia, sanctissime Vicarie Christi? Lutherus in assert. articulorum à Leon● X. damnatorum, Tom. 2. fol. 117. p. 2. Sed vale scelerata abominatio, tam stultè simul & impudenter loqueris, ut indignae sis, proper quam verba fian●. Ibid. fol. 120. pag. 1. & alibi passim.  And again, You have the face of a Courtesan, (Holy Vicar of Christ) which cannot blush: You show so much impudence, and so little sense in your words, that you deserve no Answer.  
Questionless it was from this Original that you took your pattern; from hence you have learned to give the lie so readily to him that dares contradict your Sentiments: It was not possible to copy him more perfectly, than you have done, and to compare you both together, a man may say you have full as much boldness, but more of address 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 Jesuits have no more to do, but to bow down their heads, to avoid the blow, which you direct much higher; your aim is at Mitres 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 Heretics, and you would make us believe it is a calumny. You do but jest: 'tis not an Obliquy, but an Oracle uttered from the mouth of Christ's Vicar, 
f Constitutio Innocentii X. contra 5. Jansen. Propositiones.  who assures us that your Maxims touching Grace are Heretical, Scandalous, and Impious. If you be offended thereat, address yourself to him; declare yourself; and to justify your Faith, answer him accoring to your usual stile, mentiris impudentissimè. You cannot endure to be called Jansenist: It is a fair name; are you ashamed to bear the name of your Father? that celebrious name, known over the whole world? that illustrious name, which Popes themselves have given you?  Janseniani Apostolicis decretis tandem acquiescerent. 
g Vrbanus VIII. Francisco de Melo Belgii guber natori die 24. Octob. 1643.  If you take it for an injury, complain of his Holiness, and be not ashamed to say to him, Mentiris impudentissimè.  
Men tell you that you are an Impostor; and that your boldness in corrupting and falsifying the Jesuits Moral is insupportable. I do not only 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 says it; I say it after Urban VIII. who so often complains, that you decry his Constitutions as false and surreptitious, 
h Quamobrem impudens aliquorum temeritas satis improbari, non potest. Urbanus VIII. Academiae Duacensi anno 1643. 24. Octob.  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 men's eternal salvation. 
i 
Ob tam apertam quorundam contumaciam ingenti plane aegritudine affecti fuimus, agitantes quàm pernicioso exemplo & salutis suae discrimine id praesumant. Idem.  
Constitutionem nostram— à quibusdam Jansenii asseclis impudenter atque inanibus prorsus rationibus oppugnari audivimus. Urbanus VIII. Episcopo Antuerpiensi anno 1643. die 24. Octob.   If these high praises 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 show that you are not insolent, tell him aloud, Mentiris impudentissimè.  
You have done it, Sir, and that more than once; you did, upon the Bulls that were not favourable to you, assay the art of Lye-giving to such, as convinced you of Imposture and Error by proofs so clear, that you were not able to answer them: and I am not astonished at your high carriage against the Jesuits, seeing you have begun your apprenticeship upon the Popes.  
When the Church denounced her first Anathema against your pernicious Errors, and Pope Vrban VIII. struck dead at one blow the true Jansenius, and the false Augustine; port-royal startled at the thunderclap, found no better shelter in that conjuncture, which required a quick and hardy resolution, then by public writings to give the lie 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 trial of your skill, which yet might have passed for a Masterpiece. 
k The first and second observations on the false Bull of the Pope.  The Jesuits, said you then, have forged this Bull against the Doctrine of St. Augustin, explained in the Lord Bishop of Ipre 's Book: They could not defend their cause, but by a proceeding so infamous, and so unworthy not only of Christians, of Religious, of Priests, but even of Persons of reputation. All Godly People are in hope, that his Holiness will not let such a Crime go unpunished, and that he will show, 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 falsities.  
The event did afterwards show what Spirit of Divination it was, that made you speak in the stil● of the Prophets, when you were not endued with their lights: Men knew the voice of their Pastor, whom y●u made pass for a Thief: that Constitution which you had violated by two scandalous observations, was confirmed by above six of the Pope's Bre●fs; and that which you had ●e●ry'd through all the streets of Paris, was received in all Churches by his order. Yet ●scap●d he not the lie, and your Apology, which had tried the ●orce of those two terms of your Politics, menti●is impudentissime, forgot not to make use of it, cunningly strewing upon it this handful of flowers: 
l Second Apology of Jansenius, l. 2. c. 14.  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 underhand working, obstructed the prosecution of the Pope's intentions, and rendered this Bull as conformable to their passion, as it is contrary to the will of his Holiness. Can any man give the lie with a better grace? Can any man vindicate Jansenius more dexterously from the censure of Rome? Can it be affirmed more tenderly, that the Pope by condemning Jansenius, had put out his own eyes, and suffered himself to be led by the Jesuits like a blind man?  
Not long after this the thunderbolt fell upon your two heads, which make but one: and Pope Innocent X. beating down that two-headed Monster, which came out of your deserts, declared to all the world, that though there were many members 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 Keys of St. Peter. But after all he could not avoid that Serpent's tongue: the fatal 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 amazed to hear men speak, in the midst of the Church, a language she had never heard. 
m In notatio●ib●s ad de●retum Latinè & Gallice scriptis.  That his Holiness' had suffered himself to be surprised by false reports; that the censurers of a Doctrine so holy and advantageous to the Sea Apostolic had not read it, or if they had, that they understood it not: that they were both Judges and Parties. That Cardinal Lugo had tied himself to the general of the Jesuits by the Vow of a blind Obedience. That Cardinal Spada, ashamed that he could not make that censure prevail, which he had undortaken, had complotted with the Jesuits to save his own credit by exposing the reputation of the Pope: and finally that the whole affair had been managed rather by Politic Considerations, then by the Rules of Ecclesiastical 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 misled souls and insensibly corrupt the purity of their Faith, and the fidelity they own to the Universal Pastor of Christ's Flock? Nevertheless in fine the Providence of God, who watches over his Elect, and laughs at the malice of the impious, disappointed all your designs; and unspeakable was the grief that seized your minds, when you understood, that above fourscore Bishops of this Kingdom, had demanded the condemnation of the Five Propositions, that make up the Fundamental Maxims 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 raised in the midst of their bowels: and finally that those three famous Columns, erected with so much cost and preparation, to uphold the credit of your Doctrine, which visibly tended to its ruin, 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 entrenched yourselves within your Fort, ●●ntiris impudentissimè, and thence as from a safe Rampart, scoffing at Fulminations and Censures, you gave your friends to understand, 
n Arnauld's second Letter, p. 150.  That certain persons having carefully perused a Book, and not found therein the Propositions which are attributed to a Catholic Bishop after his death, in the narration of a Pope's constitution, could not declare against their conscience, that they are in the Book. Who would have thought that after you had given the Lie to Popes and Bishops, who expressly affirm the contrary, there could any thing have been added to your insolence? Yet you rested not there, you perceived there was something wanting, and that to crown so manifest a Rebellion against the Sea Apostolic, it was requisite to give it the name of Obedience, protesting with pompous words, 
o Arnauld's first Letter, p. 25.  that the Disciples of Monsieur d' Ipre had made it apparent to all France, that they can humble themselves under God's Vicar, not only when he honours them with his favour, but even when he seems to abandon them to the Impostures of their Enemies: 
p In the same Letter, p. 9  that they who suspect them of Error, should have much ado to assign the pretended Heresy, which every one fancies to himself as he pleases; since if they reduce it to the Five Propositions condemned by the Pope, that Heresy which he imputed to them, would prove to be but a Chimaera, there being no Divine that maintains those five condemned Propositions.  
What, Sir, is this the Jansenian humility, that so vaunts with ostentation of having submitted to the Vicar of Christ, while it rejects the narration of his Bull, and accuses the Oracle of truth of falsehood & lying? Is this the sincerity where with you justify your Doctrine, by condemning those of remerity who opposed it before it was condemned, and accusing those of calumny, who ascribe it to you, since the public voice of the Church hath blasted it with an eternal ignominy? Before the Pope's Bull the Heresy of Jansenius appeared with lustre in your Works, it marched with great attendance, and nevershewed itself, 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 Heresy is nothing but a Chimaera, which every man fancies such as he pleases, and no man knows in very truth. Before the Pope's 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 attempered 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 heinous Detractors, and most impudent Liars. Before the Bull, those Maxims were as so many unalterable Rules of Faith, where of Tradition was he Source, Saint Augustine the Oracle, and Monsieur de Ipre the faithful Interpreter that had renewed them in our Age. After the Bull, those very Maxims by a strange Metamorphosis, are become mere Impostures, which Envy alone hath invented, Calumny divulged, 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 men's minds: at this day it is a Chimaera, because you dare not produce it, so odious it is to all the world: when you have wiped 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 Church. 'Tis only the hatred you bear to the Jesuits, that never changes; because your bad inclination towards Religion ever continues. You look upon their zeal as an obstacle that retards the progress of your designs; and because you cannot shake their virtue, you endeavour, at least, to ruin the reputation it gains, and the approbation it deserves. Hence it comes that you make them Authors of all your disgraces, and not daring to complain of the hand that strikes you, at every blow you feel you by't the hand that would heal you.  
If the Pope condemneth the works of port-royal; the Jesuits presently become Falsifiers, and Forgers of Bulls against the Doctrine of the Fathers. If he command the Marble of Jansenius' Tomb to be taken up, and that the marks of that proud monument, which served as a Trophy to Heresy, be effaced; the Jesuits are men of profane spirits, they suffer Idolatry in China, they traffic in Canada, they favour Libertines in Europe, and uphold remissness and disorder in all parts of the world. If the Clergy in France reprove the surreptitious Elogium of the Abbot of St. Cyran; the Jesuits 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 itself, and courageously cut off its own members, where they see inflammation and corruption to be gathered by the contagion of your errors; 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 entire in any of their Books: they must be falsified by infamous forgings; they must be altered by unfaithful suppressions; a false aspect must be given them by malignant interpretations; some passages of them must be shortened, others lengthened; those must have that cut off which justifie● them; and these must have something added, which may make them appear . Divines will soon discover these illusions; but the People, who are not ●o clearsighted, will be apt to take such apparitions for solid bodies; and so you will still find your account. The wise will admire that 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 reduced, like Moths, 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 pleased with detractions of this nature, that even the false do often delight them more than the true. In fine the Jesuits will not fail to defend themselves, and make you blush at your gulleries. But you are ready to welcome them; if they press 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 forced 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 yourself, and assaulting others; since all your dexterity consists in lying impudently, which is not hard to do; and in giving others the Lie with impunity, which is yet more easy; in aspersing the Innocent with hideous Calumnies to make them criminal, and calling them Calumniators, to vindicate yourself of all your crimes. Let us take a view of your proceeding, and see how you reduce to practise the method of Port-Royal.  
You make Father Al●y say, that Monsieur Puys is an Heretic, excommunicate, and worthy of the sire: You quote his first and second Book, and assure us, that he confirms in the latter, what he had said of him in the former. This is an apparent falsehood. 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 called that Pastor Heretic; 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 gloss too violent, and that complaint very tender. You are therefore an Impostor, and that a signal one. But what does it avail me to convince, and press you to an answer? As your accusation is only a lie, so all your Apology will be to give me that compliment. You who made no consci●noe to lie in imposing upon that Father, will have no shame to give me the lie in justifying yourself, and say, Mentirls impudontissimé.  
You accuse Father Bauny of having taught, That it is lawful directly, primo & per se, to seek out the next occasion of sinning, for the Spiritual or Temporal good of ourselves, or neighbour. This is a palpable falsehood. Those words primo & per se are none of that Divines. I advertised 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 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 accused you of ignorance, for making a crime of an opinion common in Divinity; and for the second I convinced 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 Devil. Nevertheless as though you had quite forgotten it, you take me for Surety against your Creditors, 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 general from port-royal, which ●xempts you from speaking truth, and empowers you to give the lie to all that reproach you with unfaithful dealing. See yet another example; for you are very fruitful in Impostures, as having in you an inexhaustible 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 falsehood more evident than the day: the answer of the one destroys 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 yourself. One answers, that Absolution cannot be given to that sort of Sinners, when they show 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 effect that is to follow his present protestations and resolutions; which the greatest Saints cannot promise themselves: and this he avows for F. Bauny's opinion. This is also true. Where is then that imaginary contradiction you accuse them of? Where is that strait 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 constrained to fly into Germany to learn opprobrious language, and to answer each of them in particular with mentiris impudentissimè.  
You will say that you have learned this lesson in a good School; that you practise it but in imitation of a good Religious Germane, and that the Capuchins being then very fatal to the Jesuits, 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 Jesuits in the cause of Jansenius, you had played your game well. For besides that their Holiness of life has acquired them the Love and Veneration of the People, they are vigorous defenders of the Faith, and of the Pope's B●ll; and consequently great Enemies of Jansenisme, which you maintain. But 'tis in vain to hope for such a rapture, and the Decree which they have this year renewed against your Doctrine, declares to you sufficiently, that the Jesuits are on better terms with the Capuchins than 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 yourself unfortunate only in the Capuchins and Jesuits, I will add divers others; whereby you shall understand how hateful your Party is to all Religious Orders and Societies, wherein Virtue and Science are in any kind of repute.  
Learn therefore, if you know it not already, what are the Sentiments of all godly people touching your Doctrine, and judge by the universal odium it lies under, if you be not the most unfortunate upon the Earth. The Reverend Fathers Capuchins desirous to testify in all occurrences the respect and obedience they own to the Holy Sea, ●ave prohibited in their General 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 condemned 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 Apostolical Constitution, if he be a Superior, let him be deprived 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 Superiors shall think fitting. Behold you are already very unfortunate in the Capuchins. The Reverend Father's ●ueillans, assembled in their General Chapter, in the Year 1649. made the like Prohibition, and ordained, that the Constitutions of Pope Urban VIII. against Jansenius should be sent, published, and exactly observed in all the Monasteries of their Order. See, you are unfortunate also in them. The Reverend Fathers Carmelites Discalceate, established the same in their Provincial 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 died not for all the world; That all the actions of Unbelievers are sins; That God has no will to save all men. There again are you unfortunate in the Carmelites. The Reverend Fathers Minims made the like Ordinance in their Provincial Chapter, in the Year 1650. To the end (say they) efficaciously to retrench that dangerous novelty of Doctrine, which creeps into men's minds to the scandal 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 General, enjoining under great penalties their Professouts of Divinity, to t●ach Sufficient Grace, and not to go astray out of the grand Road of Catholic Doctors, to follow new and exotic Maxims. There again are you unfortunate in the Benedictins.  
I will not dilate myself 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 design is to undeceive you, if I can, and to oblige you to acknowledge, how dangerous it is to departed 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. Pope's excommunicate you; Bishops declare you Heretics; the Religious Orders have a horror for your Doctrine; the Universities condemn you by their Censures, and Sorbon cannot suffer you in her bosom: she cuts you off alive from her Body, and deprives you of Funeral Honours after death. You have a fresh precedent thereof before your eyes, which ought to startle you. That sage and courageous Mother suppressed the tenderness she had for one of her Doctors, who died not long since in Paris, to testify the greatness of her aversion for your Errors: she deserted him, because he would not renounce the commerce he held with you: she disavowed him, because he would not know himself: she remained inflexible in her severity, because he obstinately persisted in his disobedience: and as he died in the forgetfulness of his duty, so she would render him no other devoirs, then that of an eternal 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 Heretics; and you'll go seek out proofs as far as Germany, to give the Lie 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 only of Lying, to repel on● calumny by another that is equal, and to impose false crimes to the ruin 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 Authors; nay even of the Universities of Prague, and Vienna The R. F. Quiroga alleges for warranty of his Tenent, three Authors, 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 condemned by the Pope are not to be found in Jansenius, as he declares they are in an 
q The Pope's Brief to the Bishops of France.  express Brief? How weakly is this argued! Therefore those very Propositions are not Scandalous, Heretical, 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 Heresy 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 irrational is this! Therefore the Abbot of St. Cyran says 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 Successors of the Apostles? Therefore Janseni●s promises not that Abbot to maintain his Nephew Barcos with College Moneys he had in his 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 The Original of these Letters are in Clermont College.  That God has taken away two Ecclesiastiques within a few Days, to cast a Canonry into his hands, and that he is already proffered for it six hundred Florins, together with a Benefice? Therefore Mother Agnes of St. Paul Abbess of port-royal says 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 Months; and that this were enough to astonish a Confessor, who requires only words, and not dispositions?  
By what Laws of Logic can you reason in this sort, without exposing yourself to the laughter even of the meanly learned? The Jesuits have no no need to impose upon you false Heresies; you have published but too many real ones. They do not falsify your Books, that so they may find them stuffed with errors in Doctrine and Morality; they have marked you the place, the page, your very words: they altar not the Letters of Jansenius, and the Abbot of St. Cyran● they have the Originals in their Archives of Clermont College: they conceal them not, they show them to all the world. You have sent thither, and have had a more faithful relation than 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 protested you would only answer en passant, as passing by. For it is true, you very dexterously pass 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 Jesuits: They answer clearly; they dissolve your intricate ambiguities; they unveil 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 King's Confessor so unworthily; why you worry Vasquez, Suarez, Molina, Lessi●●, and so many famous Divines, whose radiant lustre dazzles 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 preached against Jansenisme, (which is at this day so infamous) and having cleared certain Persons, who suspected themselves taxed, and made great complaints thereof. This is it that anger's you; this is the real cause of the strange animosity you express: 'Tis not your zeal for the Discipline, that makes you scatter so many calumnies in Paris: 'Tis the grief you feel to see yourself condemned at Rome, the very place where you should present your grievances, were they reasonable, that has held you these six months in perpetual extravagances.  
Return then, Sir, to the point of our difference; let us resume the subject of our Dispute: I will not oblige you to justify the Doctrine of Jansenius; that were to require an impossibility: but it is easy for you, nay advantageous, sincerely to condemn it, by retracting the Heresies you have advanced in your four first Letters, and which Monsiver de Marande 
s Mounsieur de Marande Counsellor of State, in a Book entitled, Considerations upon a Libel of Port Royal, p. 82.  has impugned with such eloquence and strength of judgement, as that generous Defender of Grace has shown in all his Works against Arnauld, which are unanswerable. This is the subject of my wishes, the public hope, the interest of the Church, and the answer I resolve henceforth to make to all your obloquys; for leaving to you that fair Apology of port-royal, men●ir●s impudentissimè, I will not otherwise defend myself in the future, then by remonstrating your error, and bidding you at every Maxim I refute, Be no longer a Jansenist,   

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Complaint of being called Heretics: By Father Francis Annat.  
Argument.  
1. THat the ●ansenists are Heretics, because they maintain the Five Propositions in the sense of Jansenius; which the Pope hath condemned and declared Heretical. 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 several Confessions of theirs. 3. A Parallel 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 one of them. 5. The great stubbornness of the Jansenists denying what is ocularly evident, and what they themselves have confessed. 6. The Jansenists as truly Heretics, as the Arians, Nestorians, etc. 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 Heretics, who maintain it) without knowing what the particular sense of Jansenius is: as to condemn Mahomet's 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 Heretics. 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.  
I Have newly received the Complaint of a Jansenist, who believes I am much to blame for calling those of his Sect Heretics, and demands satisfaction for so great an injury. He sees not how I can well excuse myself, since it is manifest, as he imagines, that they who are termed Jansenists, have perfectly submitted to the Pope's Constitution, which condemns the five Propositions; and do hold the same Propositions for well and duly 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 Heretics. Though it prevail with them no more then formerly, yet will it serve to undeceive those, who might be caught with the fair show of their Complaint.  
I affirm therefore, that the Jansenists are Heretics, and that without all dispute, they ought to be called 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 Heretical. I will not speak of the Bull of Vrban VIII. which affirms Jansenius to have revived a Doctrine already condemned, to the scandal of Christianity and contempt of the Sea Apostolic; and therefore condemns his Book anew. Every man knows, that both in France and Flaunders they have published a number of Books, to persuade the nullity and falsehood of 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 only 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 easy. For the Pope in condemning the Propositions did not condemn the characters they are written in, nor the voice they are pronounced with; but the sense of those that writ 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; showing 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' 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 condemned in the sense of Jansenius; the Pope in avowing their explication rejoiced thereat, and has again the third time pronounced, that he condemned the Doctrine of Jansenius in the Five Propositions. The assembly general of the Clergy have received his Brief, and confirmed 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 Pope's 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 Church's sense, and ●en●ounce Jansenisme, and let us call them no longer Heretics. If they say no; they are manifestly Hr●tiques, since they maintain the Five Propositions in that sense, in which the Pope has declared them Heretical; and by the same reason they have not submitted to the Pope's Constitution. And because they have hitherto refused to confess that truth, th●● so constant a refusal being not otherwise interpretable th●n an avowment of the contrary, we have most just reason to call them absolutely Heretics, as people obstinately defending a Doctrine declared and condemned for Heretical. So that we cannot change our language, except they altar their minds.  
Their usual evasion, by distinguishing betwixt questions of Right and question of Fact, cannot secure them. We must consider in that Sect two sorts of persons, the Captains or Conductors of the Flock, who are their Doctors; and the Followers that are blindly engaged in the Party, by faction, cabal, and adherence to their Conductors. The former understand the fact by their own knowledge, and therein aught 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 Latin and French, to persuade men that their Doctrine touching the Five Propositions is the Doctrine of St. Augustine, (that so it may not be said they have gone sottishly to work, and disputed on a business they understood not) are obliged to confess, 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 acknowledged those Propositions to be laid down in Jansenius, and that they might be considered, 
a In the Book entitled, Propositiones de Gratiâ Sorbonae Facultate propediem examina●dae.   in Jansenii Augustino jacent, vel quoad verba, vel quoad verborum vim & sententiam. They have noted the places where they are found: saying of the first. 
b Pag. 10.  Veniamus ad Jansenium, & expendamus quo ille intellectu positionem han● usurparit, justis omnibus volentibus & conantibus, etc. Habetur ea apud hunc authorem, lib. 3. de Gratiâ Salvatoris, cap. 13.  
And of the Second, 
c Pag. 16.  Acc●dat modo Antistes Iprensis; Asscrit ipse & expli●at ex professo prop●sitam thesim, libro t●rtio de Gratiâ Salvatoris, ●ámque firmat solid●ssimè, etc.  
And of the Third, 
d Pag. 24.  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 Margin, lib. 6. de Gr. Salvatoris, cap 6. & seq.  
And of the Fourth, 
e Pag. 30.  Quid vero senserit de islo argumento Iprensis Episcopus, fusissime reperies à sexto ad undecimum caput lib. 8. de Hist. Pelagiana, etc.  
And of the Fifth, 
f Pag. 36.  Augustini verba & sententiam summa side repraesentavit Iprensis Episcopus lib. 3. de Gr. Salu. cap. 2. Vbi & retulit veterem Ecclesiam Lugdun●nsem, & Sinodum Valentinam expressissime defini●ntes velut ●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 says, That those Propositions are most true, and most Cotholique, according to the sense of Grace efficacious in itself. 
g Pag. 16. 18, 21, 22.  As it is also in that sole sense that the Lord Bishop of Ipres maintains them against the errors of the Jesuits: That they have a good sense, in which the Lord Bishop of Ipres and the Disciples of St. Augustine have always 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 find them there again, need only resume the eyes they had before those Propositions were condemned.  
Since the Author of the Memoire touching the Jesuits design, affirms, That Jansenius' opinions on the Subject of those Propositions are the same wi●h St. Augustins; and consequently, that one cannot determine them condemned in Jansenius 's sense without violating all the rules of the Church; As also that the ablest Divines would be obliged to acknowledge the capital 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 they are Jansenius', either as to the Letter, or as to that sense?  
And the Author of the Illustration upon some new Objections, supposeth he not the same, when he says, That though the Jesuits should by surprise have extorted a general condemnation of Jansenius 's sense— Yet all the Learned who are versed in St. Austin's Doctrine, would not be able to believe that they could (without wounding their consciences) so far blind themselves, as to take the most constant Maxims of that great Saints Doctrine for Heresy and Impietics? He is careful 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 days 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 than the defence of Jansenius, they in a Bravado styled themselves the Defenders of St. Augustine, though they were in effect but the Defenders of Jansenius. And consequently till such time as we have a constat 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 only 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 criminal confesses the fact he is charged with; as when Milo, for example freely grants that he ●lew Clodius; after which it remains only to inquire whether he had right to do it. So, since the Jansenists have confessed, that they maintain the Five Propositions in Jansenius' sense, there's no further dispute, but whether they have right to maintain them. But the Pope decides the controversy; 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 refusal: For 'tis but a mear mockery to say they have submitted to the Constitution; unless in their Morality they call it a submission to refuse to act what is ordained.  
Nor can they allege that Jansenius' 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 expressed in his Book; then that which the Jansenists have preached, taught, published by an infinity of Writings, and have abridged in the Paper of Three Columns. That is the sense we call jansenius 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 jansenius and the jansenists themselves have made of their Doctrine in the Five Propositions.  
In a word, the Pope having declared that he has condemned the Doctrine of Jansenius, we press the Jansenists with their own Maxims, 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, declared St. Augustine's Doctrine touching matter of Grace to be the Catholic Doctrine: Therefore they that impugn the same Doctrine of St. Augustine are Heretics. We say in like manner, Pope Innocent X. writing to the Bishops of France, declared that Jansenius' Doctrine is condemned as Heretical: Therefore the Jansenists, who defend that Doctrine, are Heretics. What is there replyable? It is, they will say, a question of Fact, wherein the Pope is not infallible, viz. whether the Doctrine he condemns, 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 expressed in a certain number of Propositions the Doctrine which he established as St. Augustine's Doctrine: so Pope Innocent expressed in the number of Five Propositions the Doctrine which he condemned as Jansenius' Doctrine. We are not agreed of the sense of the Propositions condemned 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 than 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 undoubtful? Here's the difficult pass and dangerous leap the Jansenists are brought 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 Apostolic.  
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 show the Jansenists the blindeness of their proceeding, while they endeavour to justify their contempt of Pope Innocent's authority, by Reasons equally destructive of the authority of Pope Celestine; whereon never the less they ground their principal 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 affirm, that Pope Innocent X. condemned, in the Five Propositions, the true sense of Jansenius, as to say, that Pope Celestine established 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 Heretical, and on the other, those which are the expression of the sense of Jansenius. Aman needs not be a Doctor of Divinity to understand their conformity.  
The first Heretical Proposition. Jansenius' Proposition. ●tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 13. Some of God's 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 renders them possible. And therefore all things plainly show, that in St. Augustine's Doctrine there is nothing better established, nor more certain Than this verity, That there are some Precepts which are impossible not only to the Unfaithful, but even to the Faithful 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 Heretical Proposition. Jansenius' Proposition, tom. 3. l. 2. c. 4, 14, 25. In the ●ate of Nature corrupted, men never resist interior Grace The succour of the sick Will is not subject to the Free Will— but invincibly determines the Free Will to choose and embrace this or that.  The whole Body of St. Augustine's 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 medicinal Grace of Christ that hath not its effect. The third Heretical Proposition. Jansenius' Proposition, tom. 3. lib. 6. c. 38. To merit and demerit 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 coaction; or constraint. The most holy and learned Doctors unanimously and invariably teach, that the Will is therefore Free, because it is reasonable: and that no necessity of Immutability, Inevitability, or by what other name s●even you will call it, i● repugnant to it, but only the necessity of 〈◊〉. The fourth Heretical Proposition. Jansenius' Proposition, tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 6. Th● Semip●lagians admitted the necessity of interior preventing Grace to every action, even to the beginning of Faith. But they were Heretics 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 Semipelagians) did not from the Will of Believing, exclude an interiorly assisting Grace, is evident from that which &c — In this therefore properly consists the Massilians Error, that they think we have some relics of our original liberty left us, whereby corrupted man might at least believe if he would; yet not without the help of interior Grace; whereof the good or bad use is left to the  and power of every man. The fifth Heretical Proposition. Jansenius' Proposition, tom. 3. lib. 3. cap. 21. It is S●mipelagianisme to say, that Jesus Christ died, or shed his Blood generally for all men. Whereas they say that J. Christ died 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 died 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 than he did for the salvation of the Devil. Th●● Proposition understood so, as that Christ died only for the Predestinate, is Heretical.   
It would be difficult to find elsewhere, save among the Jansenists, such courageous spirits as durst deny so known a verity, and maintain, that the Heretical Propositions, and those of jansenius 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 Heretics: for in defending the opinions of Jansenius, they defend those which are the same either formally or virtually, and are acknowledged and declared Heretical 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 than 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 Compliment 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 stubbornness for not avowing the Five Propositions to be Heretical, explained in Jansenius' Sense; or the Doctrine of Jansenius to be Heretical, so far as it is con●prized in the Five Propositions, let them give us the lie, by avowing the contrary, and we shall soon be agreed; promising to call them Heretics 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 amiss, that men call them by their name, that is to say, Heretics.  
Now by this whole discourse it appears, that their argument, who complain of being termed Heretics, 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 acknowledged as Heretics for not renouncing Propositions condemned by the Church, but defending them, notwithstanding that condemation: and they would persuade 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 Heretics like those. But by the precedent discourse it appears, that the Jansenists act the same part that those Heretics did. For the Pope condemned the Five Propositions as Opinions of Jansenius, and as containing the Sense and Doctrine of jansenius: and affirmed them in that Sense to be Heretical. But the Jansenists to this day defend them in that sense, and stoutly deny them to be Heretical in that sense. Therefore the Jansenists are Heretics, as were the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, Monothelites. And 'tis impossible they should clear themselves, till they deal candidly, and confess what is daily expected from them, that the Doctrine of jansenius is Heretical.  
But if they run back to their old song, that they know not what the Doctrine of jansenius is, we have already answered, that the jansenian Doctors know it by their own study; that they have avowed 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 Heretics, in regard that being obliged by the conscience of their incapacity and want of Scholarship, to refer themselves to the judgement of the ablest Divines, they prefer the Opinion of three or four Doctors of port-royal, 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 than that which contradicts it; nay, which alone makes the whole Church, by excommunicating and cutting off the part resisting. So that the Leaders are Heretics and Heresia●ks, like Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Cyrus, Sergius: And their Followers are Heretics like the Arians, Nestorians, Eutychians, and Mon●thelite people.  
I add, that to be an Heretic it is not necessary to be instructed in particular, in all the points contained in the false Doctrine which Heretics follow. A man that had seen Saint Paul do miracles, and heard of the Sanctity of his life, might not he have been inspired 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 excused from committing a sin of Infidelity, or against Faith? A Christian that knows no more of the Doctrine of Mahomet, but that it is abhorred by all the Faithful, 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 conjectures should obstinately say, though but in general, that the Doctrine of Mahomet were not to be rejected, would it not be an act of Heresy in him, or something worse? And what does the Council 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 anathematised by the Church, I do also condemn, reject, and Anathematizo. Is it not a professing of our Faith, by renouncing of Heresies in general, without knowing in particular what they are, but con●enting ourselves to understand, that they are condemned by the Church? Can not the Council (if it had pleased) have named ●he Heresy of Wicliff; of Luther; of Calvin, etc. as the ancient Counsels ●sometimes named other Heresiarks, viz. Dioscorus, Nestorius, & c▪ in their Anathematisms, when they professed the Catholic Faith? And had the Council 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 general that it ought to be done; why shall we scruple to affirm, that it is also an act against Faith, and an Heresy 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 Doctors) proposes the Doctrine of jansenius, as a Doctrine containing errors, and condemned under the notion of Heresy; though we knew no more of it then this, yet that alone ought to suffice for believing in general that Iansenius' Doctrine contains errors contrary to the Catholic Faith; and consequently it sufficeth for the calling of those people Heretics, who obstinately defend it, and contradict the Declarution of the Church, without further need of a particular information of those errors.  
I know 'tis no matter of Faith, to believe that a man called jansenius was ever in the world, that he was a Bishop, and writ a Book entitled Augustinus; and that he treats in that Book of Questions of Grace, Predestination, and ; 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 Heretical; and consequently, that this cannot be contradicted, but by an Heretic. 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 spoke of jesus Christ: but it was an act of Faith to believe, that that man's preaching, whom they saw and heard, was true; and an act of infidelity to deny it, supposing the knowledge of the motives that rendered 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 jansenius, 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 jansenius, or have there that sense, perform an act of Faith in believing, that those Propositions they so know to be Iansenius', or in his Doctrine to have a sense agreeable to their signification, are Heretical in that sense: and they that contradict it are Heretics.  
In like manner answer is to be made to what they allege, that true it is, who ever affirms Attrition, such as the Council of Trent has described it, to ●e bad, is an Heretic: But if one had a doubt, whether that Proposition were in Luther or Calvin, he should be no Heretic. For it must be said, that since the Definition of the Council 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 add jansenius, as indeed it is in him) are obliged to say, That the Proposition which they know to be in Luther, Calvin, and Jansenius, is Heretical, and that they who obstinately defend it, are Heretics.  
It is just here, as in the Baptism of Infants. For 'tis no matter of Faith, but rather of humane Science, or Knowledge, that there are little Infants who receive Baptism. Yet that knowledge supposed, it is matter of Faith to believe that they are justified; and to believe the contrary is the Heresy 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 itself, 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 denied, but that the Maintainers of them in Jansenius' sense are Heretics, 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 Heretic, without declaring expressly that he contradicts what Faith teaches, and the Church has determined: 'Tis well known, that the ancient Heretics did sometimes dissemble their Errors, and play their parts as the Jansenists do now adays, when they say they condemn the Five Propositious in whatever Author they are found. All History is full of the like fictions: and it was always requisite to be solicitous in discovering the ●ail of the Scorpion, which lay hid under the mask of their counterfeit Confessions. St. Jerom 
a Dial. co●tra L●cif.  tells us that Arius made a show of recanting, and signed the Rule of Faith that had been made by the Council of Nice. St. Gregory Nazianzen 
b Ep. ad Cler. 1, 2.  informs us, that Apollinaris did the like, and that by ambiguous Propositions he surprised 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 St. Leo. Ep. 12, 15.  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 Retract. 41. 1 Con. Jul. c. 5.  informs us, that Pelagius deceived the Council of Palestine, and obtained the approbation of his Doctrine from the Bishops, upon a false show of a sincere subscription to the Propositions presented to him. St. Augustine assures us further, that he was himself so near being overreached by two Letters he received from Pelagius and Celestius, that he was upon the point of giving them his hand in sign of agreement. The Ecclesiastical History 
e Baron. An. 629, 633.  observes the same deceptions from the Chiefs of the Monothelites. Athanasius Patriarch of the Jacobites, made the Emperor 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 Heretics of the East to the Catholic Faith, he insensibly engaged that Emperor in Error, and made him Protector of the Monothelite Heresy. Sergius wrought so cunningly with Pope Honorius, that by appearances of submission, and a good intention to defend the Catholic 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 Heretics. Such were also the Heretics of St. Bernard's 
f Nescio qua arte singendi ita sua confundit vestigia callidissimum animal, ut quà vel intret vel exeat, haud facilè queat ab homine deprehendi—. Si fidem interroges, nihil Christianius; si conversationem, nihil irreprehensibilius: & quae loquitur factis probat: videas hominem in testimonium suae fidei frequentantem Ecclesiam, honorare Presbyterbs, offer munus suum, Confessionem facere, Sacramentis communicare: Quid fidelius? Ib. Serm. 66.  time, who for that reason compared them to Foxes, and applied 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 easy matter to discover where they go. And such also are Heretics 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 virtue. They frequent the Churches; they show respect unto Churchmen; they come to the Sacraments. Yet aft●r all they are Sheep but only in appearance▪ they are Foxes in subtlety, 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 glass of St. Bernard, they will find it a true one.  
I● conclude therefore against their Plea for avoiding the name of Heretics, to wit, That they behave not themselves: like the Ancient Heretics, and aver, that they therefore ought to be t●●med Heretics, because they do all those things, they practise all those ●leights which the Ancient Heretics did: one while contradicting the Decision● of the Church; another while dissembling and palliating that contradiction; acting, as St. Bernard says, now the Wolf, and anon the Fox. The Church ●ells us, that the Five Propositions taken in Jansenius' sense are Heretical; the Jansenists affirm, That the Five Propositions taken in Jansenius' sense are the most constant verities of Catholic Doctrine. This is acting the Wolf, and declaring point-blank against the Church, which is Christ's Flock. Yet they say withal, they condemn the Five Propositions where ever they find them. Now that's to play the Fox, to wit, by a mental reservation, and exception of Jansenius' sense; which nevertheless 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 than any man is able to believe. For what greater Miracle in persons that regard only 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 received any displeasure from men? 'Tis well known, that when Jansenius' Book was first brought into France, one of their Patriarches, who laboured to engage many Doctors of the Sorbon in the defence of that Doctrine, and begged their Approbations, having met with one of those Doctors, who would not be persuaded 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 showing him the Book, Behold, saith he, the Jesuits 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 atonement of Justice, (which is so dear to them) with the liberty of calumniating? Their Calumnies are so clearly displayed in●●ur Answers, that it will b● a new Miracle of boldness, 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 faithful 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 several Citations, they had the candour to affirm in lieu of a full answer, that I had no● touched their six last Letters. Which is in effect to say, that 'tis but a Peccadillo, (a small matter) to have been taken, upon seventeen several occasions, in Imposture and Falsifying. I thought it had been sufficient to have proved it in one only instance: as it suffices to make a man infamous for his whole life, to be but once convinced of bearing false witness. 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 is counted but a tri●le, and not sufficient. However their Writings are so luxuriant 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 add only 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, received and approved both by the Bishops and Doctors, I speak not here of Sorbon only, or apart by itself; which is yet Body considerable enough to prevail against the authority of certain particular Doctors, whose number is much less, and whose quality (to speak modestly) is no ways preferable to that of Sorbon. Neither speak I of the Bishops separately, whose judgement yet in Causes Ecclesiastical, is far more considerable, then that of single Doctors. No, nor do I speak of the Holy Sea apart by itself, which yet in the judgement of all Antiquity, was believed to be sufficient to make those acknowledged for Heretics, who were declared such by the Pope; and those also reputed Catholics, whom the Pope received into his Communion, and declared to be such. I conjoin all three together and 〈…〉, to whole establishment the Pope, Bishops and Doctors do unanimously concur, is to make war against the Church, whose Sentiments neither aught, nor can ●e be better represented, then by the common consent of the Head and principal Members, which compose it. And since that whole united body conspiringly informs us, that the Five Propositions are condemned in Jansenius' sense, and his Opinions and Doctrine condemned in the Five Propositions, it is undeniable, that the Jansenists, who hitherto make a practice of contradicting it, do work so great a Miracle, as not any Faith, save that of the Arians, Nestorians, Eu●ychia●s, Monothelites, (add likewise Lutherans, Zwinglians, Calvinists, etc.) is able to believe: which is, The agreement of the true Doctrine, (which they brag to be taught by them in its purity) with the war against the Catholic, Apostolic, 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 Heretics.   

An ANSWER to the JANSENISTS Sixteenth Letter; addressed to the Directors of port-royal.  
Argument.  
1. THat the Author of the Provincial Letters, not deserving an Answer, for his Rudeness, Calumny, and Ignorance, this is addressed to the port-royal; meaning thereby the whole Party of the Jansenists. 2. That port-royal holdeth Intelligence with Geneva and Charenton; whilst the Jesuits are maintained by Popes, Counsels, Kings, and Nobles. 3. port-royal 's greatest Happiness is, not to be known; on the contrary the Jesuits 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 Reform, and set upon the Jesuits Morals, as giving scope to Liberty; whilst really they aim, not at a Reform, but Destruction of the Church, (which they see is much maintained by the Jesuits) and the establishing the Heresies of Geneva, impugned by the Jesuits. 5. A Parallel betwixt Port-Royal and Geneva in points of Faith. 6. That all other Heretics cry up port-royal, as consenting with them. 7. Apostatas profess to have learned 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 Catholic Church. 9 A Challenge to port-royal to disprove what is objected to them; and then to use the ill language, of which the Provincial Letters are full, when they have showed the Error. 10. A Continuation of many Errors of the Port-Royal. 11. The Foolish and Impious Devotions of port-royal. That all the Books of port-royal are condemned, and do manifest ●y contradict themselves.  
SIRS,  
I Have too long maintained the Innocence of a Society celebrious in God's Church, against a person unknown, whose Impostures yet are no less evident than himself is invisible. I have cause at present, to show him that contempt which he deserves; finding him reduced to that straight, as to answer only en passant, 
a Letter ●5.  cursorily; or rather in running quit● away and making an escape. It is your interest to enjoin 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 show in taking upon him your Defence, 〈◊〉 performs it in so jesting a way, as though he had no great will to be believed. And to declare to all the world, that he aims at nothing but laughter, he plays 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 concerned: and feigning the voice of the Prophet's, who being extraordinarily enlightened, foretell us future events with an infallible assurance, he protests in his despair that that Doctor, what ever he do, till he cease to be, will never be a good Catholic. But as I ought to hope better of his conversion, so will I believe, that this prediction is but raillery: I should be so●●y it should prove true, and that i● could not be shown 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 less rude and savage. Do but advertise him of his defects, and make him see his weakness, he grows 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 Heretic, even whilst he undertakes the defence of your Errors: his Answers are injurious speeches, his Justification is mere calumny, giving the Li● is his compliment, his Caresses are no better than Threats, and the whole strain of his Discourse a perpetual digression.  
These considerations, Sirs, have obliged me to address the Refutation of this Sixte●nth Letter to yourselves, to tell you, that if I hereafter neglect the Author of it, 'tis because such an injurious Writer (who forgets and tramples upon all the Laws of Honour and Virtue) rather deserves Correction, than an Answer. But that I satisfy his complaints, is because they concern the whole party; and I am willing to let you understand the reasons, many learned Divines have had to believe, that Port-Royal (I mean the Sect of the Jansenists, and not those poor Maids, who are so unfortunately engaged in your conduct there) holds Intelligence with Geneva, not only against the Jesuits, but against the Church; nay, against the most holy Sacrament the most Adorable of all our Mysteries.  

b First part. port-royal holds intelligence with Geneva against the Jesuits.  That port-royal holds intelligence with Geneva against the Jesuits, I believe, Sirs, you will not much contest it. You intent not to make a secret of that Conspiracy: You glory in wearing the same Liveries; you match under the same Colours; you enter the battle 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 Provincial Letters are but Comments upon his Text; you have compiled your Morality out of his Impostures, and your Letters out of his abusive and impious Satyrs. You scoff like him, you asperse like him, you misquote like him, you dogmatise like him: You have the same Sophisms, the same Disguisements, the same Illusions, the same Artifice. Thence it is that the Reformed Church, which has an interest in all that concerns you, makes public prayers for the good success of your enterprises, which she 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 She is afflicted at your losses, rejoices at your advantages, grows proud with your imaginary triumphs, and reckons the wars of port-royal among those of Charenton, which are the most memorable.  
This conjunction was easily made, because it was very advantageous to your Allies, and seemed absolutely necessary for yourselves: for without being united with Heretics, from whom could you hope for secure against a Religious Order, that makes profession of planting the Faith, where ever the sun diffuseth his light? 'Tis true, the Jesuits still me●t with contradictions wheresoever they come; and though their intention be to serve all the world, yet fail they not to find persecutions in every part of it. Their Society has this peculiar, that sufferances increase 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 jealousy and complaints. You murmur in your Letters 
c Letter 13.  at the reputation they have in God's Church, just as Heretics are scandalised at the obedience they yield to the Head that governs it. The Lutherans call them the Pope's Slaves; the Calvinists affirm, that the Jesu●tes, the Council of Trent, and the Pope are but one Body, and one Soul, when there is question how to hurt 〈◊〉 
d Henry Ottius Minister of Zuric, in a speech ●e published after the censure of the Catechism of Grace composed by the Jansenists.  〈◊〉 J●su●tae ● Concilio Tridentino● discordántne à Popa? Nun unum corpus sunt, una anima? Are they Catholic Kings and Princes? They need not carry you to the Courts of Spain, Portugal, and Poland, to show 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 Witness the Royal College at La Fleche.  Testament, Depositaries o the secrets of their Conscience by an honourable Election; lodged in their Palace, and fed with their Patrimony by a Royal Magnificence, defended and upheld by their Protection with such extreme happiness, as makes them find a Sanctuary even in their Prince's Cabinet, against the storms that menace them. Are they the Prelates and Bishops? They have approved this Order in a General Council; they have established it in the heart of the Realm; they have extended it from the centre of the Monarchy to the utmost limits thereof, and when it was under consideration to procure confirmation of it in the last General Assembly of Estates, they did it in such terms, as show 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 Jesuits have done, and daily do in the Catholic 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 pleased to permit them to teach and perform their other Functions in the College of Clermont, in the City of Paris, as they have formerly done. 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 Royal Protection, as the King your Predecessor was pleased to do 
f See Cardinal Roche●oucault's Book, entitled, Raison pour le Desaveu; Sect. 7. where he observes that the Nobility caused the same Article to be inserted in the Book of their Requests.  In ●ine, are they the Virtuous people who still conserve (amidst the disorders of the present Age) the sense of the ancient 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 Error, nor condemn them but by surprise, 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 find in your infamous Libels.  
Know you not what answer was made by Henry the Fourth to their Enemies, who were not a little grieved to see the Innocence of those Religious secured from their calumnies by his Royal Protection. I have been heretofore deceived like you, said that incomparable Monarch, but I have since understood that this Society is beneficial both to Religion and the State. Consider, Sir, the judgement of the wisest Prince in the world, and you will soon condemn your own. It is not with the Jesuits as it is with their Calumniators, who conceal their names to publish their Impostures with more impunity. The Jesuits crime is, that men know not their Innocence, and their enemy's Innocence is, that men know not their crimes. O that they were unveiled! O that God would reveal the Mystery of iniquity to the whole world! We are lost, if we be known, said those criminals so famous in History, seeing themselves surprised 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, Virtuous People were not better informed 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 unmasked, they walk not, but as if they were moved by engines; they subsist not, but by Hypocrisy; they so explain themselves, that they may not be understood; they disavow not their errors, but to maintain their Sect; in fine they appear nothing less than what they are, and they are nothing less, than 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 Jesuits Morality: You could not oppose Tru●h, but by Falsehood; Innocence, but by Imposture; nor the Children of the Church, but by the deceits of Heretics. It is also easily perceivable where at you drive; and the curious searches ●ou make into every thing, to find some blemish in that great Body, are as so many evident marks of an enterprise, that has a further reach than ●ou will yet own. What does it avail you to dissemble? 'Tis no● the looseness of manners that displeases you: The best people are the w●●st for your turn. You make them Idolaters even in China and Japan, where Tyran●s Martyr them: You find out Castor's skins to apparel them with like Merchants, even in those  Forests, wh●re the Iroquois cast them sta●k naked into ●●mes. And there are countries', which having nothing but Prisons and Gibbets for the Jesui●es, do yet forbear to question you, because you stigmatize them as Rebels, and Enemy's to the State. This your so violent and unjust proceeding discovers your craft, and makes the clearer-sighted judge, that while you seem to b●ea●h nothing but reformation, y●u seek that which you care not much to find, and that all your ill language (to speak truly) has Religion ●n●ly for its object; but not daring openly to oppose it, you are ●o●c'd to seek other false pre●●nc●s, to cover the envenomed hatred that you ●●ar towards those, whom you esteem capable of opposing your designs. Entertain us no longer wi●h th●se vain clamours against their Moral Divinity; 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 employs them, 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 only Censures and anathemas for you.  

g Second Part. port-royal hol●ing Intelligence with Geneva against the Church.  This accusation (I confess) is a great one, and were it not well grounded, I should pardon all those bloody invectives, and horrid injuries which passion force'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 real, if it be public, if you be convinced of it, if you have been arraigned 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 press you to submit yourselves to the Decisions of Councils and Popes? Are they base and cruel Impostors, because they are afflicted 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 condemned by Pope Inno●ent X. are Heretical, which you are at this day constrained to avow? And that they are in Jansenius' Book, which you maintained 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 public writing, entitled 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 blind, and protest (since the censure) that you never read them in his Bock. You yourselves have told us they were there, when you were not obliged 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 confess it; but now they are not, because they have been condemned. This art serves only to proclaim you no less deceitful, then temeratious; temerarious to deny what has been decided by a sovereign authority; deceitful to dissemble what you have so solemnly published in your Works But as to the point of Intelligence, though you had not discovered yourselves, it is but opening your Books to find the articles of that criminal League that is betwixt you and Geneva, interchangeably signed; and thereby to show 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-royal 
h Jansenius Tom. 3. l. 3. c. 13.  teaches, That there is nothing more certain, nor better grounded on the Doctrine of St. Augustine, than this Proposition, That there are some Precepts which are impossible not only to the unfaithful, blind, and hardened; but likewise to the faithful, 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 rendered possible. These are the very words of Jansenius, which have been condemned by the Pope, as Heretical, full of Blasphemy and Impiety.  
Geneva agreeing to this article 
i Gravier. Art. 18. of .  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 criminal.  
port-royal holds, That the old Law made justice more difficult and impossible, as if it had set a wall betwixt: 
k Jansen. Tom. 3. l. 1. c. 8.  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 less the Grace sufficient to Salvation. But contrariwise, That that kind of Grace was absolutely repugnant to the institution of the Law, and God's design: 
l Idem l 3. c. 5.  Talis gratia lationi Legis, ac scopo Dei capitaliter repugnabat; In fine, That they who lived under the yoke of the old Law, had not sufficient Grace to perform it: but rather an impeding Grace: 
m Idem tom. 3. l. 3. c. 8. in ipso titulo capitis.  Status veteris Testamenti non afferebat Judaeis gratiam sufficientem, sed potiùs impedientem.  
Geneva quickened with the same spirit believes, 
n calvin's 2. Instit. c. 7. § 2. & 10.  that the Jews had never Grace sufficient for their conversion; that it was not in their power to believe the word of God, 
o Luther in Ep. ad Gal. c. 5.  that he spoke not to them, but to make them deaf, that he enlightened not them but to blind them, 
p Contra Remonstrantes in speciem. Amst. a. 52. & 57  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 Jansenius lib. 3. de Gratia Christi, ●. 3. Q●●m monstruosa sit gratia sufficiens,  monstruosa Gratia; as a Grace that sufficeth, and sufficeth not 
r Letter 1, 2, 3. ; as a Grace, which the Devils would willingly bestow, if the● had it, says Jansenius' Apologist, in his first Apology.  
Geneva likewise speaks of it as a Dream, 
s 〈◊〉 in Antidoto ad c. 6. sess. 6. Con●●● Tri●.  which has nothing of solidity; as a deceitful trap, that makes men fall into Pelagianisme, callidum Pelagianismi operculum: as an Illusion 
t Du Moulin in his Traditions, and elsewhere.  that beguils us, promising what it gives not, and never saving any man.  
Port-Royal 
u Jansenists Catechism, q. 66.  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 says, it is the common belief of all the Churches of France that are united to her. 
x Genevenses in Synodo Dordracena, pag. 561.  Haec est simplex & fidelis sententia nostra, fides Ecclesiae nostrae, fides omnium Ecclesiarum Gallicarum, quae confessioni Gallicae adh●rent.  
Port Royal maintains, That they who die 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 Jansenius tom. 3. l. 3. c. 21.  That God by his Counsels most secretly just, and most justly secret, hath predestinated to give Faith, Charity, and final 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 sins, and bury them in everlasting oblivion; that he died to revive them eternally; that he prayed to his Father to deliver them from all evil: and not for the others, who losing Faith and Charity die in their Iniquity.  
Geneva pretends that it is an Article of Faith that Christ died not for those that are damned: the Calvinists have printed above sixty Volumes to mitigate the horror, which all Christians conceived at the first broaching of a Doctrine so injurious to the Divine Goodness; and having cloaked with St. A●gustine's name and authority, they have moulded it into one of the undoubted Maxims of their Synods of Charenton, Alets, and Dort, to oppose it to the Council of Tr●nt, 
z Et si ille pro omnib●s mortuus est, non omnes tamen mortis ●jus beveficium recipiunt. Council. Trid. seff. 6. cap. 3.  which assures us, that though Christ died for all men, yet all receive not the benefit of his death.  
Port-Royal complains of Pope Vrban VIII. who condemned the Errors of Jans●nius by an express Bull; and his Scholars protest in their observations upon that Bull, 
a See the Observations upon that Bull, published by the Jansenists.  That it is proper only to scandalise the world, because it condemns the Doctrine of St. Austin, as the most blind, say they, are constrained to avow.  
Geneva says no less against the Council of Trent, protesting with Calvin, that all the anathemas of that Council fall upon St. Austin, and that the Authors of them understood not the Doctrine of that great man. Melancthon quarrels with Sorbon, and having said, that those Doctors condemn St. Augustine under the name of Luther, he cries out with astonishment, 
b Melancthon in his Apology for Luther.  Is it not strange that in all Sorbon there is not a man, that understands St. Augustine's opinion?  
In fine, Port-Royal erecting a Trophy to the memory of Jansenius, as the learnedst man of his time, whose mind was enriched with the knowledge both of Scripture and also Tradition, 
c See the first Apology for Jansenius, pag. 10, 15, 91.  calls him the Hercules of our Age, who vanquished that Monster Sufficient Grace, brought St. Austin down from Heaven, re-establshed his Doctrine, and clcared it, twelve hundred years after the decease of that excellent Father, in a time when it was contemned and obscured.  
Geneva gives the same El●gium to 
d Beza in the life of Calvin.  Calvin, which Melancthon does to Luther, affirming almost in the same terms, that he has, as it were, revived St. Augustine in these last Ages, re-established and marvellously cleared his Doctrine, which was for so long a time obscured.  
Who could have believed, Si●s, that the Echo of Port Royal would have been so faithful to repeat verbatim what it had learned of Geneva, to publish the same Maxims, to defend them by the same reasons, to explain them with 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 alleged but twenty? Who would have imagined 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 burned and blasted with lightning from the Vatican, which has been seen to fall above twice upon its head? Who would have been persuaded, that Gen●va could have comed 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?  
Pass the Sea when you please, Sirs, and go visit your friends in Great Britain, you will there find great support; yea even though your only 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-countrieses, and all the Schools of Holland will be opened to you; all Calvin's Disciples will give ear to you as Oracles, all the Ministers will subscribe to your Catechism of Grace condemned by the Pope; all their Orators will labour to set forth your Panegyric, and will charm your ears with the sweet harmony of your praises, which Mr. Marsh Professor of Groiving has already made resound over the whole Earth: 
e In Sinopsi verae Catholicaeque doctrinae. Where he defends the Jansenists Catechism condemned at Rome.  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 gratify his Jesuits, undertook the defence of pure Pelagianism, 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; yourselves will be far more regarded, and making Victorious Grace triumph in despi●e of the Pope and Jesuits, (as 
f In confesso est ipsis novatoribus vestris, Jesuitis ultro hoc largientibus, quod victricis gratiae propugnatores Jansenistae in maximi● ac fundamentalibus Fidei articulls in castra transierunt nostra. Henry Ottius Professor and Minister of Zuric in his Speech printed 1653. after the Catechism of Grace was censured.  says one of their famous Ministers) in the Academies of Zuric, Basil, and Berne, you will be ●avished to behold yourselves covered with Laurels in the Zwinglians camp, for having generously defended the fundamental Maxims of their Doctrine.  
Now if you hold so good Intelligence with these strangers, what may you not hope from the Huguenots 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 publicly set forth in their preach 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 says, who violating the honour of his Character, and the dignity he not long since bore of a Pastor, while he exercised its Functions in a Parish of Normandy, finds no better excuse to justify his perfidiousness, 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 declared exteriorly what he already was in the interior of his soul; and manifested to the eyes of men what had appeared before to the eyes of God?  

g Lewis le Masson an Apostata Priest, in his Apology printed at Montauban 1656.  It was written me from Paris, says 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 error, to punish my curiosity for being a little too examining of Things; whereas I ought to have kept myself submissively in the Commmnion of the Church, and have had a better Opinion of Rome, and believed 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, , and Predestination, that I have at this day. And could a man acknowledge any other Master of the Celestial Mysteries than Jesus Christ, I might add, 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 Jesuits clamours) to term Heretical the opinions o● Calvin upon this Subject, which after all are no other than their own. Thus much by the way to give testimony to the truth.  
Behold, Sirs, (you of port-royal I mean) behold the straight alliance that unites you with Geneva, and the great advantage your Doctrine gives you; b●ing assured 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 less true, than it seems horrid) without altering any proposition of the Book of Frequent Communion, which the Roman Church rejects, but Geneva receives and approves.  

h Third Part. Port Royal holding intelligence with Gen●va against the Blessed Sacrament.  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 nevertheless is too well known to suffer the least reproach, unless it be from the mouths of criminals. I will not condemn you, no not upon your refusal to use the terms of local Presence, to justify your belief on the subject of the Eucharist. I will not tell you, that the Council of Trent teaches, 
i N●q●e 〈◊〉 inter sepugnant, ut Salvator ●o●●er ●●mper ad dexteram Patris in coelis assid●at juxta modum existendi naturalem, & ut ●●ultis aliis in locis Sacramentaliter praesens su● substanti● nobis a●sit. Concil. Trid. Seff. 13. c. 1.  (what you pretend to be ignorant of) That there is no repugnancy in this, that our Saviour be always sitting at the right hand of his Father, according to his natural manner of being, and yet be Sacramentally present by his own substance in many other places, multis aliis in locis: which is the only thing that Father ●i●cau urges you to acknowledge, and which you cannot refuse without rendering yourself guilty of error. Neither will I reproach you, that you abuse the authority of St. Thomas, to ●lude the authority of the Council: and that if the Angelical Doctor says 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 Dupliciter continetur Corpus Christi sub Sacramento; uno modo continetur sub signo illo quod est Sacramentum● alio modo continetur à loco continente ipsum signum. Alensis 4. par. q. 10. membro 7. a. 3. § 7. Et ru●sum. Mirabilis est continentia illius in quantum est sub signo, & in quantum est in loco. Ibidem.  the Body of Christ is in two manners contained 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 kind of local 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 says, 
l 3. p. q. 76 a. 5.  whereas the Body of Christ is there but by the dimensions of another Body, mediantibus dimensionibus alienis: and this is F. Meyniers sense, which is agreeable to the language of the Fathers and Counsels, 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 Optatus Milevitanus l. contra Parmen.  Quid est Altar, nisi sedes corporis & sanguinis Christi?  
I need not these Scholastical 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 pass 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 principal subject of this Dispute, five Maxims (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 Maxim condemned by the Catholic Church, and received by that of Geneva? What have you to reply? How can you vindicate yourself of so criminal and public a Conspiracy?  
You have dared to affirm page 628. of that Book, 
n Book of Frequent Communion of the 1. Edit.  That the most usual practice of the Church in the Administration of the Sacraments favours the general impenitence of all the world. Carry this Proposition to Rome, it will there be reproved: Carry it to Geneva, it shall there be received. How can you defend yourself from so just an accusation?  
You have dared to say, 
o In the Preface, pag. 33. & 34.  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 Maxim; and if Geneva approves it not, it is not because 'tis Orthodox, but because it is ●oo impious.  
You have presumed to say, 
p Pag. 680. of the Book of Frequent Communion.  That as the Eucharist is the same food that is eaten in Heaven, so is it necessary that the Faithful, 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, than 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 language of Rome; men speak not thus any where, but at Geneva.  
In fine not to overwhelm you with the prodigious number of your errors, you have dared to say, 
q Pag. 725.  That God does us an infinite honour to admit us to the participation of the same food 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 Roman Church; that of Geneva only will approve it.  
Now if these Maxims 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 profane, the fourth and fifth suspect of Heresy, convince me of falsity and ignorance: If I attribute them to you undeservedly, convince me of slander and malice. But if you be the Authors of them; if you have produced them under Monsieur Arnauld's name; if some of them have been condemned by the Pope, (as that of the two Heads) others reproved 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 yourselves with whispering them in men's ●ars, and making a secret Cabal of them, they that should have heard them, had they not been bound to become informer's, unless they would have entered into the Conspiracy of your Crime? Why then will you needs have the Jesuits to be detractours for disclosing Heresies, which they cannot conceal without sinning? Was the deceased Dishop of Langres 
r In his Declaration directed to the Bishop of St. Malo, signed with his own hand the 26. of May, 1638.  a Calumniatour for having declared that the Abbot of St. Cyran induced the Religious of the Monastery of the Blessed Sacrament to Confess but seldom, and to communicate yet less frequently than they Confessed? in so much as Mother Mary Angelica Arnauld, though a Superious, was once five months without receiving the Blessed Sacrament, and likewise passed 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 Pope's Nuntio, containing his last Sentiments touching the Disciples of the Abbot of St. Cyran, to the end he should inform his Holiness, and assure him, that the affected singularity he had always abserved in them, their pride, their presumption of mind, their contempt of others, and care to hid themselves from those, that were not wholly theirs, had obliged 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 Doctors of Sorbon; who had understood by persons of credit, that Monsieur de St. Cyran spak● of the Council of Trent as of a Politic Assembly, that was in no wise a true Council; and had also been informed by many very credible persons, that the same Abhot endeavoured to take away the frequency of Communion even from the best Souls, under the pretence of a Spiritual Communion, which he made pass for more Holy and fuller of Grace then the Sacramental 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 business. Your Maxims are no longer secret, nor are your Errors still known but to a few. You have published them in your Works, and when you were reproved on that account, you obstinately defended them. Shall I again be forced to set them before your eyes, and show you your offence in artificially disguising what you ought rather to wash out with tears? Must I produce the Errors, Blasphemies, Impieties, and Extravagances noted by those eight Doctors of Sorbon in your Secret Rosary, which your Apologists have made pass for the pious thoughts of an excellent Religious Woman, of great wisdom and virtue, and Superior 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 than the dishonour of Christ, and contempt of the most adorable of our Mysteries? Whether they can desire without horror, what I cannot here write without trembling? 
s Impious Wishes contained in the secret Rosary of the Jansenists.  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 inaccessibleness 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 only 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 unworthiness of so Divine a communication; that they esteem themselves happily portioned by having no share in the gifts of God, but rejoicing, 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 Authors and Defenders? Compare the judgement given of them by the late Archbishop of Sens and the most famous Doctors 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 assures us, that the Secret Rosary of the B. Sacrament wherein those Maxims are comprised, is but a false Devotion, whose first original was an Illusion that gave beginning to your Sect: And the Author of the Letters to a Provincial maintains the contrary, 
t Letter 16.  That 'tis a transcendent wickedness to affirm, the Rosary to have been the f●rst fruits of that Conspiracy against Christ.  
The Doctors of Sorbon aver that writing to be stuffed with Impertinences, Extravagances, Errors, Fooleries, and Blasphemies, tending to the separation of Souls from the practice of virtues, especially of Faith, Hope and Charity. And Jansenius in his Approbation sayas the contrary, That love itself did dictate it, and that it contains nothing contrary to the rules of Faith.  
The forenamed Doctors declare it a Work tending to the destruction of the method of praying instituted by our Saviour Christ: And your Apologists 
u Apology, p. 1. p. 24, & 25.  say, That it is full of most Catholic, high, and elevated conceptions, like the lights of the Superior Angels, which St. Denys says to be more obscure than the lights of the inferior ones.  
The Doctors of Sorbon judge it perilous, 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 possess that Soul, which being happily gone forth of itself 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 cruel and enraged 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 Sovereign 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 blindly upon death? He is the Way: Will you that they stray, and perish in their remoteness from him? He is the Truth: Will you that they embrace falsehood, and languish in the dark? 'Tis our good fortune to live in his Church, our security to walk in his ways, our 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 mortal despair?  
That Souls present not themselves too J. Christ as the object of his application; that he regard nothing that passes without him; that they choose 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 greatness?  
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 authorise th●m by magnisient approbations: you say they are most Catholic Thoughts, Thoughts most conformable to the language of God in the Scriptures, high and sublimated Thoughts, like the Lights of the superior Angels, Thoughts dictated by love itself, and lastly the Thoughts of a most virtuous Nun, who being raptured, swims in the bosom 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 error the title of Faith, and Falsehood the name of Truth? Vae qui dicitis malum bonum! A ridiculus, but dangerous, presumption! which believes it has right to deify all its thoughts, sanctify all its works, and make all its errors pass for infallible rules of Faith.  
For if it be lawful 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 lawful to wish with Geneva, that Christ have no real 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 stomaches, to unite himself intimately to us? If one may desire with the Jansenists, That Christ according to his Divine Greatness be not in any thing that is less than himself, may we not desire with the Calvinists, That Christ be not under the Species, nor in those corruptible elements, which of themselves have nothing equal 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 Greatness? And so passing from the wishes of port-royal to the wishes of Geneva, and from the wishes of Geneva to its Belief, is it not easy to proceed so far as to imagine that which one desires; to wit, That Christ is not under the Sacramental Species by a real, and not figurative, Transubstantiation; and consequently that the Mass is but an illusion, and Sacramental Communion but a Superstition?  
And yet, Sirs, you complain that men suspect you, and lay that abominable reproach at your doors, that port-royal holds intelligence with Geneva against the Sacrament. If it be abominable, why have you not avoided it? Why have you given occasion of the scandal by your Rosary? Why have you made so many pompous Apologies to defend such impious Maxims, as are those which the Sorbon Doctors discovered? Why have you inserted into that great Volume of frequent Communion, Propositions either Heretical or suspect, either condemned or condemnable, which I have related? Why having been advertised of the suspicion which the two last had caused, have you not made it your business 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 yourselves in new declarations, on a Subject so clearly handled in the Writings of port-royal. Of what Writings speak you, Sirs? Is it of those which your Secretary has the boldness to cite in his Sixteenth Letter with such vain Encomiums; though there be not one of them not blasted with cen●ure, or stained with Heresy? Is it of Mr. Arnaulds Second Letter, which the Sorbonists judged rash, scandalous, heretical? Is it of Monsieur de St. Cyran's familiar Theology, which raised such troubles in Paris, even before it had drawn upon it the censure of the Archbishop of that City? Is it of the Canonical Hours of port-royal, which were condemned at Rome? Is it of the Defence of the secret Rosary, which undertakes to justify the impieties and extravagances of that Libel? Is it of those he esteems so profitable to the public, and recommends without naming them, for fear the people should be informed, 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 justify your Faith, then that which gives us cause to suspect it? Can you allege no other Writings to prove your opinions Catholic, save those which the Roman Church has prohibited, because full of Heretical Maxims?  
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 gathered from that diversity is, that you are contrary to yourself: that in your Books are found many conradictions, but no appearance of your justification: that they all have two faces, which you show or hid according to the time, the one Catholic, the other Calvinist. If men cry heretic, when you show the Geneva-face, you make it vanish, and dexterously turning the Medal, show the Catholic face in an instant. So you never publish an Heresy, but you have your Apology ready made: you couple together Truth and Error, Poison and its Antidote; and by an artifice common to all the enemies of the true Faith, you employ one part of your works to defend the other, excusing the crime at the same time that you commit i●. This craft, I confess, may surprise the ignorant, but cannot justify you before the wise.  
You are accused for instance, of this Maxim of Aurelius, That every ●in that violates chastity, destroys Priesthood, which differs in nothing from the Heresy of the Hus●ites; and you answer that he says 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 taxed 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 sensible 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 avers that he has no establishment at port-royal, fearing lest you should be obliged 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 accused of saying, that the practice of the Church favours the general impenitence of all men: and to divert the blame, you answer in your Apology, that you condemn not the ordinary practice of Penance, which is now in the Church. 'Tis clear, that this is only to cross and contradict, not to purge and justify yourselves.  
You are charged 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 only in her Faith, but even in her Doctrine of Manners. Th●s evidently shows 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 show for your defence, that of two contrary Propositions, whereof one is Orthodox, the other Heretical, the former is in your Books: It must be shown that the latter (the Heretical 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 Heresies I have taxed you with, there is not one, but what is faithfully extracted out of your Works, who sees not, that all the opprobrious accusations you return men for their good advice, fall upon yourselves; and that instead of evincing your divorce from Geneva, they prove you culpable not only of the Errors, but even of the Insolence of Heretics?  
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 error. Acknowledge that you are subject to failings: yet that as you have the weakness of men to be mistaken, so have you their docility to be undeceived, and admit of purer lights, Retract your errors, re-enter Sorbon by a generous disavowment of your evil opinions, and submit your private judgements to the Pope. What ever else you do, that is less than this, I may say without Raillery, You will never be good Catholics.   

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, only of the crime of Heresy; and therefore by their silence are convicted of the other crimes, viz. Imposture and Calumny. 2. That the Sum 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 Heretics. 3. The second Medium, which is by the Tomists opinion of Efficacious Grace, (which is Catholic) to defend the Jansenian opinion, is here refuted: and it is showed, 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 calvin's Disciples allow of Jansenius; (as hath already been shown, and again is recapitulated) but the Church condemneth him: Consequently his Opinions are Heresies.  
Dear Reader,  
THe seventeenth Letter of the Secretary of port-royal is now newly arrived; 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 Heretics. For, as to their merited title of Impostors and Falsifiers in their Letters to the Provincial, (which was all I pretended to demonstrate in my Book, of The fair dealing of the Jansenists) their Secretary yields us the victory; and will no longer contend but with those that call them Heretics, 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 itself) 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 maintained by the authority of the Pope and Bishops, was forced to fall upon the Jesuits Moral, which furnished 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 Scholastic in his Seventeenth, disputing of the infallibility of Pope and Counsels; and of the truth of the Doctrine of Efficacious Grace.  
It would require a Letter longer than his, to refute all his extravagances, illusions, bravadoes, falsehoods, vanities, and all that he speaks impertinently, and contrary to the respect he owes to the Sea Apostosique. I shall only take notice of his two principal Mediums to prove that he is no Heretic. 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 shows not only 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 heretical in Jansenius' sense, if that sense be no more than the Doctrine of Efficatious Grace; not seeing that by the same argument Calvin may justify 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 ways of defending Efficacious Grace, one which is Heretical, and relying upon Heretical Principles: the other Orthodox, maintained by Principles established in Councils. Calvin follows the first, and is therein Heretical: The Catholic 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' 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 Catholic Doctors.  
Calvin so defends Effcacious Grace, that he believes it leaves us no other liberty, than 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 Catholic 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 Council of Trent, Potest dissentire. Bunnez and Molina, and all Catholic Doctors, 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 called, 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 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 medicinal Grace, that had not its effect? Or when he imputes as error 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 Catholic Doctors 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 heretical sense: and that all they who follow this explication, are not only 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 Controversy of Efficacious Grace. For in the Cavilli, from whence he hath taken it, I speak expressly of the point in controversy 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 Heresy of Jansenius, which is opposite to it, as being the sense of Calvin.  
Wherefore 'tis no wonder if the Calvinists have every where stretched forth their arms to embrace the Jansenists, owning them for their Schoolfellows. The Protestant Cantons, by the mouth of Henry Ottius, chief Professor of the University of Zuric, cries out; In nostras cum consortibus Jansenius transit parts, Jansenius and his Followers are come over to our side: and they find so great a conformity between their Doctrine of Grace, and that which the Jansenists have expounded in their Catechism, that they verily believe there is, nec aliud, nec plus, nec minus, neither more, nor less, 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 Groining, who exhorts them to stand firm. Macte illâ vestrâ virtute, viri docti quòd audeatis resistere impio illi pontifici. Be of good courage, says he, you generous and learned Jansenists, seeing you da●e resist that wicked Pope. With the rest joins 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 avows 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 learned 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 Apostasy, which happened the last year, after he had preached the Lent foregoing in the Diocese of Roven. It is not necessary to dilate any more on this Subject, there being so many printed Pieces, which demonstrate the conformity of the Doctrine of Jansenius and ●alvin concerning Self-●fficacious Grace; to which the Jansenists have never been able to answer.  
As to that which the Secretary adds 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 Thorn, would be well employed, to obtain of God the cure of his blindness. The third, that I conceive a particular confidence, by seeing myself 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 commodious; since in all those places he shall not only have permission to print his Works, but an Approbation to attend them. After all, The Jansenists are Heretics.   

An ANSWER to the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Provincial 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 Provincial Letters complains, that he is called Heretic, when at the same breath he vents Heresy. 2. That all that he saith for his vindication from Heresy, maketh him suspected of Heresy. 3. That the Jesuits dependence on their Superiors, (which he objecteth) is their security, as his Independance is the Source of ●h●s ruin. 4. The Superiors of the Jesuits proceeding, in Printing Books. 5. An Answer to an Argument wherein it is said, that the Jesuits take the Piety of their Adversaries for a pretence of calling them Heretics. 6. That it is a groundless accusation (which reflects on the Pope, and Synod of France) to say, the Jesuits 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 Jesuits refuted. 8. Ten Objections, by which the Jansenists would prove themselves no Heretics, 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 Pope's Bull as his Doctrine. 9 The Jansenists several Histories, and passages of the Fathers and Counsels, shown to ●e impertinent, and to argue him to be no good Subject of the Church. 10. His Hypocritical Piety to Jansenius his memory; and his false asserting the matter to be of no consequence, whether the Propositions be in Jansenius, or no.  
SIR,  
HAving perused your Eighteenth Letter, which here in England hath (as well as the former) no little Vogue among Protestants, I thought sit to answer it; to let the world see, how senselesle a Piece it is. For indeed I must ●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 Pope's Bulls, and rails at the Jesuits, it is welcome to all, but only the poor remnant of Catholics; who with great Resentment, seeing you to pre●●nd to the name of Catholic, say of your Writings, Filii Matris meae pugnauêrunt contra me. The Sons 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 Catholic, and beseeming a good Subject of the most Christian King: But to call yourself a Catholic, 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 scandal and confusion in the House of God. For this reason I count it my duty to let all the world know, that your Letter is neither Catholic, nor Rational; as having neither Faith, nor Sense in it. And to take your Arguments all in their full force, and consume 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 special 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 Heretic, and challenge all the world to show, where you have taught any thing Heretical: and yet (which is a strange madness of yours) at the same breath that you make this challenge, you declare yourself Heretic. 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 Eighteenth Letters makes the matter clear. The Pope and whole Catholic Church hold the Jansenists Heretics; you hold the Jansenists are not Heretics. The Pope hath declared, that the Five Propositions, condemned in Innocent the Tenth's Bull, are Heretical in Jansenius his sense: you say those Five Propositions are not Heretical in Jansenius his senser And for this you are deservedly called Heretics. We Catholics 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 Catholic 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 Faithful, 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 Heretic, who speak a language unknown to Rome, and do contradict that Authority, which in all ages Fathers, and Doctors, and Counsels have submitted unto.  
I know, Sir, you bring many Arguments to vindicate yourself, and to prove, That the Jansenists are no Heretics. But I shall, God willing, show you the nullity of them. But before I come to that, to disentangle the matter, I think fit to refute two Things, which serve you for Bravadoes only, and matter of Calumny; not for any argument to prove that the Jansenists are no Heretics. The one of these things is, what you say concerning yourself: The other, what you lay to the Jesuits, which is so mixed with the Arguments you bring, that it is necessary to take it apart, that both it, and the Arguments, may be clearly answered.  
For yourself then, Sir, you say (pag. 296. of the second English Edition; which is that I always follow in this Letter.) That you are alone. And pray, Sir, how came you to be alone? 'Twas because you separated yourself from the Catholic 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 Heresy: you should have discoursed quite contrary. 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. etc. you take upon you to make Proclamations in the public cause of all the Jansenists? Who entrusted 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 showed them in Jansenius; 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-royal, that is, to the Jansenists. No, No, Sir, you are not alone; you speak for the whole Party; you are the mouth of the Cabal; 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 Catholic Church, Say therefore no more, That you are alone.  
The next thing that you say for yourself is, That you are hid, and the Jesuits find themselves wounded from your invisible hand, pag. 297. A Thief might well comfort himself with this; it is his happiness to be hidden. Omnis, qui malè agit, odit lucem. Every one that doth evil, would gladly be invisible. But that Truth should seek hiding-holes in a place where it may safely appear, (as in France any Catholic 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 hid himself like an Outlaw; and is so forsaken of all, that (as you speak of yourself) he hath no relation to any Community, nor to any person whatsoever. Embrace therefore the Truth, and you will not need to hid yourself: The Catholic Church is visible; and you need not make yourself invisible, unless it be to become a member of the invisible Church, which is not Catholic.  
The third Thing you say for yourself is, That you make a Protestation of your Faith in these words, pag. 296. I have not any dependence save that on the Catholic, Apostolic, 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 persuaded there is no Salvation. Then you ask, what course can be taken with one, that talks 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 real, might prove you no Protestant; but not no Jansenist. For notwithstanding these words you maintain Jansenisme; you spit your venom at his Holiness, you contemn his Bulls, and calumniate those, who endeavour to persuade all to submit to the censures of the Church: I mean the Jesuits, of whom (to come to that) you tell us.  
In the first place this, pag. 298. There is a  difference between the Jesuits, and them that oppose them. They do really make up one Body, united under one Head; and their Rules allow them not to print any thing without the Approbation of Superiors, who by that means become accountable for their Errors: whereas you are accountable to no body for what you writ; nor no body responsible for you. All this you say to tax the Jesuits, and prove yourself irreprehensible; and you do not mark, that really you commend the Jesuits in it, and disgrace yourself, and discover the Source of your errors. Had any man advised you, and reviewed your Papers before they went to the Press, they would not have been so full of gross errors. Had you had any dependence on any learned and virtuous 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 blindness of your own passion; that to join 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 dependence on any body, made you leap headlong into the precipice, into which your passion lead you blindefold.  
On the contrary, the Jesuits by the dependence which they have from their Superiors, 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 aver that all their Writings are irreprehensible; I know some Jesuits 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' censures: Some opinions also have been unanimously impugned by all the rest of their Order, and forbidden by their General. 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 defy you (according to the conditions which there are set down) to show me any one point of the Moral Doctrine of the Society, which is reprehensible. If by the Pope's admonition, or of themselves, they discover any error in any particular Author of theirs, they presently correct it. So for example, that which you allege of Father Amicus in your Eighteenth Letter, was long since commanded by Father General to be razed out of the Book; though Amicus were not the first, nor the only Author, 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 error of human frailty. On the contrary it is laudable virtue that maketh them renounce any such error, assoon as it is known. This advantage then Subordination to their Superiors brings to them, that their errors are soon corrected; nor can they be taxed for what they themselves endeavour to redress in the frailty of particulars: much less are their Superiors criminal, if perhaps some one or two opinions chance to displease.  
For that which you bring concerning the Obligation of the Superiors, is too frivolous to need an Answer. It is senseless to think, that the General 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 General (that which is never heard of in one man) abilities enough to judge of all the Books, writ by the several Authors of the Society in all the several 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 convey them all to him, from the several places of the world, over which the Jesuits are spread. These are fabulous dreams, fit for you, Sir, to make matter of a Calumny with, but not to be believed by any rational 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 Jesuits very exactly, it seldom happeneth, that their Books need the Pope's Censure: if they do, then assoon as the error is perceived, it is their desire to correct it. All this I have said to satisfy the Reader; who by this will judge, that as it cannot easily happen, that the writings of the Jesuits 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 finde a better way, the Jesuits will thank him for it.  
But I go on. The second thing concerning the J●suites, that I intent to take notice of, I find 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 Heresy. I answer, that it is not their true piety, but their false piety, their Hypocritical Mummery which the Jesuits take as a mark of their Heresy. That which Christ noted in the Pharisees, That they strained a Gnat, and swallowed a Camel. For example, whilst you will not allow a Penitent to follow his Ghostly Father's opinion, for fear of the Monster of Probability, you will, and do, allow those poor Souls of port-royal, to abstain Fifteen Months from Communion, contrary to the express precept of the Church. Whilst 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. Whilst you cry out against Revenge, you teach, that to follow the interior Inspiration (so you call it) a man may, though contrary to the exterior Law, kill his Neighbour. Whilst you cry out against the Jesuits admitting men unworthily to the Sacraments, you commend it as an act of great Humility to be content to abstain from Communion all one's life long till the last hour. 'Tis this impious Doctrine, (that you call Piety) which the Jesuits take for a mark of Heresy. These and the like Maxims of you Jansenists are cited in the Impostures, and in the Answers to your Letters, and justly taken by the Jesuits for marks of people fallen from the way of Truth.  
The third thing, which you say concerning the Jesuits, is very often inculcated by you, but most largely in the Eighteenth Letter, pag. 343. etc. (and Letter 17. pag. 312.) That the Jesuits have by false Representations deceived the Pope, and got of him a condemnation of Jansenius. This is no small fault; and wherein though the Jesuits are chief accused, yet the Synod of all the Bishops of France, and Three Popes, and their Divines are involved: the Jesuits for being the Deceivers; the rest for being lead blind 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 assertion; and so you need no answer, but a flat denial. Show when, where, and how the Jesuits did thus deceive the world. All the world knoweth, that Pope Urban, when he first forbade the Book of Jansenius, (though not then as Heretical) forbade also the Theses of Louvain, made by the Jesuits in defence of their Doctrine against Jansenius. Did the Jesuits procure 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 Jesuits in that Synod? All the world knows, that among those that were deputed to examine at Rome, there was but one Jesuit. For although Cardinal Lugo, a Jesuit of Eminent Learning, was also to have been one, yet at the Jansenists petition he was excluded. So that of Thirteen Examiner's 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 Jesuits appear in all this business? 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 mere Surmises, not Probations. One is, that Jansenius had taxed Molina a Jesuit of fifty errors. 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 Heretical, 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 jesuits procured a Bull by false Information: when it cannot be showed, that they ever did any thing, which might make them suspected of such an intention.  
You tell us then for a second Surmise, That the Jesuits hold this Maxim, as one of the most Authentic 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 uncivil language, which your Friend pag. 325. giveth Father Annat the King's Confessor. Though you deserve it, yet I scorn foul language. But you must give me leave to tell you, that you are extremely out. Never any Jesuit taught this Maxim as you set it down: so far are they from holding it one of the most Authentic Maxims of their Theology. A Jesuit 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 Jesuits; for this Proposition cannot be found any where but in your Letters: no Jesuit ever taught it; no, I dare say no Catholic Doctor ever imagined it.  
Of like falsity with this are those unjust aspersions, which you in several places of your Letters cast on the Jesuits; (which I note in the fourth place) you say pag▪ 351. That the Jesuits raise a disturbance in the Church, whilst it is evident, that they endeavour to allay the disturbance which you raise. All they do is to preach and teach doctrine consonant to the Pope's Bulls, to the sense of the Church, to that which Kings and Princes, and all Catholic 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 public 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, than it was translated to word for word; than it was brought into the heart; then into the hand. To all this I answer, that whereas you attribute to the Jesuits the fastening of Heresy on their Adversaries, you cannot be ignorant, that they never did call you Heretics, 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 Heretical: than you said they were Heretical, but not in Jansenius. And when the places were showed 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 Jesuits, who never desired more or less, then that the Bulls should be received. You are the Proteus' that change daily your shape to elude the force of the Pope's Constitutions: and so you are for this reason called by Pope Alexander in his Bull, Filii iniquitatis, Sons of Iniquity.  
Finally to end this matter, you say the Jesuits quarrel is at the person of Jansenius, pag. 340. not at his errors. 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 always been against his errors.  
But now I come to your arguments, by which you would prove, that the Jansenists are not to be called Heretics. 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 several places of your Letters thus. 
* Letter 17. pag. 316.  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 Heretics. The Antecedent you endeavour to prove by several 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 Heretic, unless it be an Article of Faith, that he be an Heretic: which is extremely false. For as in other crimes, so in Heresy, a Moral, or Physical evidence is enough to condemn any one of Heresy. 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 controversy I may judge this man an Heretic: 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 witness of many honest and understanding men, that he hath made this profession deliberately, or that he printeth and teacheth this; without controversy I may judge him an Heretic: and yet it is not matter of Faith, that these witnesses tell me true. But it is enough to have either a Physical, or Moral Evidence to judge one an Heretic. And this (as I said) is common to all crimes, as well as Heresy. The judge, when he condemneth a man to death for murder, needeth not put it in his Creed, that infallibly this man hath committed Murder: nor needeth he have Physical Certainty, but 'tis enough that he have a Moral Evidence, Secundum allegata & probata, (as the Law saith) according to what is alleged and proved by witnesses; which notwithstanding may all err. Just 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 Heretical; 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 Heretic, 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 Heresy, if he mend not, he is to be avoided as one, with whom the Church holds no Communion: and his refusing to submit after one or two admonitions, St. Paul calleth a knowing that he is subverted in matter of Faith.  
Now if this were ever clear in any case, it is in this we handle of Jansenius. For to say nothing of the several Briefs made by Pope Urban against Jansenius his Book, the Five Propositions were extracted out of his Book by the Synod of France, who profess 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 Catholic Church have subscribed. Here are then two Admonitions and more, by which it is made known, that the Book of Jansenius containeth Heretical Doctrine: we therefore (unless we will contradict the rule of St. Paul) must esteem it Heretical, and know that it is subverted. 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 sum 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 Heretics 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 Heretics. This Argument is ve●y often 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 madness to assert, that none can be declared Heretics for matter of Fact. And the Consequences of that Assertion are so evidently absurd and Heretical, that nothing can be more. For first it would follow, that never any Proposition in any Book could be declared Heretical: for still you would say, it is ridiculous, that any man should be an Heretic 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 Heretic 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 Heretic, contrary to what I alleged in the first Objection out of the Apostle. For still it will be made matter of Fact, whether Arius for example (and so of the rest) did hold this or that: For that Arius writ, or said, 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 Heretical; 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 Maxim) smatter 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 Council of Trent hath declared, that the Vulgat Edition shall be held Authentical, and he would be an Heretic, that would not allow it.   

3. Objection.  
Popes and Counsels 
* Letter 17. pag. 307.  may ●rre in matter of Fact, as many stories alleged in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letters prove: Therefore (perhaps) they have erred 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 Heretic, who is not named in Scripture, as of Jansenius his Book: yet the Church hath said Anathema to many Heretics by name. And look what crime he should commit, that should say, Arius never was an Heretic; the self same should that man incur, that should dare to say, Jansenius his book containeth no Heresy. And certainly the Phrase of the Church hath always been to call those Heretics, whom the Pope condemneth as such, whether there be matter of Fact or not contained in the condemnation. So the Quartodecimani are by St. Augustin H●res. 29. and by the whole Church called Heretics, 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, than what Pope Innocent, or Pope Alexander declare concerning Jansenius. And all this hath been ever practised in the Church of God upon Christ's 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 allege, 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 prove, that it is but matter of Fact, and so not of Faith, but a matter wherein Popes and Counsels may err, do not prove any thing at all. For notwithstanding the possibility of error in matter of Fact, which many Catholic Doctors allow, yet it is not to be presumed, that here is any error, but quite contrary it is to be supposed certain that there is none, unless we will be temerarious 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 only, 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 several places of this Book; namely in the Sixteenth Letter, and Father Annats Answer to the Jansenists Complaint. Now than I proceed to a fourth Objection, by which you would prove, not only that the Popes and Counsels may err, as hitherto, but that in effect they have erred.   

4. Objection.  
Many Learned men have read Jansenius all over, and cannot find the Five Propositions; therefore they are not there: and so the Synod of France, and the Popes, who condemned those Propositions as Jansenius' erred. I answer first, that this is a Negative Argument, 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 find those Propositions? Perhaps Doctor St. Beauve was one, whom pag. 300. you call the King's Professor in Sorbon; but you do not tell us, that he was turned out of his place for jansenisme: 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 find the Propositions in Jansenius, though they be there. You that could find, in so many Authors of the Jesuits 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 find 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 find, or say you find, in Lessius that which he hath not: and why may you not more easily not find, or say you cannot find, in Jansenius that which is clearly there. You therefore, when you tell us that above sixty 
* Let. 18. pag 343.  Persons have read Jansenius, and cannot find the Propositions there; aught to let us know, who those s●xty were; and if they please to appear, they shall be showed the places.   

5. Objection.  
The places cannot be cited; 
* Letter 18. pag. 342.  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 Holiness 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 Child to his Father; nor would any Servant be so saucy 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 Jansenius; 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 disrespectful, and to suspect them strangely either of gross ignorance, or of extreme malice. But you tell us, (Letter 18. pag. 330.) 'Tis the Jesuits you mean; 'tis they cannot cite the places, and yet they call you Heretics. And what then, Sir? Suppose no Jesuit in the world could cite the places, must the Church therefore be out? or must the jesuites not give the Propositions the same name, which the Popes and universal Church gives them, that is, to call them Heretical, and condemned in Jansenius his sense, and as they lie in Jansenius? What if the jesuites should answer, that since the Popes and Synod of France thought not sit to cite the places, they judge it a dutiful Deference not to cite them neither? Or what if no jesuite hath ever looked in Jansenius? What is that to us Catholics, who dutifully and obediently believe the Church, that telleth us they are in Jansenius? We believe in the Catholic Church, as our Creed teacheth us; and the jesuites 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. Truly, Sir, I cannot hold laughing, when I read page 342. that you define the jesuits to cite the places of Jansenius, as you have cited their corrupt Maxims; 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 find 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 publicly allowed to be truly cited, and that even by your own selves, as is evidently convinced in Father Annats Answer to the jansenists Complaint, where you have the jansenists own confession, and the So●bonists citing the places; and besides Father Annat hath also cited the places: All that can be replied is, that the 
a Letter 17. pag. 202.  page is not cited; whichis a mere childish reply, when the Book and Chapter is cited. After all this, if you will needs make a clamour, you do but show that Heretical Spirit, which you would so fain hid: for never any Catholic used such extraordinary obstinacy, as this is, which makes 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 deserve not at all to be showed the places. Yet because here in our Country your asseverations may do hurt, not to Catholics, (for they know whom they are to believe; they know the respect they own to the Church) 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 Catholic Church ar● all in an error; to take away this occasion of scandal I will set down the places, and the page too, as you desire, where the Propositions are fully taught in Jansenius. Though I intent no● this for to add any Authority to the Pope's Bulls, or to the Synod of France's assertion; for what can it add to light a candle at noonday? 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 opinions; none against the Church. Yet I am persuaded 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. We define and declare that (the Five Propositions) are gathered out of the Book of Cornelius jansenius; and that they are condemned in the sens● intended 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 Latin, I shall content myself to cite them in their own language. Those, who understand not Latin, 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 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 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 operetur. Quod quamvis gratiae istius congruae Auctoribus (intelligit Theologos Scholasticos, praecipuè Societatis Jesus) 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 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. Vnam 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.  
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 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 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.  
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.  
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 Authority 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 injurious to that Learned Doctor and ●i●ht of the Church; whom after so many ●g●● he hath perverted, to make him become a D●●ender of Heresy. Bu● I go on to your other Objections.   

The sixth Objection.  

a Letter 17. pag. 305.  Jansenius in these Five Propositions teacheth nothing, but what the Tomists and Dominicans teach; But the Tomists are not Heretics; Therefore the Propositions in Jansenius are not Heretical. I answer, This is one of those means, by which you endeavour to evade the force of the Pope's Definitions; which Pope Alexander in his Bull points at, when he tel●eth us, that ●●rtaine perturbatours of the public Tranquillity endeavour by subtle interpretations to elude the source of Pope Innocents' Constitution. For here you would either bring the Dominicans Doctrine under the same censure of Heresy, by telling us, they teach the same with Jansenius; or else 〈◊〉 yourselves under their shadow, by telling us, the Dominicans are good Catholics: 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 falsely) that St. Augustin t●acheth these Propositions, 'tis not to be wondered, that he abuseth the Dominicans as much, as he doth so great a Doctor of the Church; and the other 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 discourse. The C●●vinist● carried the Lantern b●fore him; who attribute to S●. Augustin all their Errors 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 than I answer, that the Major is false. The Tomists Doctrine is very different from Jansenius his Doctrine, as it is from calvin's. I could easily prove this: But the Tomists, as they have virtue 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 Catholic, as all allow: But the Five Propositions are not Catholic, as the Church believeth: Therefore the Tomists do not teach the same with Jansenius his five Propositions.  
This discourse you snarl at; yet it is a great deal better than 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 less known. Whereas you do quite contrary; and out of the less known and less 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 less known and less certain, than 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 falsely 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 Catholics, 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 less certainty, than what the Pope's Definition gives. So that, to repeat the Syllogism once more, we may and must, justly and reasonably, invert your Syllogism, and say, The Doctrine of the Dominicans, or Tomists, is Catholiq●●: But the Propositions of Jansenius are no● Catholic: Therefore the Dominicans do not teach the Propositions of Jansenius.   

The Seventh Objection.  
Father Annat saith, That Jansenius is justly condemned, because he holdeth calvin's way concerning Efficacious Grace: But he doth not hold calvin's 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 man's, 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 quarrel so much at others for not citing the Page of Jansenius, aught to have cited the page; especially you being guilty of perpetual forgery and falsification in your Citations. Secondly allowing (which is not granted) that the places are very truly cited, what followeth? Only 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 yourself from Jansenisme; by showing, 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 Heretical 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 Examiner's, 
* Letter 18. pag. 342.  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 extremely frivolous. For 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 Examiner's (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 Author, because he conceived them to be presented to the Examiner's not as the Propositions of any Author. 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 doubtless changed his Opinion? Every Child will tell you, that one Examiner's opinion cannot prevail against the Pope's Definition, in what matter soever, much less in this. Secondly I answer, that this citation (for you are always unfortunate in your citations) is taken out of a condemned Apocryphal Paper, which hath no credit, and ought not to be cited. This I say upon the best Authority on earth, that is, his Holiness' 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 Holiness doth by this present Decree forbidden them, and doth declare and decree that no credit is to be given to them, as being Apocryphal, and that they ought not to be cited by any man. So you see how little credit your relation has; and you may guess, how little wit he hath, that turned your Letters into Latin, who would have the Reader, upon his bare authority, to believe, that those papers are Authentical, though the Pope decre● the contrary.   

The Ninth Objection.  
There are three principles of 
* Letter 18. pag. 3●7.  Knowledge, Faith, Reason, and Sense; each have their several objects, of which they are to be Judges; and each object is to be reduced to its own principle as true judge; matters supernatural 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 find 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 bend at the Superficies of the water: may not Reason correct this error of my senses? Faith teacheth many things, that Reason cannot reach unto, though the object be not supernatural; 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.) natural 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 Catholics believe, (as you profess 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 Heretics in the Church, and that the Church is without Heresy, I cannot but take great compassion of your blindness. I see you take for an argumenent that there is no Heresy, that very thing, which is the original Source and Cause of all Heresy. You would have every one's reason judge of all the objects of reason; and sense of all the objects of sense: and so you sweep away all submission, all respect to authority, all captivating the understanding in obedience to Faith: and by this very means you put an answer into every Heretics mouth to maintain his perversity with. If the Antitrinitarians deny the Blessed Trinity, they tell you, 'tis against reason. If the Anabaptist refuse to baptise his Child, he telleth you, 'tis against reason. If the Quaker refuse a civil respect (as to put off his hat) to any body, he telleth you, 'tis against reason. If the Protestant refuse to believe the real 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 literal sense 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 sense of Scripture: but we must interpret Scripture, and find out some other sense thereof. And if you urge the Authority of the Church, they will all find some matter of Fact to elude the Pope's Bulls, and the Decrees of Counsels, and it will be impossible to find any Decree of Council, or Pope, which ha●h not as much of matter of Fact, as the condemnation of Jansenius hath; since the very Decrees of Counsels and Popes may be called in question 〈◊〉 ●his account, that it is matter of Fact, whether the Decree be truly the Decree of the Council, or Popes, or no. Thus do you put a weapon into every mad man's 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 Heretics in the Church, you maintain the ground of all Heresy, and take away the Source of all Unity in Faith; which is submission to the Church.   

The Tenth Objection.  
Those of port-royal, that is the Jansenists, condemn the Propositions, which the Pope condemneth; they maintain nothing against him, or the Church. Therefore they are not Heretics.  
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, etc. 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 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-royal, 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 Heresy. What can be more opposite to the Pope's Definition?  
Now what you reply, That this is not matter of Faith, to know whether the Propositions be Jansenius', 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 Heretic. I answer, That he may say so without Heresy; for perhaps he understood not, or ma●ke not what he read, or read not all Jansenius: and merely to say, I have not found the Propositions in Jansenius, is not to be an Heretic. But to say they are not there, 
* Pag. 300.  (as you do) and to maintain, That the Doctrine of the Book is good and wholesome Doctrine, and not condemned, that is to be a Jansenist, and to defend Heretical Propositions. The sequel will show 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 find 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 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 guess at their intentions, as the Author of the Provincial Letters saith (Let. 17. pag. 301.) For it is evident, that no man would tell us, as he doth, That above Sixty Persons, all Doctors, have read the Book, and cannot find 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 Doctor should say, I have read over all the Alcoran, and find nothing in it against reason, and which may not well be believed: so he cannot be esteemed a Catholic, who after the Authority of the Pope's Bull, the Synod of France, and the whole Church, should say, I have read over all Jansenius his Book, and find no Heretical Propositions there. Certainly it were no rash judgement, to think that man no Roman Catholic, who should say, I have read all Luther's Works, and all Calvins too and find not any thing there, which is not Orthodox; since the Roman Church hath condemned those Books. And so also it cannot be deemed a rash judgement to think him no Catholic, who saith as much of Jansenius. For the Doctrine of the five Propositions is as plainly laid down in Jansenius, as anything contrary to the Catholic Faith is in Luther or Calvin, or any Heretic.  
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 Heretics; 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 Catholic. And in so doing they show themselves to be manifest Heretics, 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 Catholic 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 public 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 Doctors, who have read Jansenius and find them not there, signifieth nothing: that Author being a man that dareth not show his face; a man convinced of notorious Impostures and falsifications; a man that advanceth so many things against reason, that he seemeth to have lost his wits, or drowned them in passion. And yet this very man, who brings this to excuse himself from Heresy, 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 methinks 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 Gallows.  
And so, Sir, all the Arguments, by which you in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Letter, and your Friend in the Little Letter, which lieth between these two, endeavour to prove, that the Jansenists ought not to be called Heretics, are fully confuted: and it is made clear, that never a reason you allege, excuseth the Jansenists, not only from Schism, (which your friend pag. 321. alloweth that they deserve) but from the title of Heretic: since they maintain in Jansenius those Propositions, which the Pope and the unversall Church tell us, are Heretical in Jansenius.  
Now as I promised, I will say a word or two to your Stories; whereby you would prove, that Popes and Counsels may err in matter of Fact. The first thing then that I say to all your Stories and passages of Fathers and Divines, by which you would prove, that Popes and Counsels may err, 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 Catholic may hold, that a Pope or Council may err in matter of Fact; for example, that a Pope may upon a false Information esteem a man unjust, Simoniacal, or Heretical, 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 business. 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 only by saying, that the Jesuits procured the Bull: which how fond a toy it is, I shown 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 alleging these stories, as you do, maketh me much suspect that which you would so said hid; that is, that you are an Heretic. What dutiful subject would rip up the faults, or disgraces, of his Sovereigns predecessors, when he were not forced upon it? or what Catholic would make it his business, to divulge the errors 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 hid that crime from all the world. But you tell us pag. 308. That you think fit to accustom 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 Council against a Council. What Catholic, 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 story's) but that the people by this means should be lead by the hand, as it were, to contemn the Authority of Fathers, of Counsels, 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 Errors of Popes and Counsels, 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 Counsels? 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 Counsels 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 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, Counsels against Counsels: 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 business to refute every particular story. I content myself then to tell the Reader, That 'tis you that tell these stories, that is, one, who for his perpetual Imposture deserves no credit all. And that Baronius, and Bellarmin, and many Learned Controvertists beside, have solved all the difficulties which occur in these passages; all which have been objected by many Adversaries of the Catholic Church with more vigour, than 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 Catholic Church, and make a great noise about a matter of no concern. Your Pi●●y to Jansenius his memory is but mere Hypocrisy. You would have him judged a Saint, though it were with censuring Pope Innocent, and Pope Urban, and Pope Alexander, and the whole Synod of France, who are not excusable, if Jansenius his Book be Catholic. But you care not, that all the Popes and Bishops of the Church ●e thought never so wicked, so Jansenius pass 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 error, for falsely condemning Jansenius. If your Arguments be good, there must be no power in the Church to condem● any Heretic; for never any was, or can be, more clearly and legally condemned, than Jansenius his Book. If you might have your will, the Church should lose all Authority in defining 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 wind them into an error against Faith. The question is not betwixt the Jesuits of France, and an idle Libeler, whom they might easily contemn, but it is betwixt the Church of Christ and Here●ie. If the Jesuits appear in this quarrel, they do their duty, and oblige all Catholics, whose common cause they defend, in a matter, where (though you slight it) the Authority of the Church is at stake, and would be overthrown, if the Jansenists of Port Royal could prevail. But he that secured his Church from the Gates of Hell, will secure it from port-royal. Portae inferi non praevaelebunt.     

The Conclusion of the WORK, concerning those things which are not answered; and concerning the additionals, which deserve no Answer.  
Reader,  
By perusing the precedent Work you will see, That the Author of the Provincial Letters remains still under the same censure of a Slanderer, Falsifier, and Jansenist; That in all these Letters he hath not made good so much as one of the Twenty Nine Impostures laid to his charge: That he undertook a defence of Four or Five of them, but suc●eded so ill, that he durst not adventure on the rest. Out of this I conceive every rational man will conclude, That (as hath often been inculcated in this Work) he ought not to be believed in any thing. And consequently, That the Reader ought at least to suspend his judgement, and not give his Verdict against any Author of the Society, or others, upon this man's Testmony, till he hath viewed the Books. For none can justly be esteemed criminal, because an arrant Liar giveth him out for such.  
This then is desired of all, That before they pass their censure, if they be able, they will be pleased to hear both Sides; and when they have read what this man objects, then view the Authors in their own Works: which as it seemeth but a reasonable request, so I am confident, it is enough to clear all the Casuists and Doctors, whom this man slandereth. It was thus a Lawyer of our Nation not long since did. For having read the Provincial Letters, he, who knew it was not a legal nor rational way to judge before both Sides were heard, took some pains to turn to the Authors that were taxed. And he was soon satisfied. For having lo●ked on three or four Citations, and found them all false, he gave no more credit to the Provincial Letters, but esteemed all of no credit; and cited a Maxim of the Law, That he that is once convinced a Liar, ought never to be believed. In this manner I appeal to all the men of England, that have ability enough to understand the Authors, and desire them to be Judges, provided only they will be pleased to read the Authors in their own Works. And as for those, who 〈◊〉 want of Abilities cannot look into Books of Divinity. I entreat them, that they will be pleased to a●k that Question, which the Roman Ora●●●● did in a def●●ce of his, Quis quem accusat? 〈◊〉 accuseth whom? The Author of the Provincial Letters accuseth the Fathers of the Society of Jesus, and with them all the Schools of Divinity. Whom are we to believe? It is evident, that one single man ought not to bear down all the world: And more evident, that an ignorant man ought not to censure a number of Learned Divines: And most evident, that no man in reason can conceive a prejudice against the Doctrine of many great Divines, to whom the world hath for many years given public applause for Learning and Virtue, upon the report of an infamous Libel, condemned of ignorance by learned men; forbidden as scandalous to be read, by him whom the Author acknowledges his lawful Judge, (I mean by the Pope) and commanded to be burnt▪ and in effect burnt by the Hangman; as the Provincial Letters were, at least Seventeen of them, (for the Eighteenth was not then come ou●) a● A●x in Provence by the Authority of Parliament, in the year 1657. and mon●th of February.  
All this maketh it clear, that those who cannot examine the passages, and confront what the Author of the Provincial Letters saith, with what the Authors, whom he slandereth, teach in their Works, ought rather to stand for the Torrent of Divines, and judge with the judgement of the whole Christian world, against an infamous Libeler; then siding with a Libeler to oppose so many and learned Divines. So this short Question, Quis qu●m accusat? This little reflection will be a secure ground for those to go on, who cannot judge of the Authors in their own Books: and the want of this so easy reflection hath made some run into strange judgement, and draw such consequences, that I should be ashamed to tell, did not the desire I have to prevent the like, oblige me to it. I will tell you then two passages, which I have from persons that I esteem credible.  
There was not very long since one, who seeing the multiplicity of Religions, that swarm daily in England, was resolved at length to embrace the Catholic Faith. But unfortunately it happpened, that the person, before the day was come of being Reconciled, light on the Book of the Provincial Letters; and having read it, resolved never to become Catholic: and in effect quitted all former good thoughts, upon this Enthymeme, If the Doctors of the Catholic Church teach such horrid Maxims, what good can I there expect for my soul?  
Had this poor creature but once asked the Question, Quis quem accusat? Who accuseth whom? It would have been easy to discover, that good thoughts were not on so slight authority to be laid aside; that a number of learned men were not to be condemned on the verdict of an infamous Libeler; that it was easy for a slanderer to belie all the learned men in the world; but that th●y were not therefore to be esteemed the worse; otherwise we must never embrace any Religion; for there is none, which some have not made invectives against, and endeavoured to disgrace: and we must renounce all Communities; there being none so holy, which the envy of some or other hath not railed at, and defamed.  
This is the first passage. The second was of a sadder consequence than this. One there is in the World, who beareth the name of a Divine, who assevered that one might take the Oath of Abjuration, though (as he allowed it to be) against his Conscience; and in effect made some take it. His reason was this, The Author of the Provincial Letters, saith he, telleth us, Let. 5. that the Jesuits in China permit the Christians to commit Idolatry by a subtle invention, viz. that of enjoining them to hid under their clothes an Image of Jesus Christ, to which they teach them by a mental reservation to direct those public Adorations, which they render to the Idol Cachim-Choam, and their Keum-Fucum: since therefore that the Jesuits permit Idolatry in China, we may permit (saith this unworthy Divine) the Oath of Abjuration here in England. Did ever man hear such a senseless discourse? If the Jesuits do permit Idolatry in China, they ought to be punished most severely; but no man ought to infer, that because the Jesuits commit (as this story would have it) a most heinous crime in China, therefore we may commit as horrid sins here. But he that seduced those Venal Souls, who were so base minded, that they would sell their Faith, their Religion, their hope o● Eternity, their God and All for a littl● pelf, aught to have reflected on the Question I put, Quis quem accusat? Who accuseth whom? An infamous Libeler, that dares not own his name; a Jansenist, that denieth that Christ died for all men; a man, whose Works are infamous, and were burnt by the Hangman assoon as they came out; this man, I say, accuseth the Jesuits; and those Jesuits, who contemning all the contents which friends and country can afford them, for to preach the Gospel in the utmost bounds of the earth, undertake an Apostolical life, and are (as Authentic stories from thence relate) seconded by the assistance of God, who blesseth their labours with plentiful Conversions of whole Nations, that seeing the Signs and Prodigies, wherewith God confirmeth their words, willingly embrace the sweet Yoke of Christ, and lead a life of admirable sanctity. Is it credible, that such men should embrace so many labours by Sea and Land, and endure such hardship in unknown Countries, for to crown their works with teaching, or allowing Idolatry? Certainly it is no●. Much less can it be thought credible upon the report of such a Knight-errant as this Letter-writer is. The very reflecting on the person that accuseth and persons accused, maketh the matte● clear, that I need not say any thing to refute this Fable. Although for the Readers greater satisfaction I tell him, that Father Alvarez S●medo and Father Alexander de Rhodes, who lived in China (where this Idolatry is reported to be allowed) above twenty years, when they came from thence, averred, that there never had been any such thing allowed, or done, in China. But you will say, that the Author of the Provincial Letters citeth for his relation divers Authorities. ● answer, that it is he that citeth them; and that's enough to let you know, the Citations have no credit at all.  
But to return to the consequence, which this wicked Divine, and that other unfortunate person made, I must needs by this occasion warn all, that no consequences can be drawn out of the Maxims, which in these Provincial Letters are attributed to the Jesuits. For if to build on Sand be ill, to build on a Lie is far worse. And although in this Answer all is not refuted, yet I assure the Reader, that there is nothing in all the Provincial Letters, which has any more credit than what is refuted: all is but a fabulous Dream, all a false Slander, and the whole Book of the Provincial Letters nothing else but a Packet of lies. It would require a very long work to run through all the Objections made in the Provincial Letters, and would prove tedious to the Reader, to load him with a long volume, whilst he may justly be satisfied with what is here presented. Yet if hereafter I find it necessary to answer every particular, I will do it, and undertake to make good all the Moral of the Society calumniated in the Provincial Letters, according to those four conditions which I put in the Preface to the Impostures.  
Now therefore there remains nothing else, b●● to answer the additionals of the Second English Edition. But looking on them, I find them to be of such a nature, that they need no answer. I shall therefore show you, why they need no answer, and do no more.  
The fi●st thing added in the Second Edition is called the Jesuits Creed; so childish a Foppery, that though it seemeth there was a man in the world so foolish as to print it in English, yet I presume there is no body in England so foolish, as to believe that ever any man taught it; nor any man of so weak a judgement, that will think it needs an answer. All I will say is, that it is a very fit Frontispiece for so fabulous a Work, as the Provincial Letters.  
The next thing is the Picture of St. Ignatius amidst four other Jesuits at the beginning of the Letters, with ignominious Inscriptions; and at the end a headless discourse of St Ignatius, and the Society founded by him; all which (inasmuch as it is against St. Ignatius) being Blasphemous, (for it is Blasphemy to speak disrespectfully either of God or his Saints) I suppse no Catholic will expect an answer to it: And no Protestant will judge that it was fit for a Catholic (who profes●eth a Reverence to Saints) to deride the Saints. But the Author of the Provincial Letters having writ contumeliously of the Church Militant, there remained nothing to be added, but to mock at the Saints in Heaven, and to sport with the Church Triumphant. Yet neither are excused; both may justly fear that which Tobias, speaking of Jerusalem, a figure of the Church, saith, chap. 13 ver. 16. Maledicti erunt, qui cont●mpserint te; & condemnati erunt omnes, qui blasphemaverint te.  
After those Blasphemies there follow several Pieces, made (or said to be made) by the Curez in divers places of France, to which I will come presently, when I have said a word to the other Trifles packed up in the additionals.  
In the page 70. to page 86. there's a great deal ado made against Caramu●ll, who being of the Holy Order of St. Bernard, it belongeth not to the Jesuits to answer for his Doctrine: nor would any but a Mysterious Fool have packed his Doctrine into the Mystery of Jesuitism. But I understand, he that printed this Book wanted not only Grace, (which 'tis evident he did) but (which he was much more sensible of) money; and hoped to gain by the bulk of his Book, and so thrust in every thing to make so many more Sheets. And I suppose he is resolved, so long as this way will yield him money, to trade in Mysteries. We have seen a second part of the Mystery of Jesuitism; and we are to expect a third, and a fourth, so long as there is hope of gain, the true Source of these Works, and the Mystery of all these Mysteries.  
But to return, if any man have just reason to reply against Caramuells Doctrine, I am informed, that he is still living, and now an Archbishop, and will easily be able to answer for himself; provided, that the Objections made against his Doctrine be put in Latin; for he will not study in English to answer a Libel: But if he should chance to die, his Order will outlive all these Calumniatours, and be able to defend itself, when the Adversary is such, that he deserveth an answer, which this man doth not.  
Page 87. there are opinions o● Mascarenhas and Escobar, both Jesuits: to which I need return no answer, because the Persons (as I am told) are living, and will (if need b●) answer for themselves. In the mean time I must tell the Reader, that both Mascarenhas and Escobar are undoubtedly wronged, by him that ●ath extracted the Opinions much after the same Mode that the Provincial Letters do: But if it happen, that either Mascarenhas or Escobar be truly proved to teach some thing condemnable, that doth not excuse the Author of the Provincial Letters from being (as is proved) a manifest Impostor: and so it is but an impertinent appendix to his Work.  
Now if upon another score, then that of verifying the Provincial Letters, any man will form an accusation against Mascar●●has, or Escobar, or any other Jesuit, I desire him to have a care of three things. The first is to speak without Spleen. The second is to speak with Truth, and to cite right, according to the Author's plain meaning. The third is to bring some reason, or authority, why they mislike their Doctrine. This is a rational way, and which will deserve an answer. But to cite by halves, and snarl now at this, now at that, and ●ov● without fear or wit, from place to place, and from Author to Author, as it may serve to make sport in Tippling-houses, so it will never deserve a reply in Schools.  
Page 100 we have a Letter of James Boonen Archbishop of Mechelin, an annex of Seventeen Cases, and the judgement of the Faculty of Louvain concerning those Seventeen Cases. To all which the first Paragraph of the aforesaid Archbishop's Letter giveth a very full answer. Where it is showed, that the Archbishop was checked from the congregation of Cardinall● at Rome, and commanded not to forbid the Jesuits ●earing of Confessions, which he would have done, and with some did do, by refusing them approbation. Furthermore he was commanded from Rome, that if he met with any thing, that he might be troubled at in approving the Fathers of the Society in order to hear Confessions, he should within three months signify the just cause to the Congregation of Cardinals at Rome; and if he should neglect to give satisfaction, that then some other Bishop should be impowered to examine and approve them. All this is in the very first Paragraph; which when I read, I could not but wonder, to see how blind Passion had made the Author of the Additionals, who could not see, that by producing this Letter, he made a Defence of the Jesuits, whose reputation he would wound. Sagittae parvu●orum factae sunt plagae ●orum. He kelleth us, that the Archbishop of Machelin opposed the Casuists of the Society: here he ●●ings his dart at the Jesuits. But withal he kelleth us, That the Cardinals checked the Archbishop, and commanded him to desist, under pain of impowering another to execute his office in his own Diocese: Here he wounds himself, and brings a great commendation for the Society, whose proceeding the Congregation of Cardinals (who issue not out their Decrees without his Holiness advice) doth here maintain against that Bishop. Yet I do not say this to allow or disallow those Seventeen Propositions.  
One thing I must add, that this Archbishops being against the Jesuits is no disparagement to their Doctrine. He was a maintainer of Junsenisme, and for that suspended ab officio & ingressu Ecele●●ae, and at length threatened with Excommunication for refusing to submit to the Pope and receive his Bulls against Jansenius. Yet at length he repent, and was reconciled to the Church. But if he had such animosity against the Jesuits Doctrine, his successor, who now is Archbishop of Machelin and a worthy Prelate, hath testified his opinion to the contrary, by his approbation given to the Answers of the Provincial Letters, which are translated in this Book, as may be seen in the end of a Book entitled, Responces aux Lettreses Provinciales publices par le Secretaire du port-royal, printed at Liege, 1657.  
The last piece of these additionals is a Catalogue of all the names of the Casuists cited in the Provincial Letters and Additionals. A man would think, that in a catalogue of Names there should not be any thing to be reprehended: yet that this piece might be suitable to the rest of the Book, the Author hath found a way to declar● either his gross ignorance, or malice, in putting divers Authors as Jesuits, whom all the world know, not to be such. For example Basilius Pontius is writ in great Letters, as one whose Cases this Additioner judgeth specially criminal, and that all may redound on the Jesuits, he is in this catalogue called a Jesuit: yet Basilius Pontius is known to be of Saint Augustins' Order. Sancius is also called a Jesuit, who was a Secular Priest. Angelus is also reckoned a Jesuit, though he were a Franciscan Friar: and Navarre is by no little mystery become a Jesuit in this Catalogue; and very ignorantly under one name are confounded two very eminent men. For there is Martin●s Aspilcueta Navarrus, an admirable Canonist, and most famous Casuist of the Order of the Canons Regulars of St. Augustin; and there is Petrus Navarrus, or à Navarrâ, a very gallant man, who was a Secular Doctor. All these this ignorant Additioner calleth Jesuits, that the blame, which he imagineth they lie under, may fall on the Society. But if they were Jesuits, they would prove a credit to the Society; their Doctrine being far above the censure of such an ignorant Additioner, who hath so little examined what is cited, that he doth not so much as know the Authors that are cietd.  
The like impudence and ignorance is showed in the Index, put in the beginning of the First English Edition: where the Translator endeavouring to fasten upon the Jesuits the names of horrid crimes, maketh rather an Index of his own blindness, malice, and passion, then of the Book. For example under the letter K. he hath this, A man may be killed for six or seven ducats, or a Crown; and a little after, A man may be killed for an Apple. By which he would give the Reader to understand, That the Jesuits are strangely prodigal of men's lives, and their Doctrine guilty of unheard of cruelties. But if we look on the places cited, we shall see the case is quite altered; and that the Author of this Index hath made it his business to increase the Fourbe, and out-lye the Provincial Letters, for to make the Jesuits more odious, The first of these Maxims, for which Molina is cited pag. 151. is in that pag. so set down, that Mo●ina is notoriously falsified by the Author of the Provincial Letters: yet he retains▪ something by which it is clear, That Molina speaketh of a Thief, who hath rob you, for he hath these words, Who hath taken from you the value of six or seven ducats, or a Crown. Now because the Doctrine, that alloweth to kill a Thief who hath taken from you though but a Crown, would not have sounded ill enough for this man's purpose, therefore he leaveth out both the term Thief, and the other words, which the Author of the Provincial Letters was not bold enough to suppress; to make it pass for a Maxim of the Jesuits, That a man may be killed for six or seven ducats, or a Crown. Which Maxim carrieth all that malice in it, which this man would show he beareth the jesuites, whom he would have thought the most despicable and abominable thing of the world: whereas the Doctrine of Molina is blameless, as appeareth in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Impostures.  
The other Maxim is, That a man may be killed for an Apple. By this the Index-maker would have it thought, That the jesuites value men's lives so little, that for an Apple one man may kill another: which if it were true, you might kill a man, that would steal an apple out of your Orchard. But turn to the place cited, and you will read the malice or ignorance of this Index-maker. It is page 343. where Lessius speaketh thus. It is not lawful for a man to kill another to preserve a thing of little value, as for a business of a Crown, or for an Apple: which words directly contradict the sense intended to be understood in the Index. There follow in the words of Lessius, in the place cited, these words, Unless it should be a great dishonour to lose it. For in such a case a man may recover it, nay if need be, kill the person that hath it; because this is not so much to defend one's goods, as one's honour. In which place Lessius doth not teach, That you may kill for an apple; but that a Person of Honour is not bound to stand still, and receive an affront, though the thing, in which he is affronted, be of no value. For example, a Gentleman carrieth a Rose in his hand, or an apple; an insolent Fellow, who would affront that Gentleman, snatcheth at the Rose; the Gentleman is not bound to let the Rose go, but he may safely hold it fast; and if the other proceed in his insolency, the Gentleman may endeavour to repel him: and if in the end of the strife the insolent fellow lose his life, the Gentleman shall not be guilty, saith Lessius, of his blood, provided that he keep (that which all Divines exact in such cases) moderamen inculpatae tutelae, the moderation of a blameless defence, that is, do no more than is necessary for his own defence, as Lessius requireth. Now this Doctrine, which gives the Honourable and Innocent Person a just right to defend himself, is very far from teaching, That one may kill another for an Apple, which Lessius never dreamt of. The Author of the Provincial Letters would impose it on him; but because he doth it not plain enough, the Index helps him out in belying Lessius. And this he doth in all the other crimes imputed to the jesuites: which I call to make an Index of h●● own malice, blindness, and passion.  
Now then having run over all the other points of the additionals, let's come to the Factums, or Representations, of the Cur●z. Of these also I say, that they ought not to be answered. My reason is, because that the Pope hath already erected a particular Congregation of Learned men at Rome to examine the Book called the Apology of the Casuists, and the Writings of the Cur●z against that Book. Which being so, both parties are ●o expect their judgement from that Court, and to address their Complaints, or Defences, to Rome. And for my part I will expect their Censure, before I give mine, as I think it is the duty of every Catholic to do, and not to forestall the Pope's judgement, whom both the parties concerned, that is, the Author of the Apology and the Cu●●z, do acknowledge their Judge in this cause. As indeed he is the sole ●udge, in whose Arbitrement the quarrel can cease. For the matter being manifestly of those causes, which are called Causae majores, it apperttaineth not to any private Doctor, or School, to determine, and by that means to give rules to all Christendom; which cannot be done by any under the Pope. For this reason the Archbishop of Roven answered the Curez of his Diocese, who first stirred in this business, in these words, as they are set down pag. 2. in ●ine, in these additionals, That this affair was of great concernment, and reflected on the whole Church: Therefore he refered them to the Synod of France then sitting at Paris. Nor did that Synod define any thing as to particular cases, or condemnation of opinions held by Learned Authors. All which showeth us the importance of the matter; which being of the Causae majores, or greater Causes, belongeth to the Head of the Church. This answer is according to the Doctrine of Gerson, sometimes Chancellor of the University of Paris. Tom. 1. de examine. doctrine. Consil 3. and (not to cite others) according to Du Val a learned Sorbonist, and late Author de potest. Sum. Pont. p. 4. q. 5. who speaketh thus. Constat ex p●rpetuâ Ecclesiae praxi, quâ nihil unquam de Fide aut Moribus, absque Romani Pontifi●is auctoritate & consensu de●r●●um l●gimus. Hin● est, quod Primates & Archi●piscopi in Provincialibu● Synodis, praesertim ubi de Fide ag●r●tur, Romani Pontificis auctoritatem semper exopt ârunt, rati non aliter sua d●cr●ta robur habcre. This is certain, saith he, out of the perpetual practice of the Church, in which we find, that nothing hath ever been decreed, concerning Faith or Manners, (now all Moral Divinity, or cases, concern Manners, as the rule of Manners) without the Authority of the Pope of Rome. Hence it cometh, that Primates and Archbishops in their Provincial Synods (especially in matters of Faith) have always desired the Authority of the Bishop of Rome, Knowing, that their Decrees would not otherwise have any strength. So we ought in all reason to expect from his Holiness, and no other, the condemnation, or approbation of the Author of the Apology. I therefore will not go about to answer those things.  
Yet because these Factums of the Curez are spread here in England, for no other reason then to discredit the Doctrine of the Society, I think it but reason to set down some Thoughts, which may induce the Reader to suspend his judgement, till the matter be decided at Rome.  
The first is, That it is not certain, that these Factums, or Representations of the Curez are really and truly legal acts; because that some of the ablest Curez are said to have renounced them, and some to have professed, that their names were set by others to these Factums, when they known nothing of it. This, if when it cometh to the Test, it proveth so, will show, that the whole business is but a turbulent proceeding of some unquiet spirits, and not really the Deed of the Curez in general, as is pretended. I know the last Piece in the additionals maintaineth, that the Factum is truly the Deed of the Curez. But I say, That still it is not certain, that either that, or the former, was really a Deed of all, as is pretended, and not rather the act of a factious party, that usurped the name of all. And although I will not interpose to decide the question, yet I say we in England cannot at all be sure, having no other ground, but the Additioner, or Printers assurance, which no man can justly esteem any thing at all; he being convinced in the former answers to the additionals to be maliciously bend to say any thing, that seems against the Jesuits, be it true or false, not sparing even Blasphemy.  
The Second Thought is, That supposing it be allowed, that these Factums are legal, than all that followeth is contained in these two Consequences. First, That those Curez think, that these opinions are taught by the Authors whom they allege. Secondly, That the opinions in the judgements of these Curez are not tenible, and ought not to be taught. Now as to the first consequence, that they are mistaken in divers of the opinions is most certain. For example in the very first of the Catalogue, pag. 17. there is a notable error. viz. They say, That the Casuists teach, that a man may be confident he doth not sin, though he quit an opinion which he knoweth to be true, and is more safe, to follow that which is contrary thereto. This is an error. For no Casuist doth teach, That you may quit an opinion, which you know to be true: that were a mere madness; no Probability can excuse you against a known Truth. But the whole Doctrine of Probability, according to all Casuists, supposeth a doubt on each side. See the four first Impostures, and you will be satisfied of this.  
Now as to the second Consequence, which I said followed, if it be allowed that these Factums are valid and legal; to wit, That the the Curez think that these opinions (I speak now only of those which are truly cited) are not tenible, and ought not to be taught. I answer, That though they think so, yet we are not bound to join in their opinion, till the Church hath spoken, and declared for them. The Curez are on the one side, and the chiefest Divines of Christendom that have ever writ, are on the contrary. Whom shall we believe? The Curez are not known to have taught Divinity, nor writ Treatises of these matters, in which they give their censure. They bring no reasons, nor cite no authorities. For my part I shall rather believe one learned Author, who hath joined long experience with solid study, than forty unlearned men, either Curez, or Jesuits, or others. Which I do not say to vilify the Curez, but to reflect on the Authority which they oppose. For example, many of the cases, which are by the Curez supposed dangerous Propositions, are Navarre's opinions, though they do not cite Navarre, but some Jesuit. And I tell them, I will sooner believe Navarre alone, than a hundred such as never taught Divinity, never studied Canon-Law, (the chief ground of Moral Divinity) nor never had any Authority or name in the Church: whereas Navarre hath the approbation of all learned men in the world, is read in all Universities, and in the whole Church of God esteemed an Oracle of Learning. What then shall we say, when the Curez do not only oppose Navarre alone, but St. Antonine, St. Thomas, Gerson, Sylvester, Raymundus, Cajetan, Soto, Medina, Lopez, Peter Navarre, Angelus, Corduba, Sanchez, Suarez, Molina, Vasquez, Lessius, Layman, and an hundred others? But of this again I advertise the Reader, that I pretend not to diminish the Authority of any Learned man, Curé or other: only I say, it is not setting a number of hands to a Bill, which ought to sway, but Reason, Authority and Learning, that must be heard.  
The third Thought concerneth the Apologist, that writ the Book, which most of these Curez are so violently set against, and which maketh so much noise in France. The man, whosoever he be (for he is unknown to me) is a very learned man; and I believe they that censure him, will never be able to disprove him. And therefore I could wish, they would leave the censure to him, to whom it belongeth, that is, to the Pope, and that Judicature which the Pope hath erected for that purpose at Rome, whither the Apologist hath appealed. He cannot be condemned, but that very many of the main Doctors of all Universities and Religious Communities must be condemned with him. For he is so wary, that he advanceth nothing without great Authority, and rather delivereth the opinions of others than his own. I will not say, but that there may be some fault in him. I know divers have condemned him, and divers also maintain him: and unless a greater authority intervene, than what one private Academy, or any single persons verdict can give, he hath and will always have the greatest part of Universities and Divines for him. The opinions, which he delivereth as probable are so, and will be so, till he that hath authority to decide, and teach the universal Church in matters of Faith and Manners, shall be pleased to teach us the contrary. When that is done, I suppose the Author of the Apology will submit, and all good Catholics with him. Till then, if I think the Apology is a learned Book, and containeth solid Doctrine, I think so with the Archbishop of Tholouse, and the Bishop of Re●nes in Bretagne, whose Faith, Doctrine, and Life are such, that no man can call them in question; and this every person may think, till Higher Powers dispose otherwise. This maketh it clear, that all these Factums, or Writings, of these additionals, ought not to prejudice the Apologist; much less can they (as they are here intended in England) any ways Patronise the Provincial Letters, which are argued of manifest Imposture, in so many, and so notorious falsific ●ions. Yet he that hath turned the Provincial Letters into Latin, and calleth himself Willelmus Wendrockius, supposeth that all these Curez are for him, and that they join issue with the Jansenists.  
The fourth and last Thought is, That I conceive we may justly, with due respect, ask some Questions of the Cu●ez, which will breed occasion of wonder. First then I ask, why the Curez are so much against the Apology of the Casuists? That Book was made to vindicate the credit of all Casuists against the scoffing Irrisions of a Pamphleter. So that it seemeth, That to oppose the Apology may be construed to a ●●sire of defending a Buffoon against a Religious Order, and against all Casuists; which I will not suspect of such Persons. Secondly I ask, why the Curez taking their Cases, which they would have condemned, out of a Book which containeth Jansenisme, never take notice of the greater errors, I mean the Heresies, contained in that Book. I know they endeavour an answer; yet it is such as doth not . For still the wonder remaineth, why the Curez should not show as much zeal, in desiring that Heretical Opinions, which daily spread in France, should be suppressed, as they do, that the Moral Doctrine, which they esteem bad, should be condemned. Thirdly I ask, why do not these Curez point us out some body, whom we may safely follow in resolving of Cases? By taking the authority from all Casuists, they leave us in the dark, and wholly guideless in the many doubts which daily arise. Is there no body who may safely be followed in matter of Cases? Is there in the Church no means to clear up doubts in Morality? Fourthly, to end these Queries, doth not this way of proceeding prejudice the Curez themselves, and take away all their authority in deciding any doubt, which may arise in every one of their respective Parishes? For if Bonacina, if Sanchez, if Navarr, if Lessius, if Suarez, if Sylvester, may not be believed; if their authority must not be heard, though Two, or Three, or Ten, (or as Wendrockius saith ten thousand) agree in a case, upon what account shall the Cure be believed? Allow the Cure as much virtue and learning as you will, yet he cannot expect to be generally esteemed more virtuous, or more learned than Navarr. And so, if one man, though never so learned, cannot decide a doubt, and appease a fearful conscience, than all Curez and all Ghostly Fathers may sit still, and shall have no authority in settling consciences, and taking away doubts. And at length Spiritual Directours shall in matter of conscience have less credit, than a Physician or Lawyer in their Profession. Nay these, if they be able and conscientious men, shall have more credit even in matter of conscience, than a Ghostly Father. For the Physician shall be believed, if he tell his Patient, that he may eat Fl●sh on a Friday, or that he is not obliged to fast: and the Lawyer shall be credited, if he warrant his Client, that he may justly keep the Land which the Client doubted of. But the Cur● shall have no authority left him in any doubt, for fear of the Monster of Probability. For whatsoever he saith, his Parishioners will tell him that he is but one Divine, and that one Divine (according to his own Doctrine) cannot safely be followed.  
All this in my opinion doth evidently infer, that we cannot upon the Curez complaints condemn the Apologist, and those Casuists whom he citeth and followeth. Yet my intention is not to dispute against the Curez, nor do I undertake to defend the Apologist. But as I begun, so I conclude, that since the Pope hath Evocated the Cause of the Curez and the Apologist to himself, it is the duty of every good Catholic to expect those censures, and not to precipitate his own. But whatsoever be the event of the Apology, this is sure, that the Provincial Letters are condemned by his Holiness: and that they are convinced of manifest Imposture, Slander, Ignorance, and Heresy; which being so, the Doctrine of the Jesuits, and other School-Divines whom those Letters inveigh against, ought not to be prejudiced on that account; which is all that these Answers intended to show.   

An Appendix in Answer to a Book entitled, A further Discovery of the Mystery of Jesuitism.  
I Thought to have ended here; having answered all that belongeth to the Provincial Letters and their additionals. But I am u●ged by several Friends to take notice also of another Pamphlet, called, A further Discovery of the Mystery of Jesuitism. For my own opinion, I conceive it to be so senseless a Piece, that it deserveth not to be taken notice of: yet to condescend to the desire of others, I will do as I have done in the additionals, that is, I will show that nothing in that Book deserveth an answer.  
There are in it Six Pieces; whereof the two first are made by one Peter Jarrige, during the time of his Apostasy from the Society. That these deserve no answer is palpable for three reasons. The first is, That they were made by an Apostata, who renounced the Catholic Faith, in which he had from his infancy been bred; broke his vows to God, forsook his Religious Order upon private disgusts, and run away first to Rochel, and then into Holland. All which (if there were nothing else) maketh it evidently manifest, That he is not a competent witness against the Society. A Thief may as well be chosen judge of honest dealing, and a Rebel of Allegiance, as an Apostata of Religion. But such is the misery of those that persecute the Society, that, as the Jews did against Christ, Quaerchant salsum Testimonium adversus cum. They ●ought for false witness against Jesus, so they se●k for false witnesses against the Jesuits. They ●eed not, who bears witnesle; nor whether it be like ●p be esteemed true: All they desi●e is, to find some body, that will speak against the Jesuits. But as it happened with Christ, so in this doth it happen to the Jesuits; Non erat conveni●us testimonium illorum. They brought no competent witness against Christ, nor do these that bring this authority of Jarrige's, bring a competent witness against the Jesuits. This first reason might be enough: yet the two others speak plainer.  
The second reason than is, That Jarrige, whilst he writ th●se things, was not only a Runagate, such as I have described him, but was so upon record; condemned by the Parliament of Bourdeaux, and hanged in ●ssigi● for his enormous ●●imes. Now who is so senseless as to judge, That a man by Act of Parliament condemned of Apostasy, Breach of Vows, Calumny, and made publicly infamous upon record, can be credited in those Detractions, which make part of his condemnation?  
Thirdly, If all this be not enough to show what I intent, at least Jarrige's own Recantation, and his Penance for his Enormities, speak so plain, that nothing can be added. It is notoriously known to all the world, That Jarrige persecuted by his own c●imes, which gave his restless conscience no quiet day no● night, did after two years and a half of his Apostasy, or there abouts, make a public Recantation, to ask forgiveness of the world for the scandal he had given, and of the Society for the notorious wrong he had done it in the several relations: which he solemnly professeth to have been effects of his blindness and passion. This is so peremptory, that it voids all that can be said to the contrary.  
Yet our Preface-maker will have it clear, That an Apostata, in his actual committing of the foulest crimes is more to be believed, than a Penitent man in his most serious protestations: which is a Mystery that would never be believed out of Bedlam. The Translator, for the sole proof of what he saith, relateth, That a Clergyman told a Father of the Society, That they (the Jesuits) had overshot themselves in it, and had been better vindicated, had the Recantation been more modest. Let's suppose, if you will, that this relation were true; what followeth? just nothing. For who was that Clergyman? Perhaps Monsieur Vincent, a Minister of Ro●hel, of whom there is mention made in the beginning of the second Piece of this Mystery. But he was publicly convinced of Falsity and Impostare, in his own Town of Rochel, by the Lieutenant General of Rochel, as appeareth by his Act of the 28. of March in the year 1648. So that this Clergy man's word signifies nothing. I say not this, because he is a Calvinist, but because he is convinced of Imposture.  
B●t perhaps some may think, That by the name of Clergyman is understood some Priest of the Catholic Church. To this I answer, That I do not think any of them were so simple, as to talk so foolishly; no● so forgetful of their duty, as to Patroni●e an Apostata's Acts, and give them credit against a Recantation, which the Author publicly owned both in Flaunders and France, and thought himself obliged to set out, so to satisfy for his crimes, and to restore the good name to every one of those particulars, whom he h●d unjustly wronged. And so much for the two fi●st Pieces. For I will not trouble the Reader, ●ither with Jarrig●'s Recantation, or the Parliaments Condemnation of him, or the Pope's Censure, and long Penance he was obliged to perform, or the other several pieces which were set out against him, whilst he remained in his Apostasy. If this poor man's fall was great, his Penance was also great, which he willingly embracing is become an example of a good Penitent. His fall is a memorial of our frailty, and his Penance an argument of the great mercy of God to him, and an Inductive to those that have fallen like him, to do Penance like him.  
The Third Piece of this Book hath for the Title, The S●●ret Instructions for the Superiors of the Society of Jesus These are a part of the Mystery too. But the answer is easy. It is all a mere Fable. Never any such Instructions were given in the Society. But he that made the Libel thought fit to vent his own passion under the Title of Secret Instructions, etc. Now as to the Invention, or strange Discovery, of these secret Instructions, it containeth indeed a Mystery. It is not strange, That a College being ransacked, this Book, if it were there, among other Papers should be found there; which he that sets the Work forth, calleth a sirange Discovery. But the strangeness is, That th●● Bock should be found there, where it never was. This is the Mystery. It were no wonder to have found a Book, where it was; but to find it where it was not, there's the strange Discovery. This is much like Montalt's juggling; who can find in L●ssius, that which is not in Lessius, as I have shewe● in the Fourteenth Imposture; and generally appeareth in all this Work. To answer therefore to this secret, I tell you aloud, That there n●ver was any such thing in the Society. I need say no more; fo● th●s Pamphlet hath been confu●ed long since, and shown to be a m●er Forgery.  
The Fourth Piece is a Discovery of the Reasons, why the Jesuits are so generally hated; by Fortuni●s Gal●ndus. To which ● answer, That they are not generally hated by Catholics; and so the whole discourse p●oceedeth (as Philosop●●●● speak) the subjectory on suppon●nte; which supposeth an error in him tha●●●ddeth the discourse, and would give a reason why that is thus or thus, which is not at all. If one would discourse, and bring many reasons, why the Sun hath not shined these twelve years past, what would you answer to all that man's discourse? You would tell him (as I tell you) that such discourse needeth no answer; it being manifest, that it proceedeth upon a supposition which is an error. If you had asked, why they that are not Catholics, or live not as Catholics ought to do, but are abandoned to their pleasures, do not love the Jesuits, I could have given you the reason. But the Title of this discourse is argued of Falsity, in all the testimonies that can be expected. Run over all France, Spain, Italy, Poland, Sicily, Germany, the East and West Indies, and you will find the Jesuits are every where seated, every where honoured, every where loved by Catholiqu●s, who have invited them to every place they are in. If they have some Adversaries that be good Catholics, they ar● but few; and it is no wonder, that some, though zealous Catholics, may by error disesteem the Society; for none of them do (as the Title of this Discourse supposeth) hate the Society. This Discourse therefore failing in the very Title, I shall not say any thing more of it. Only I observe, it is much contrary to that complaint, which many, and among the rest Montalt in his Provincial Lette●s maketh. For he testifieth his great regret, that the Jesuits are every where esteemed. You ●ught to have remembered this. For you know the Latin Proverb, Memorem ●port●t esse menda●em.  
The Fifth Piece is a Discovery of the Society in relation to their Politics. A gallant Title, and I should have been very glad to have read the Work over and over, if I had met with any thing of Truth in it. For I esteem the Society a very Politic Body; which hath a very prudent oeconomy. But in perusing this Piece, I find it no better than a dream of a cracked brain. The two grounds of all this Policy are notorious slanders, and known for such all the world over. The first is, That the Jesuits build their Politics on calumnies and slandering of others; which is as far from their practice, as it is from true prudence. There is nothing in the world more foolish, then to think to raise one's self to any standing Dignity by calumniating others.  
Lauda ut lauderis, Marce; ut ameris ama, saith the Poet. Nothing begets greater hatred than calumny: and so the Jesuits Politics and insinuating themselves cannot go upon that principle. The other is, their insinuating themselves into all States and Court-affairs, which giveth them a great knowledge of all that passes in the world, that they can acquaint their General of all things. Pretty. But by what way do they thus insinuate themselves into all Prince's Favours? There 'twas you should have spoke; for there's the craft. But I do not intent to dispute nor re●ute. The whole Discourse is stuffed with such open falsi●ies, that I need not say any thing. 'Tis openly false, that the Jesuits ever inform their General, as you set it down, of State affairs, or that they meddle with State affairs, so severely forbid among them. 'Tis openly false, and an intolerable slander to say, they make use of the Secret of Confession for this informing their General, as you assever page the sixth. 'Tis openly false to say, That they refuse to hear the Confessions of poor people, as you assever in the same page. 'Tis openly false (to come home to England) to say, That the Archpriest is a Jesuit in voto, as you say page 21. All that you say of Jesuits in voto is a mere fable: and all that Discourse of yours concerning Father Parsons, page 20. is a fiction and a mere dream. And so I will leave it to sleep with its Author in his grave.  
The last Piece of the Mystery is a Prophecy with a Comment upon it. The Prophecy is taken out of the Four Centurioators of Magdeburge; out of whom, many a Fable may be taken: for they are full of them. The Saint, who is said to be the Auhour of it, is St. Hildegard, who lived (saith the Short view of the life of St. Hildegard, set before the Work I now speak of) in a Monastery, built by some Magical Assistance, and there was a strange Conflux of the superstitious Multitude to her. Thus doth this Commentatour set forth his Prophecy, with such circumstances that must make every rational man suppose it a mee● fable. But if the Text be not good, I must tell you, the Discourse upon it is worse. Never was there such a Rhapsody of Nonsense, as this hollow-brain has made for to crown the Mystery of Jesuitism.  
First he is sure, the Prophecy was meant of the Jesuits, because he hath applied it all to them. Ipse dixit. He might as well, and perhaps (if this sell off currently) will apply all the Apocalypse, and the twelve lesser Prophets, to the Jesuits: for I defy him to make more Nonsense of any thing, than he hath done of this. For to exemplisie in one only passage, in his first Paraphrase, one of the reasons, why the Society (as he will have it) is call●d Gens insensata, (an insensate people, or a foolish senseless Nation) is because St. Ignatius did once fast a whole week together. Did ever man talk so insensatè (so senslesly?) And what will this man judge of Simeon Stylites, of Moses, and of Christ himself, who fasted forty days together? But I will not go on with arguing against a man, that hath had no care, neither of Truth nor Reason, nor appearance of either, in any one page of his Work. So that if he would have taken pains to discredit himself, and credit the Fathers of the Society, he could not have done it better, then by this insensate manner of impugning it. But so it is, the Integrity of those Fathers, their Learning and their Piety is such, That as that gallant Prelate of France and Ornament of the Purple, Cardinal Peron was wont to say of them, A man may be a good Catholic without having any particular affection for the Society of Jesus; but he cannot be an enemy of that Order without error and impiety: which saying is most true of all the Religious Orders in God's Church.   

This Piece of Lessius was promised in the Fourteenth Imposture. The Reader is desired to examine the Citations of that Imposture by Lessius his own words. Lib. 2. de Justit. Cap. 9 Dubit. 12. Pag. 98, 99  
Dubitatio 12. Utrum pro defensione pudiciti● & honoris liceat occidere cum, qui tentat violare.  
Num. 76.  
REspondeo & dico primò, Licitum est mulieri, Adolescenti, & cuivis alteri, pro defensione pudicitiae occidere Invasorem. Est communis sententia Doctorum: quamvis D. Augustinus lib. 1. de libero Arbitr●o cap. 5. videatur dubitare. Ratio est; quia pudicitia pluris meritò aestimatur, quam multae opes: praeterquam quod in hâ● re sit periculum peccati. Idem Ethnicisensêrunt. Nam, ut scribit Cicero oratione pro Milone, Adolescens, qui T●●bunum occiderat volentem vim inferre e●us pudicitiae, à Mario exercitus Imperatore absolutus ●uit.  
Num. 77.  
Dico secundò, Fas etiam est viro honorato occidere Invasorem, qui fustem vel alapam nititur impingere, ut ignominiam inferat, si aliter haec ignominia vita●i nequit. Ita docet expressè Sotus ar. 8. Navarr. cap 15. num. 3. Sylvester verbo Homicidium 1. qu 5. Et Ludovicus Lop●z, cap. 62. Antonius Gom●z, Tom. 3. cap. 3. n. 23. Julius Clatus § Homicidium, num. 26. ubi dicit periculum samae ●quiparari periculo vitae. Ratio est, quia hic conatur au●erre honorem, qui mer●●ò plu●●s apud homines aestimatur, quàm damnum multarum pecuniarum; ergo, si po●est occidere, ne damnum pecuniarum accipia●, pot●st ●tiam, ●e hanc ignominiam cogatur sustinere.  
Num. 78.  
Notandum est, varii● modis honorem alterius posse impeti & auferr●; in quibus videtur concessa de●ensio.  
P●imò, Si baculum vel alapam nitaris impingere: ●e quo jam dictum est.  
S●●un●ò, Si con●um●liis afficias, ●ive per verba, sive per signa. Hic etim ●st jus defensionis. Nam, ex sententiâ omnium, licet contum●liosum occidere, quando alitèr ea injuria arceri nequit, (quanquam ipse armis non invadat) ait Petrus Navarr. libr. 2. cap. 3. num. 376. E●fi autem▪ id non inveniam apud auctores expressum, tamen videtur ex illis posse colligi (praeciso scandalo, & aliis grav●bus incommodis) quando contumel●ae sunt atroces, & al●â ratione v●tari nequeunt. Ratio enim naturalis dictat, licitam esse ●am defensionem, quae necessaria sit ad contumeliam depellendam & comprimendam: alioqui daretur licentia improbitati, optimos quosque contumeliis vexandi; quae tamen mul●o quam damna rei familia●is sunt acerbiores, magisque mordent animos. Cavenda tamen vindictae libido. Non enim licet priva●â auctoritate contumeliam vindicare, sed tantùm compescere; quod ●tiam in vitae & rerum defensione servandum: tanti interest, quo animo quid agas. Verum ●aec sententia non est sequenda. Satis enim esse debe● in Republi●â, ut injuriae verbales verbis repelli, & legitimâ vindictâ comprimi & castigari possint.  
Num. 79.  
Tertiò, Si illa●â alicui alapâ ●●sses, vel etiam ●ugias; multi Doctores censent in hoc casu, si vir nobilis, vel honoratus hujusmodi injuriâ sit affectus, posse statim repercutere, vel fugientem insequi, & ●antum infligere ve●berum vel vulnerum quantum put●tur necessarium ad honorem recuperandum. I●a tenet Navarr. cap. 15. num. 4. Henriqu●z. de Irregularitate, cap. 10. ubi citat multos pro ●âc sententiâ: inter cae●eros Jasonem, Cordubam, Mantium, Pennam, Clarum, ●●jetanum, & Antoninum. Eandem docet Petrus Navarr. lib. 2. cap. 3. n. 380. & c●tat pro hâc ●ententiâ Mercatum. Idem tenet Victoria Relect. De Jure belli. num. 5. ubi dicit, Eum, qui colaphum accepit, posse statim repercutere, etiam gladio; non ad sumendam vindictam, sed ●d vitandam infamiam & ignominiam, etiamsi invasor non esset ulterius progressurus. Unde sequitur, si ille fugiat, posse laesum statim insequi & percutere: si enim potest repercutere manentem, cur non fugientem?  
Probari potest haec sententia. Primò, qui rem meam accepit, & cum ●â fugit, potest à me percu●i, ut ●am relinquat, vel reddat, si alitèr nequit recuperari. Atqui is, qui illat● gravi ignomini● fugit, honorem meum quodammodo secum defert. Nam in potestate illius est ●um mi●i resti●uere, offerendo satisfactionem: ergo possum illum percutere, ut honorem meum restituat, vel saltem ut ●um sic rec●perem.  
Dices, est dispar ratio; nam res adhuc extat, & manet tua: sed contumeliâ illa●â, honor jam periit: ergo hic non est defensio.  
Respondeo, In ●o est paritas, quod sicut res potest recuperari, ● ità ●●iam honor; qui in signis excellentiae & hominum aestimatione consistit.  
Secundò probatur; Quia si damnum à te rebus meis illatum non po●●et aliâ ratione sarcri, quam tui percussione, posses statim percuti, ut illo modo ●iat damni reparatio: ergo si violato honore, non potest alitèr ●ieri reparatio, quam si feriatur is, qui eum laesit, poterit sieri, D●be● autem hoc ●ieri in continenti, dum ad●ùc laesio honoris veluti pendet, suspensis hominum de ●●â fortitudine & generositare judiciis.  
Tertiò, quia alias dabitur licentia improbis, quodvis genus contumeliae in quemvis ingerendi● nam ●olâ ●ugâ, vel cessatione ●u●i ●runt: praesertim quando desunt testes, qui eos norine, vel quando non morantur in eodem loco.  
H●●tamen adverte, si laesor veniam peta●, offendi non posse; quia quantum in se est, honorem restituit: unde si alter velit ipsum impetere● poterit se tueri, ut rectè nota● Petrus Navarra.  
Num. 80.  
Ob has rationes h●● sententia est speculatiuè probabilis; tamen in praxi non videtur facilè permittenda. Primò, ob periculum odii, vindictae, & excessus. Si enim D. Augustinus ob has causas aegrè admittit, ut quis pro vitâ ●uend● alterum possit ocidere, quantò minus in cali casu ob honorem tuendum concederet? Secundò, ob periculum pugnarum & caedium. Unde qui tall casu occideret, puniretur in foro externo, ut docet Gomez, supra. num. 24. ●tsi mitius; tum quia alter dedit causam; tum quia homo intenso dolore permotus non est omninò sui compos.  
Num. 81.  
Quartus modus est, si nomini m●o falsis criminationibus apud principem, judicem, vel viros hono●a●os det●ahere nitaris, ne● ullâ ratione possim illud damnum famae avertere, nisi ●e occul●● in ●●siciam. Pe●rus Navarrus n. 375. inclinat, licitum esse, talem è medio tollere. Eandem, tanquam probabiliorem, defendit Bannes q. 64▪ ar. 7. dub. 4. addens idem dicendum, ●tiam●● crimen sit verum; si tamen est occultum, ita ut secundum justitiam legalem non possis pandere: idem tenent quidam al●● recentiores. Probari potest.  
Primò, quia si baculo vel alapâ impactâ velis m●um honorem vel famam violare, possum armis prohibere: ergo etiam, si coneris linguâ. Nam pa●ùm videtur referre, quo instrumento quis nitatur inferre noxam, si aequè efficacitèr no●●bit.  
Secundò, quia contumliae possunt armis impediri; ergo ●tiam detractiones.  
Tertiò, Periculum fam●●quiperatur periculo vit●, quod est commune pronunciatum Jurisperitorum, inquit Clarus num. 26. Atqui ob peticulum vitae evadendum, licitum ast occidere: Ergo, etc.  
Qua●●ò, quia jus defensionis videtur se extendere ad omne id quod necessarium est, ut te ab omni injuriâ serves immunem: mon●ndu●●amen detractor prius ess●t, ut desisteret.  
Num. 82.  
Verum ●aec qu●que sententia mihi in praxi non probatur, quia multis occultis coe●ibus, cum magn● Reipublicae pertu●batione, p●●beret occasionem. In jure enim defensionis semper considerandum, ●e ●jus usus in perniciem Reipublicae vergat; tunc enim non est permittendus. Accedit, quod etsi speculatiuè vera esset, tamen vix in praxi posset habere locum. Nam infamia vel est illata, vel non est. Si est illata, non extinguitur per mortem infamantis. Si non est illata, plerunque non satis constat, aliter non posse eam impediri: ac proinde non poterimus eo modo defensionis uti.   
FINIS.  

These few Errata the Reader is desired to correct with his Pen.  
PAg 121. lin. 5. for one twentieth, read one and twentieth. pag. 382. lin. 27 for à Pop●, read à Papâ. pag. 428. lin. 24. for contrary, read contrary. pag. 452. lin. 20. for Augustini, read Augustin●. pag. 453. lin, 20. for possunt, read potest. pag. 478 lin. 16. for credit all, read credit at all. pag. 479. lin. 8. for Herrsie, read Heresy. pag. 491. lin. ult. for suspended ab, read suspended and interdicted ab.